Sitting of 1 August 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Central Railway Bill [Lords] (King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till this Evening's Sitting.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, without Amendment.
Public Roads (Ireland) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill; North Eastern Railway Bill; North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, with Amendments.

A POINT OF ORDER.
At the conclusion of Private Bill business,
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)said that his hon. friend the Member for South Donegal and himself had given notice of Motions to introduce Bills at the commencement of public business, and he was not quite certain how the Resolution passed by the House on the preceding day affected those Bills. He begged, therefore, to ask what steps they ought to take.
MR. SPEAKER: The Motions are over-ridden by the Resolution passed yesterday.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Are we entitled to read out the full title of the Bill?
MR. SPEAKER: No, only to present the Bill when the hon. Member's name is called.
The notices were as follows:—
Sir Thomas Esmonde.—Criminal Law and Procedure Ireland Act (1887) (Repeal) (No. 2). Bill to repeal The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887.
Mr. Swift MacNeill.—Ministers of the Crown. Bill to disqualify Directors of Public Companies for appointment as Ministers of the Crown.

PETITIONS.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE AGREEMENT).
  Petition from Chester, for annulment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petition from Carlisle, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SINGH, MAHARAJAH MADHO.
  Petition from Bellary, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for extension to Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition from Swansea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th July; Mr. Jeffreys]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]
  BOROUGHS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (OUTSTANDING LOANS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th May; Sir Gilbert Parker]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 278.]
  SMALLPOX.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 8th May; Sir John Tuke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 279.]
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1904–5.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th July; Mr. Jeffreys]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 280.]
  CYPRUS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th July; Mr. Pierpoint]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 281.]
  FORESHORES.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 29th July, 1905, directing the application of moneys received by the Board of Trade in the year ended 31st March, 1905, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the Foreshores of the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES (FACTORIES AND TESTING STATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Captain M. B. Lloyd and Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, on visits to certain Explosives Factories and Testing Stations in Belgium, Germany, and Holland [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF HERTFORD)
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Hertford, dividing the Northern or Hitchin Parliamentary Division into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAY ORDERS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under the Tramways Act, 1870, during the session of 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CANADA.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Garrisons of Halifax and Esquimalt [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GRADUATED INCOME-TAX.
  Further Return presented, relative thereto [Address 11th August, 1904; Mr. Herbert Samud]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 282.]
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Care and Treatment of the Sick and Wounded during the South African Campaign, together with the action taken [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3466 to 3468 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 635 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDER, BALLYMONEY URBAN DISTRICT).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District Council of Ballymoney,

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Date when Closure moved.

  By whom moved.

  Question before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and, if a Division Numbers for and against.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 303, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, of the number of Divisions of the House in Session 1905;
  1144
  and confirmed by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, closing certain shops within the Urban District of Ballymoney [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 283.]
  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.
  Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1905 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper, No. 302, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1905, under the following heads:—
  stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and

  1145
  after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0. 188, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1905; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0. 192, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1905; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0. 190, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1905, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0189, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in Session 1905, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the
  1146
  House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0. 191, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing, with reference to Session 1905, (1) the number of Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders, Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Evening Sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and the number of Sittings on Fridays at which Private Members had precedence under the Standing Orders; (3) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a special order of the House; (4) the number of Saturday Sittings; (5) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (6) the total number of days on which the House sat; (7) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (8) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 304, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1905, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage;

  1147
  Estate; Divorce; Naturalisation; Hospitals, and Miscellaneous."
  "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1905 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bill the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional orders ought or ought not to be confirmed."
  "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1905, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended."
  "And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0. 187, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
  Address for "Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 3lst day of December, 1904, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, and those by agreement over £50."
  "And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1904 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 246, of Session 1904.)"—(Mr. Cochrane.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Flogging of Boys in the Navy.
  MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why, in view of the fact that boys at public schools are not really held down, it is considered necessary in the Navy not only to tie the boys down but to flog them in public; and why the boys of the working classes should be subjected to the degradation of being flogged in public, when such is not the case with the sons of other classes.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman) The reason for securing a boy is the same in principle, although the exact method may differ. As regards the publicity of the punishment, no degradation is intended; the only purpose is to secure a deterrent example. All punishments in His Majesty's Navy are public.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether boys under eighteen in the Navy can still be given twenty-four strokes with the birch, two men giving twelve strokes each; and whether a boy after being birched is taken to the sick bay to be attended by the doctor, and afterwards kept a prisoner guarded by a Marine for about twelve hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Answer to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative; but this punishment is only inflicted in very exceptional and serious cases, and the inspection by the doctor is precautionary, as is the similar inspection before the punishment takes place. The boy is treated as a prisoner to prevent the possibility of his committing himself in any way after his punishment.

  Monastic and Conventual Institutions Removed from France to England during the last Twelve Months.
  MR. FULLER (Wiltshire, Westbury): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the numbers, respectively, of the monastic and conventual institutions that have transferred their establishments to the United Kingdom from France within the last twelve months.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) No, Sir. There are no official statistics on this subject.

  Truck Act and Messrs. Harrison's Imported Labourers at Liverpool Docks.
  MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that deductions are being made from the wages of the men imported to work for Messrs. T. and J. Harrison, ship owners, of Liverpool, for tobacco, clothes, and boots; if so, whether, in view of the provisions of the Truck Act, he will take steps to prevent it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have made inquiries and am informed that, for the convenience of the men, clothes, boots, and tobacco are supplied by the Shipping Federation, which employs them, at cost price to any man applying. It is not illegal under the Truck Acts for an employer to sell goods to a workman employed by him, and in this particular case, as the clothes and boots are purchased wholesale and all the goods are supplied at cost price, the men would seem to be gainers by the arrangement. It appears, however, that the price of the goods supplied is deducted from the wages, the man being furnished with a note showing the goods supplied and price, and also the wages earned, and receiving only the balance. This, I think, is a contravention of the Act, which requires the entire amount of the wages earned to be paid in current coin. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question, the case is not one arising in a factory or workshop, and the inspector has no power, therefore, under Section 13 of the Act of 1887, to take any action in the matter.

  Foreign Crew of the British Steamer "Roddam."
  MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is; aware that the British steamer "Roddam" engaged a crew of foreigners at the port of Hamburg (Germany); whether he is aware that this crew is practically being kept as prisoners on board this vessel in the Tyne, being guarded by police officers; and whether he can state who is paying for the services of the police officers so employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have made inquiries and I find that the "Roddam" arrived in the Tyne about midnight on the 15th ultimo, that a constable was sent at the master's request to prevent unauthorised persons going on board his ship, and that the cost of this was charged to the owners. The "Roddam'' sailed from the Tyne on the 19th ultimo. I he crew, exclusive I of officers and engineers, were foreigners engaged at Hamburg. When the day's work was finished they were allowed to go to and fro between the ship and the shore without molestation, and were perfectly free. The object of having the police officer on board was as stated above, and was in accordance with the common practice of masters with Continental crews. It was not in any way for the purpose of interring with the men's liberty.

  Payment of Grants to Schools without Playgrounds.
  MR. GODDARD (Ipswich): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education have at any time expressed an opinion to the effect that a suitable playground is a necessary complement of an efficient school; and, if so, will he explain why they have continued to pay grants to voluntary schools unprovided with a suitable playground: and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to confer the power of requiring the provision of playgrounds in non-provided schools upon local education authorities, or of amending Chapter III. of the Code so as to empower the Board to require the provision of a suitable playground in the case of schools.

  1151
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board require, and have required for a long time past, the provision of a playground in the case of all newly-erected schools. The Board do not make the provision of playgrounds an essential condition of the continued recognition of existing schools, but they strongly urge their provision, wherever possible. In many cases, owing to the situation of schools in large towns, and similar causes, the provision of a playground for a school long since erected is impossible without legal powers of compulsory purchase. The Government are not prepared to propose legislation to confer such powers, nor to carry out the proposal in the Question.

  Enforcement of British Claims against the Turkish Government.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a final judgment against the Turkish Government was obtained by the administrator of the estate of a British citizen named Corpi, in 1901, in the highest Turkish Court in Constantinople, and the British Ambassador's co-operation, in accordance with the universal practice and precedent there, was requested in collecting the judgment from the Sublime Porte, which was refused, although without the assistance of the Ambassador no claim can be recovered against the Turkish Government; whether he is aware that at a later date the instructions sent by the Foreign Office to the British Ambassador to interest himself in the collection of this claim were ignored, and that the Ambassador contented himself with simply writing a note and never asked for an answer, although in Turkey an answer is never given unless asked for; what reason he has given for his inaction; and whether, seeing that since October, 1902, the French Ambassador has recovered pound; 400,000 on French judgments for his fellow-citizens, the German over £1,000,000 for his, and the Russian £300,000, while the British Ambassador has not collected a piastre of this and many other British claims, he will say if this neglect of commercial interests has the sanction of His Majesty's Government; and, if not, whether categorical instructions will be sent to Sir N. R. O'Conor to obtain pay-
  1152
  ment of this admitted claim without further delay.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) 1. Mr. Corpi was a native of the Turkish island of Scio, but was admitted to British protection in 1873, and therefore on his death his estate was wound up by the British Court. The decision on which the claim against the Ottoman Government is based was the result of an action brought in a Turkish Court by the administrator of the estate, who was an Italian subject; and of the seventeen heirs of Mr. Corpi only one is a British subject (by marriage). 2. The whole claim has received the support of the British Embassy, while the parties interested in it, who are French and Italian subjects, have also received the support of their Embassies. The question of referring the claim to a Commission is now under consideration. 3. I have no knowledge of the total amount of claims recovered by the French, German, and Russian Governments. During the period mentioned His Majesty's Government has recovered the bulk of the British claims. The amounts still outstanding are small, and Sir N. O'Conor has discharged his responsibilities in connection with the supervision of British interests at Constantinople to the complete satisfaction of His Majesty's Government.

  Gambling in Cotton Options and Futures.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that legal proceedings will be shortly opened in New York to fix the responsibility for the leakage of the Government cotton crop reports, and that the grand jury has subpoenaed twenty New York cotton dealers to give evidence in the matter; and whether the Board of Trade will watch this inquiry with a view to take measures to prohibit international gambling in cotton options and futures.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I have no official information as to the proceedings referred to, but the whole matter will be watched.

  Electric Train Accidents - Buffer Carriages.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL (Lancashire, Southport): To ask the Secretary to the

  1153
  Board of Trade if, having regard to the great loss of life among passengers travelling in the front carriage of the electric train in the recent accident on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway at Hall Road, he will consider the advisability of taking steps, by legislation or otherwise, to make it compulsory for all trains of that description to have some sort of buffer, empty carriage, or other mechanical contrivance in the fore part of such trains, so that, in case of collision, the force of the impact may be, to some extent, broken; also whether, if the points leading into the siding in which the empty train was standing were what are known as facing points, the Board of Trade will consider the advisability of issuing further regulations with regard to the use of such points.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The suggestions made by my hon. and learned friend will no doubt be dealt with by the inspecting officer in his report on the accident in question, and will be considered by the Board of Trade.

  Norwegian Trawlers Convicted of Illegal Trawling at Wick.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH(Caithness-shire): To ask Mr. Attorney-General if he is aware that the master of the steam trawler "Veronica," of Stavanger, Norway, who resides at Grimsby, was recently convicted in the Wick Sheriff's Court of illegal trawling; and whether he can state if the Government have yet arrived at any decision as to taking steps for preventing a recurrence of these illegalities.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I believe that the fact is as stated in the Question. The trawling in this case took place within territorial waters. I am informed that the law will be strictly enforced in case of the recurrence of such illegalities on the part of trawlers.

  Closing of Lambay Coastguard Station.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reasons why the coastguards have abandoned the Lambay station; and whether he can ascertain from the men formerly stationed there, or from any other source, how often
  1154
  Lambay Harbour was used as a refuge by fishermen or others during the past five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The lease of the property expired on May 1st, 1904, and the importance of the duties of the station did not warrant the expense of its further retention. Inquiries are being made with regard to the last part of the Question, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Returns of Irish Imports and Exports.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Returns of Irish imports and exports will be collected by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland in the same manner, and published in a similar form, with the methods of the Board of Trade in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department are adopting, as far as possible, the classification and form of Return followed by the Board of Customs and Board of Trade. These Returns, however, relate to trade with foreign countries, in which case there is power to require the traders concerned to furnish comprehensive details, including the value of the commodities. There is no such power in the case of trade between different parts of the United Kingdom, and consequently the Department will have to rely upon information furnished by the port authorities and shipping companies. The methods of collection and form of publication will, therefore, necessarily differ in certain respects from those adopted by the Board of Trade.

  The Late Irish Chief Crown and Treasury Solicitor and the De l'Herault Estate.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what date, and for what reason, did the late Irish Chief Crown and Treasury Solicitor, Mr. Lane-Joynt, vacate his appointment; whether he voluntarily resigned his position, or was called upon to do so, and, if so, by whom, and on what grounds; and whether his vacation of office was connected with the accounts, moneys, or expenditure of the intestate

  1155
  estate of Victor Levy de l'Herault, deceased, or any other estate, whilst under his direction or control; what was the total amount expended by the Irish Government and its officers, from first to last, out of the Victor Levy de l'Herault intestate estate in their searches, journeys, inquiries, advertisements, law, and other payments and expenses with the object of finding any next-of-kin and heirs-at-law to that intestate estate, which proved unsuccessful, and in opposing applicants to the fund and property which had come into the hands of the Irish Government by reason of this intestacy.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The late Mr. Lane-Joynt's office was abolished in 1888 as a result of the adoption of a Scheme of reorganisation and rearrangement of offices, whereby the offices of Solicitor to the Treasury, Solicitor to the Board of Works, and Crown Solicitor for the County and City of Dublin were consolidated and united in the office now held by Sir P. Coll. The abolition of Mr. Lane-Joynt's office was in no way connected with the de l'Herault Estate. Accounts were rendered to the Treasury when the matter of that estate was wound up in 1899. It would be contrary to practice to disclose such accounts, and I have no materials which would enable, me to distinguish the items detailed in the Question.

  Catholic Officials in the Veterinary Branch of the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Catholic gentlemen originally transferred to the Veterinary Branch of the. Agricultural Department of Ireland are engaged in the following superior duties, viz., the drafting and writing of important correspondence, the conducting of registries, and the interviewing of callers on public business, and that their salaries, after eleven years service, are only £97 10s. per annum, while salaries ranging from £150 to £450 per annum are paid to officials of other religious persuasions serving in the Department and performing identical duties, he will cause an independent inquiry to be made into this condition of things.
  1156
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have repeatedly stated that there are no grounds for any further inquiry. The suggestion that the clerks referred to are placed at a disadvantage owing to their religious persuasion is wholly unfounded.

  Threatening Attitude of Kaffirs in the Mooi River District.
  MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Natal Government has received any complaints as to the threatening attitude of the Kaffirs in the Mooi River district to the white population; whether, in view of the growing feeling of insecurity amongst the farmers of that district, His Majesty's Government will insist that full and adequate protection for their lives and property shall be given to all white men and women by the Natal Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) These complaints have not been brought to my notice, and the hon. Member is doubtless aware that Natal is a self-governing colony, whose Government is responsible for its administration and security.

  Thefts of Sheep by Kaffirs in the Mooi River District.
  MR. COGHILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiries from the Government of Natal as to the losses sustained by the farmers in the Mooi River district, in respect of their sheep, at the hands of the neighbouring Kaffirs; whether he is aware that the sentences imposed by magistrates on Kaffirs, when caught, have proved inadequate to put a stop to these thefts; and whether more effective measures can be taken to protect farmers in the due exercise of their calling.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton,) The matter has not been brought to my notice, and is one which entirely rests with the responsible Government of Natal.

  Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of British Bechuanaland Protectorate.
  MASTER OF ELIBANK (Edinburgh, Midlothian): To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Colonies whether,

  1157
  looking to the fact that the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in. the British Bechuanaland Protectorate are not legally-trained officials, and that all appeals, irrespective of the amounts involved, lie from the one to the other, he will consider the possibility of placing Bechuanaland, in this respect, on the same footing as Rhodesia.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I will communicate with the High Commissioner and consider whether the course proposed by the hon. Member is practicable. I would, however, remind him that an appeal by special leave lies to the Privy Council, and that an appeal from the protectorate to His Majesty in Council has lately been considered and decided.

  The 1st Battalion of the 5th Fusiliers
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the 1st Battalion of the 5th Fusiliers has been quartered at Mauritius for an unusually long period, he will say whether there has been considerable sickness amongst all ranks; and whether a date has yet been fixed for a change of station.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This battalion arrived at Mauritius on the 15th April, 1903, from South Africa, and is under orders to proceed to India in January next. The average daily sickness for the last six months has amounted to five percent, of the strength, and the report of the general state of health of the battalion is good.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Alleged Defective Ammunition at Aldershot
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that supplies of cartridges recently made at Woolwich Arsenal, and sent for use to Aldershot, were found, on account of the size of the bullet, to be useless; that a
    1158
    number of men had to be specially engaged at Aldershot to remove these bullets from the cases; and will he say what stops he proposes to take to save a similar waste of money and time in connection with other consignments.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Arnold-Forster, Belfast, W.): The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief reports that no defective ball ammunition has been supplied to Aldershot.

    Quebec Licence Duty on Commercial Travellers.
    MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an Act passed by the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, which imposes a licence duty on all commercial travellers, representing establishments that have no place of business in Canada, who visit the province on business; whether this duty is imposed on British as well as other non-Canadian commercial travellers; and whether he will take steps to have this hindrance to free commerce within the Empire withdrawn, or at any rate to secure that a preference shall be given to British over foreign commercial travellers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for the Elland Division of the West Riding on July 17th†. I have not yet received the report which I have asked for from the Canadian Government on the subject.

    Pay of Chinese Coolies in the Transvaal
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has official information to the effect that all the Chinese coolies employed on the Transvaal gold mines at piecework rates are now actually in receipt of wages of not less than Is. 6d. a day.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. Under the contract the Chinese are at liberty
    † See (4) Debates, cxlix., 862.

    1159
    to take piecework at, which they can, and do, earn considerably more than 1s. 6d. a day, or day-work at a minimum wage of 1s. 6d.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Am I to understand that all the coolies who take piecework are actually earning more than 1s. 6d. a day?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have no information, but I have no reason to doubt that is the case.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most serious of the riots that have taken place on the Rand was due to the resistance offered by the coolies to the proposal that they should do piecework?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman's information is incorrect. In consequence of the hon. Gentleman's statement on a former occasion, that the coolies were induced by coercion to sign the contract for piecework, I communicated with Lord Selborne. I have just received his reply, in which Lord Selborne states that the superintendent of foreign labour explained the proposal as to piecework to the coolies, that they received ten days to think it over, and that at the end of the period they all practically accepted it.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)asked whether it was not the fact that the majority of coolies could drill only fifteen inches per day, and that, consequently, on piecework their daily earnings would be less than 1s. 6d.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: My information is totally at variance with that statement. Any ordinary coolie can drill at least thirty-six inches a day, and many of them drill more than that amount.
    MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): Having regard to the promises made to these men before they came to South Africa, cannot the right hon. Gentleman secure them a minimum wage of Is. 6d. per day?
    Mr. LYTTELTON: If they ask for a minimum wage they get it. If they choose piecework, understanding they will earn more by it, they can do so.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform me on the 11th April that a serious riot had broken out in one of the mines owing to the resistance of the coolies to the pressure put on them to consent to piecework.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Lord Selborne's telegram shows conclusively it was not
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would read the right hon. Gentleman's reply if it were in order.
    MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby): How many coolies are actually earning less than Is. 6d. per day?
    Mr. CROOKS (Woolwich): Is it not customary when piecework is introduced to induce men to do over and above the work usually done at day rates so that the minimum is always secured and the men reap the advantage of the extra work?
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Where does the hon. Member mean it is customary?
    MR. CROOKS: In your own Departments and in the Royal Arsenal. [MINISTERIAL interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may shout. The Chinese slave has no pal.
    MR. WHITLEY (Halifax): Is it explained to these coolies that by accepting piecework they lose the benefit of the protection of the right hon. Gentleman's promise that they should earn not less than 1s. 6d. per day.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The coolies are quite competent to consider it for themselves.
    MR. WHITLEY: That is not an Answer to my Question.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I do not think it would be explained. I do not think it is the fact. If a man chooses to revert to day-work at the termination of his piecework he can get the minimum wage applicable to day work.

    Alleged Support of German Subsidised Steamships by the British Government.
    MR. HOULT (Cheshire, Wirrall): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his Department is supporting the competition of the German subsidised Hansa Steamship Line with British steamers from the east coast of England; and if he will explain why the freightage of 10,000 tons of stores for Bombay was given to this German line last week, although the British lines tendered at 8s. a ton.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The India Office is not supporting the Hansa Line of steamers in its competition with British liners. No stores whatever have been shipped from England by that Department in German steamers.

    Proposed Partition of Bengal.
    Mr. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received and considered a memorial, signed by 60,000 of the inhabitants of Eastern Bengal, protesting against the proposals of the Government of India in reference to the partition of Bengal; whether the Papers upon this subject which are to be laid before Parliament have arrived; and whether he will name a date upon which they will be in the hands of Members of the House.
    MR. BRODRICK: The memorial to which the hon. Member refers was received by me yesterday, and will be duly considered, but the hon. Member will realise that the scheme of the Government of India was not decided upon without the fullest deliberation; The Government of India have framed a resolution on the subject of the reconstitution of the provinces of Bengal and Assam which I expect to receive from India in a few days, and which I hope to lay before Parliament before the end of the session; but I cannot at the present time name the precise date on which it will be laid on the Table.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: When will the Papers be in our hands?
    BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot say.

    The London Police and the King of Spain's Visit.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that his order of the 17th June last, d recting that, in recognition of the visit of His Majesty the King of Spain, the whole of the Metropolitan Police actually on duty during that visit, exclusive of those employed at Woolwich Dockyard and War Department stations, should receive two extra days pay has not been strictly carried out: whether there are still some 300 men who have not yet received this extra pay; and whether he will issue directions that this order should at once be carried into full effect.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Akers-Douglas, Kent, St. Augustine's): The grant of extra pay was made in recognition of the extra work entailed by the visit of His Majesty the King of Spain. Police employed in the service and at the cost of public departments or private individuals were not required to do extra work in consequence of the Royal visit; and, on the occasions of the visits of the King of Italy and of President Loubet, these men did not receive extra pay. All the others have received it, with the exception of men detached, suspended, or off pay.

    Postal Arrangements at Strathcarron, Ross-shire
    MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that much inconvenience is experienced in the Strathcarron district, Ross-shire, on account of insufficient facilities for the posting of letters; and will he arrange for the erection of one or two pillar-boxes in the district, preferably on the north side of the river.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): Since I had notice of the hon. Member's Question I have received through him a copy of a second memorial from there idents of Strathcarron with a request that

    1163
    I will have further inquiry made. I shall be pleased to do so and will communicate the result to the hon. Member; although I do not anticipate that I shall be able to depart from my previous decision.

    Cost of North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, having regard to the fact that up to the 31st March, 1904, the sum of £23,875 3s. 8d. had been spent by the British Government in connection with the international scheme for investigating problems concerning the fisheries of the North Sea and adjacent waters, will he state what sum had been expended up to the 31st March last; and, seeing that the original estimate for expenditure on these investigations was fixed at £42,000, will he state whether it is proposed to increase that amount.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY(Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The sum expended up to the 31st of March, 1905, was £36,814 3s. 2d., leaving, out of the sum of £42,000 originally agreed to by Parliament, a remanett of £5,185 16s. 10d. The work was not begun till July, 1902, and the three years would end in July, 1905. His Majesty's Government have agreed to continue the grant for a further period of two years.

    British Monumental Art.
    SIR ELLIOTT LEES (Birkenhead): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Department of Science and Art, with a view to maintaining an historical record of the phases of British monumental art, will consider the desirability of re-erecting, and preserving at South Kensington, such national monuments, erected in churches, out of public money and in pursuance of a vote by Parliament, as may now or hereafter be removed from those churches by the ecclesiastical authorities in charge thereof.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): Unless a monument is of interest in the history of art generally, or in the development of monumental art, the Art
    1164
    Museum at South Kensington would not seem to be an appropriate place for it. Certainly the Board would not be willing that the Art Museum should become a repository for outcast monuments which ecclesiastical authorities may for one reason or another have decided to displace.

    Public Schools at Lochs, Isle of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state what sum is paid annually for firing, lighting, and cleaning, respectively, at the Lemreway public school, and at each public school in the parish of Lochs, Island of Lewis.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. Scott DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The details required by the hon. Member are too long to be conveniently given orally, but if the hon. Member will put down an unstarred Question, I will put in a list, or, if he prefers it, I will hand the list to him.

    Inverness Procurator-Fiscal.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that Mr. Anderson, the Procurator-Fiscal for Inverness, acts as law agent for several landlords in the county; and will he, in the public interest, require him to devote his whole time to the duties of his office.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Procurator-Fiscal for Inverness was appointed by the sheriff of the county in 1876. No restriction was placed on his engaging in private practice, and I cannot interfere in the matter as suggested.

    Dog Poisoning by Gamekeepers in Inverness-shire.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-advocate whether he is aware that the gamekeepers on the estate of the Mackintosh of Mackintosh, Invernessshire, are in the habit of placing strychnine poison in close proximity to a main road for the purpose of destroying dogs and cats; and in view of the fact that a dog which was following its owner in the neighbourhood of Ruthven Farm on the 9th July was poisoned with strychnine, will he order an inquiry into the circumstances under which this poison

    1165
    was purchased; and will he state why the Procurator-Fiscal has failed to take action in the matter, although the circumstances of the case have been fully reported to him by the police.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am not aware of the facts as stated in the first part of the Question; the whole papers on the subject are, however, being at present considered by Crown Counsel, and I have asked for a report from Crown Counsel.

    North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
    MR. BLACK (Banffshire): I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether any interim Report or Papers relating to the investigations of the International Council of the North Sea are available and will be published; and when he expects to be in a position to announce the final conclusions of that body.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Papers in continuation of Command Paper 1313 of 1903, which are now being prepared, will contain information in regard to these investigations. I cannot at present fix a date at which the conclusions of the International Council will be available.

    Trawling in the Moray Firth.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether any progress has been made by the Government, by negotiation with foreign Powers or otherwise, towards the exclusion from the Moray Firth of foreign trawlers or of British-owned trawlers registered in foreign ports.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: No progress has been made in the way of negotiation with foreign Powers. For the rest I may refer the hon. Member to the judgment delivered by the High Court of Justiciary in the case of Peters v. Olsen on the 20th ultimo.

    Labourers' Cottages and Allotments
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in the case of labourers cottages erected by a rural district council but subsequently transferred to an urban district council under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898,
    1166
    the latter council has no power to enlarge the allotments, although bound to maintain the cottages under the Labourers Acts; and, if not, will he advise the Local Government Board of Ireland to instruct urban councils as to their duties in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): On the transfer mentioned the cottages become the property of the urban district council, and the Labourers Acts no longer apply so as to enable that council to enlarge the allotments under the Labourers Acts. The urban councils are well aware of the limitation of their powers.

    Land Purchase in County Longford
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any estates have been purchased by the Estates Commissioners, under Subsections 4 and 5 of Section 6 of the Land Purchase Act, 1903, outside the province of Connaught or the congested districts; and, if so, in what counties; and whether, considering that these sub-sections entirely fulfil the conditions of tenancy on the Galbraith, county Longford, Estate, action will be taken in reference thereto by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the negative. The Galbraith Estate is not one which could, in present circumstances, be purchased by the Land Commission under the subsections quoted, seeing that no application to the Commissioners has been made by the owner as required by Sub-section 1 of Section 6.

    Warburton Estate, Queen's County
    MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say how long the Warburton Estate, Garryhinch, Queen's County, has been before the Land Judge's Court for sale; whether he is aware that the tenants have repeatedly expressed their willingness to purchase their holdings; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I refer to the replies given to the hon. Member's similar Questions of May 29th, 1902,† and May 9th, 1904.‡ To these replies I have nothing to add.

    Evicted Tenant on Lord Lansdowne's Luggacurran Estate.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the representative of the late James Byrne, of Tully, Queen's County, who was evicted on April 22nd, 1887, from Lord Lansdowne's estate at Luggacurran, has sent in a claim for reinstatement to the Estates Commissioners; and, in view of the fact that the estate is at present in the hands of the Commissioners for sale to the tenants, can he state what provision is being made for the representative of the late Mr. Byrne, who was evicted on the above date out of a holding of 189 acres.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The evicted holding is occupied by another tenant, and is not part of the estate for sale. The untenanted land comprised in the estate now being sold is insufficient for the wants of evicted tenants in the immediate neigbourhood, and the Commissioners do not propose to allot any part of it to the representative of the evicted tenant referred to in the Question.

    Estates Commissioners and Evicted Holdings.
    MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state in how many cases landlords offered to sell evicted holdings on their own hands to the Estates Commissioners; and in how many cases purchase of such holdings was completed where the landlord did not sell the remainder of his estate either to the occupiers or to the Commissioners; and whether, in cases where landlords are still willing to sell such holdings with the object of having evicted tenants restored to their old homes, in accordance with the spirit of the Land Act of 1903, the Commissioners will be empowered to negotiate purchases.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In two cases, in one of which the purchase has been completed, and in the other the evicted tenant is about to be reinstated but the purchase has not yet been completed. The Commissioners are prepared to consider applications by landlords that a single holding should be declared an estate for the purpose of sale to the evicted tenant.

    Condition of Farmers on the Barrow Tralee Sea Coast.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture will send an inspector to Barrow Tralee to report on the condition of farmers on the sea coast, whose houses are being closed up by the sand, and to suggest the improvements necessary to save them from further incursions.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Department will send an inspector to report in this matter at the first convenient opportunity.

    Killarney Evicted Tenant
    MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Mr. Daniel Shea, of Droum humper, Killarney, for reinstatement in the farm from which he was evicted by the Earl of Kenmare; whether they have taken any, and what, steps to secure the reinstatement of this evicted tenant; whether he is aware that the agent of the landlord has written to the evicted tenant offering to reinstate him, but demanding terms that he could not comply with; and whether, in this case, where the landlord is willing to reinstate and the tenant willing to reoccupy lands which arc at present vacant, the Estates Commissioners will communicate with the landlord, in order to effect a settlement in the interest of the evicted tenant.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The application has been received, but in the absence of any proceedings for sale of the estate, the Commissioners have been unable to move in the matter. The

    1169
    Answer to the last inquiry is in the negative.
    MR. MURPHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that when a landlord expresses his willingness to sell an evicted holding nothing whatever will be done by the Estates Commissioners?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners have no power until application has been received.
    MR. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Commissioners to the fact that this landlord is willing to sell and to reinstate the tenant?
    MR. WALTER LONG: What is the use of my doing so when they have no jurisdiction?
    MR. MURPHY: Surely under the circumstances this land could be treated as a separate estate?

    Cusack Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report of the inspector on the Cusack Estate has yet been received; when this report will be considered by the Estates Commissioners; and how many acres of untenanted land the inspector found on his inspection.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The inspector's report has not yet been received. When received it will be considered by the Commissioners.

    South of Ireland Fisheries
    MR. CREAN (Cork, S. E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Fisheries, in 1892, after examining witnesses in England, Scotland, the Isle of Man, and Ireland, recommended that for the protection of the mackerel fishery, both as regards its future prospects and the facilities of carrying it on, and for the protection of the other sea fisheries in the South of Ireland, a close season for the herring should be established off the
    1170
    coast of the county of Cork from Poor Head to Mizen Head from the 1st of April to 16th May in each year; if so, will he say whether these and other recommendations of the Commissioners have been carried out; and; if not, in face of the danger to this important industry and the repeated protests of those interested in the mackerel fishery, what action the Government intend taking in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The inspectors reported to the effect stated, but added that they had no powers to make a close season order of the nature indicated. The Department are arranging to hold another inquiry at Kinsale into this and other fishery questions which have arisen.
    MR. CREAN: If statutory powers are necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill giving them next session,
    MR. WALTER LONG: Oh, I can make no promises for next session.

    Projected Railway between Dromahair and Arigna.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH (Leitrim, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have appointed a committee to consider the advisability of assisting in the construction of a line of railway between Dromahair and Arigna; can he state the names of the gentlemen constituting the committee; have they made their inspection and inquiries; and, if they have not yet reported, will he request them, before coming to a decision, to consult with the Leitrim County Council and the Dromahair Committee.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The application made to the Board in connection with this projected line of railway was referred to Lord Shaftesbury and Sir Horace Plunkett, who did not, however, proceed with their inquiries, having regard to the proposal of the Government to carry out extensions to the Arigna mines and to Rooskey. The suggestion at the end of the Question is one for the consideration of the Board, to whom it has been referred.

    Carnatall School Mistress.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Miss Rose Sweeney, a Catholic manual instructress, was appointed by the Presbyterian manager of Carnatall National School, county Tyrone, to be an instructress in the said school; that thereupon Mr. William Coote, a justice of the peace, summoned a meeting and commenced a boycott of the school on account of this girl being a Catholic; that an action was then taken against Mr. Coote in the Common Law Courts in Dublin, and was settled by the defendant undertaking to pay the costs of the case and remove the boycott of the school; that the defendant failed to fulfil his promise; that an action was then commenced in the Chancery Division by Miss Sweeney against this gentleman for an injunction and damages; and that Mr. Justice Barton granted both costs against him, and commented upon his conduct; and will he say whether an appeal has been lodged against this decree, and explain why the Irish Government have not only refrained from taking proceedings against this gentleman, but allowed him to retain the commission of the peace.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It has been ascertained from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal that an appeal in the case of Miss Sweeney against Mr. Coote has been lodged but has not yet come to trial. Pending a decision in that case I must decline to add anything to the statements I have already made.

    Belfast Guardians and Kate Benson.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceeding at the Belfast Board of Guardians on July 25th, 1905, with reference to the case of a child named Kate Benson, who had been registered by the guardians a. Protestant although her father had lived and died a Catholic, and she had been brought up in that creed until the time of his death; whether he is aware that the board's solicitor had written them to the effect that the child ought to
    1172
    be registered as a Catholic; that an attempt had been made by several of the guardians at the meeting to conceal the solicitor's letter; and that the meeting refused to rescind the resolution declaring the child a Protestant, but, instead of this, agreed to forward the solicitor's letter to the Local Government Board; and whether, pending the reply of the Board, he will order forthwith that the law be carried out, and that the child be registered and recognised as a Catholic.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The facts are generally as stated. The Local Government Board, however, are advised that the guardians complied with the law in registering the child as a Presbyterian, having regard to the fact that the surviving parent professed that religious creed and desired the child to be brought up in it.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the solicitor to the board stated that the action of the board was illegal?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.

    Alleged Attack on Kerry Police.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on May 16th last Sergeant Killachy, Royal Irish Constabulary, of Ballyheigue, county Kerry, and two constables were attacked by Patrick Hara and John Hara while d scharging their duties of protecting two bailiffs who were making a seizure under a decree; that the sergeant was knocked down and threatened with a knife; and that a cow which the bailiffs had seized was forcibly taken from them and driven away; and will he explain why the Haras were only prosecuted for a common assault on the sergeant, instead of being prosecuted by the Crown for the more serious offence of attacking the police while protecting the bailiffs and of forcibly taking goods from the bailiffs which they had seized under a decree.
    MR. WALTER LONG: My hon. friend has not been correctly informed.

    1173
    The sergeant was not knocked down or threatened with a knife; the cow seized was not rescued; and the Haras were not prosecuted for a common assault only. Three sets of summons were served on the Haras. One for assault on the police, one for obstructing the police in the discharge of their duty, and one for injuring a constable's uniform. Convictions were obtained on the first and last, under which both the Haras were sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour and Patrick Hara was ordered to pay £1 1s. for costs and compensation for the injury to the constable's uniform. Differences of opinion were apparently entertained by the bench as to the second charge, which was thereupon withdrawn, as the police were of opinion that justice had been sufficiently vindicated.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the evidence in this case? I have, and the sergeant says he was knocked down and threatened with a knife.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Has not the hon. Member already brought sufficient disgrace on his country by the sale of whisky?
    Mr. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sole reason that this Question is asked is that the people of this district will not drink Dunville's rotten Irish whisky?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The evidence available has been before the Irish Government, and the matter has been carefully inquired into.

    The Alleged Outrage at Boyle.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, on the night of July 11th, the house of Mr. Edward Magenis, a large grazier on the King-Harman Estate, near Boyle, in county Roscommon, was attacked by a number of men, who fired shots into the windows at intervals for three hours; and if he can state whether Mr. Magenis had refused to give up his farm at the dictation of the United League; and
    1174
    whether, in view of the fact that a few months ago in the same locality the statue of King William III. was pulled down and the perpetrators are still at large, he will take special steps to protect the lives and property of the inhabitants, and to bring the guilty parties to justice.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have now received a full report of the special police investigation into this matter conducted by Mr. O'Connell, a county inspector attached to the headquarters staff in Dublin, and by Mr. Pearson, the county inspector of Roscommon; and the conclusion arrived at by them is that no attack was made upon Mr. Magenis' house. That gentleman asserts that no one has asked him to give up his farm. The injury to the statue referred to in the last inquiry was committed at Boyle, five miles from Mr. Magenis' house. In that case the police have used, and are still using, every effort to bring the offenders to justice.
    MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)asked whether the police had discovered how the windows of the house were broken—from inside or outside?
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that it would be a difficult question to decide. But he had satisfied himself that there was no foundation whatever for the suggestion that an attack had been made upon the house.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the police had ascertained who it was that gave the report to the Press.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the police had not discovered the person; he wished they had. The report appeared in papers representing different political Parties. No one regretted more than he did that reports of this kind should be inserted by the Press, when it was quite easy to ascertain beforehand whether they were true or false.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny): Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the name of the ruffian who pat the libel into the Press at a penny a line?

    1175
    Cannot the police find out who is the Press Association's representative in Boyle? Everyone there knows very well the paper and the man.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The fact of matters being common knowledge does not justify their repetition by a Minister, or his making a charge against an individual based on them. I do not know who the person is. If there is any power in the law I can exercise to prevent a recurrence of this kind of thing I will not hesitate to use it.
    MR. HAYDENasked whether the hon Member for the Altrincham Division had any apology or personal explanation to make for having first given this foul slander Parliamentary circulation,
    MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)said he had only asked the Question to obtain information; and he fully accepted the police report, which was not always the practice of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. HAYDEN: Can you explain why it took the police three weeks to find out this report was false?
    MR. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the Question.

    Buncrana Telephone Service.
    MR. MULDOON (Donegal, N.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the terms offered for the establishment of a post office exchange at Buncrana are £5 each for twenty-five guaranteed subscribers, and 3d. per message for trunk connection; and, if so, whether, in view of the amount of these terms, he is ready to reconsider them with a view to such modifications as may render them locally acceptable.
    LORD STANLEY: The terms are correctly stated by the hon. Member, and I fear that, in view of the cost of establishing a telephone exchange at Buncrana and of connecting it with the trunk system, it will not be possible to modify them. It should be understood, of course, that the charge of £5 covers 480 local conversations.

    Irish Public Finance.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if any interest is obtained by the various Government Departments and Boards in Ireland on the credit balances of their accounts; if he will grant a Return showing the credit balances of each of the Government Departments and Boards in Ireland on March 31st, 1905; and if he will make arrangements to have tenders invited annually from the Irish banks for the keeping of the accounts of these various public Boards and Departments in future.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The accounts of all the Irish voted services are kept by the Paymaster - General in Dublin. Separate balances are not kept by the various Departments. The Paymaster-General has a consolidated account at the Bank of Ireland, which is drawn upon for payments on behalf of all the Departments. This is a current account, which yields no interest, and the balance is maintained as low as is consistent with the requirements of the services. Apart from voted moneys, certain Irish Departments have other funds under their control, notably the Land Commission, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and the Congested Districts Board. I understand that it is the practice of the Land Commission to place their available balances on interest-bearing deposit. The Department of Agriculture has most of its funds in vested, and the rest are placed on deposit so far as not required for current use. The practice of the Congested Districts Board is the same. A Return of all the funds under control of Irish Departments and the disposition of those funds would take time to prepare. The Government would not be willing to adopt a system of annual tenders for the keeping of the Departmental accounts.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Is there any objection to the Return I asked for? I know it may take some time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I should like to look

    1177
    into that matter before definitely answering. The hon. Member and others have already brought certain matters to my notice with, I hope, satisfactory results. I should, therefore, like to make further inquiries, which will of necessity take some time.

    Irish Franciscans' Manuscripts.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware the calendaring of the manuscripts of the Irish Franciscans is nothing like finished, and that the volume so long promised by the Historical Manuscripts Commission as the result of their examination of these manuscripts will be but a very imperfect and partial representation of them; and if he can give any assurance that the volume stated to be in the printer's hands, and promised now for several years, will be published within the next sit months, and that the completion of the calendar of these manuscripts will be proceeded with, aid by whom.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I understand that a Report on Franciscan Manuscripts in the Convent at Merchants Quay, Dublin, is well advanced at press, and will in all probability be issued within the next six months. The great bulk of the material not included in the volume now in press does not appear to come within the scope of the operations of the Historical Manuscripts Commissioners.

    Trawling in the Moray Firth.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the North Sea international scientific investigations have now sufficiently advanced to enable the Government to form an opinion as to the advisability of closing against foreign as well as British trawlers areas such as the Moray Firth; and, if so, will he consider the expediency of recommending the Foreign Office to communicate with other European Powers on the subject, especially having regard to the fact that at the Christiania Conference a resolution in favour of closing such areas was carried.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The Answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question is in the negative. The International Council has not yet expressed any opinion on the point.

    The Telephone Agreement.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now fix a day for the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on the Telephone Agreement between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I am not yet in a position to inform the hon. Gentleman.

    Welsh Steam Coal.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has under consideration the desirability of proposing legislation to empower the Government, in certain contingencies, to prohibit the export of Welsh steam coal, such as that now supplied for the use of the British Navy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is necessary to have any special powers conferred upon the Government. I believe they have sufficient powers to prevent the export of steam coal under the circumstances contemplated in the Question.
    COLONEL LUCAS (Suffolk, Lowestoft): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission, or, if not a Royal Commission, if he will agree to the appointment of a Committee, to inquire into all the circumstances of the purchase of collieries in South Wales by a so called German syndicate, the inquiry particularly to include the value of the coal for steamships.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: None of the information at our disposal leads us to believe that there is a German syndicate in treaty for any area, or any important area, or any area at all, of the steam coal which is used by His Majesty's Navy. But, as I have told the House, we should

    1179
    not, and could not, view with indifference the acquisition by a foreign syndicate, or any syndicate in which foreign influences predominated, of that steam coal which is absolutely necessary to the mobility of our Fleets. Supposing we had grounds for believing that a foreign syndicate was in process of obtaining that control which we deprecate, I do not think it would be difficult to deal with the matter. We might meet it by providing that the measure passed within living memory, permitting foreigners to be possessed of real property in this country, should be so far modified as that they should not be allowed to possess real property which was absolutely necessary for the defence of these islands, or for the interests of His Majesty's Army or His Majesty's Navy. Such a Bill would, I think, be in consonance with accepted principles of legislation. I do not think the necessity or introducing it has yet shown itself; but, as far as the Government are concerned, that is the line upon which we might proceed should the necessity arise.

    The Colonial Conference.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government's scheme for a Colonial Conference contemplates that the British delegates shall be empowered to entertain proposals for preferential trading with the Colonies based, inter alia, upon the taxation in this country of raw material such as wool or cotton.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has with laudable perseverance asked me this exact Question a great many times. I have nothing to add to the Answer I have given him several times.
    MR. BLACK: Is the conference, then, not to be free and unfettered?
    MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple): Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he declines to give a full and frank Answer on the ground that such an Answer might be injurious to the public interests?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): May I ask whether in the last few days notices have not been issued
    1180
    to the Colonial Governments inviting them to a conference for next year, and whether in the invitation there is anything said on this particular point.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information bearing out the suggestion the hon. Member has just made to the House. It is not accurate.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not accurate that such notices have been sent?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, it is not accurate.
    Later,
    MR. SOARES: I wish to ask a Question on a point of order. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Gully, ruled that an Answer must be accepted by an hon. Member, even though such Answer was unsatisfactory, but I do not think he meant that any kind of an Answer would be acceptable. I have been looking up the authorities on the point, and the principal authority, I find, is that of Sir William Anson in "The Law and Customs of the Constitution," where he says that a Minister is bound to answer a Question unless it is contrary to the public service. A practice has grown up lately of not giving full and frank Answers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put his point of order and not make a speech.
    MR. SOARES: The point of order I desire to put to you, as guardian of the privileges of the minority, is whether a Minister ought not in every case to give a full and frank Answer to a Question, if such Answer would not be injurious to the public service?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Answer is in the affirmative, but all the circumstances must be taken into consideration. If the same Question is frequently put, or Questions of a similar character are frequently put, the Minister is entitled to refer the Member to an Answer previously given.
    MR. BLACK: Supposing the original Answer is no Answer at all.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may not have thought it an Answer, but probably the Minister who gave it may have thought it a very good one.

    Supply.
    MR. LOUGH: What Supply will be taken to-morrow?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The principal business to-morrow will be the Home Office Vote, and on Thursday the Foreign Office Vote.
    MR. LOUGH: And on Friday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No Supply on that day, and what other business we take will depend in large measure—indeed entirely—on the progress we make with other business.
    MR, JOHN ELLIS: Why not take the Telephone Agreement?
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): On the Unemployed Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It must depend on how we have progressed with more important business.

    The Manchester Unemployed Disturbance.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he has any information concerning the attack which the Manchester police made yesterday upon an unemployed procession, and what action he intends taking in the matter.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The information which has reached me from the authorities at Manchester shows that a procession of some hundreds of men marched through the main thoroughfares of Manchester in a disorderly manner and obstructed the traffic. The police requested them to allow the traffic to proceed, and as they refused to comply with this request, the police dispersed them. So far as I am able to judge on the information before me, the police in doing so used no more force than was absolutely necessary. In so doing the police were acting strictly in accordance with their duty, which is to maintain order and prevent obstruction in the streets. Three
    1182
    men were arrested and were brought before the city stipendiary magistrate this morning and. their cases adjourned for a week. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I certainly could take no action while the case is sub judice. I must add that it is not I but the Manchester Watch Committee who are the police authority for Manchester and who are responsible for the action of the Manchester City Police. Any Question relating to the action of that force which may be addressed to me I can only refer to the Manchester Watch Committee for reply; and if it were to become necessary to hold any inquiry into what has taken place at Manchester it would be the watch committee's duty in the first instance, at any rate, to conduct such an inquiry.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: In view of the nature of that reply I will ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to this matter, and whether he has any further announcement to make in connection with the Unemployed Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has, of course, been called to the incident referred to; but I do not think myself that that incident in Manchester has, or ought to have, any relation whatever to the policy pursued by this House. Whether the House proceeds, as, of course, I should like it to be able to proceed, with the Bill as proposed to be amended by my right hon. friend depends on the view which the House takes of that measure. It ought not to depend upon any action taken in Manchester by the persons who refused, apparently, according to the report I have seen, to obey the law and respect the injunctions of the police when they were requested to obey the law. Whether the Bill can be proceeded with or not depends as. much on the hon. Gentleman and his friends as on anybody else.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): May I suggest to the Prime Minister whether the Unemployed Bill could not have first place after the necessary business has been finished.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, no. That particular policy could not be pursued,

    1183
    as the hon. Gentleman will see at once, because if we deal with it at all we ought to deal with it before the Appropriation Bill, or, at all events, in sufficient time for the House of Lords to consider the measure. I do not see any prospect of that end being accomplished unless the House were prepared to take the Committee stage on Friday and the Report and Third Reading on Monday. I have received no hint from those interested on the other side that they are prepared to assent to the Bill as proposed to be amended by my right hon. friend; on the contrary, all the speeches made yesterday indicated the opposite policy on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the attack made by the Manchester police upon a peaceable demonstration of unemployed workmen in Market Street yesterday.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Home Office is not responsible for the action of the police. The police are under the control, guidance, and direction of the watch committee of the city of Manchester, and, therefore, I do not think it is permissible to raise in this House by way of criticism or attack on a Government Department a matter for which they are not responsible.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not the case that in the last resort the Home Office is the supreme authority over the police? On a former occasion, when the Manchester police were accused of corruption, the Home Office competed inquiry into the circumstances; and is it not the fact that the grant received by Manchester from the Government for police purposes is dependent upon the proper performance of duty by the police, and does that not make the Home Office responsible for their action?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is true that a portion, I think half, of the cost of the police in Manchester is borne by the National Exchequer, but that does not make the Home Office prima facie
    1184
    responsible for the action of the police. If the hon. Member can show that the action of the watch committee has failed, that they have not been equal to the duties imposed upon them by the law, and that it is necessary to supersede them, or that the Home Office should come in and take up the duty which the watch committee are not able to carry out, then I think the hon. Member would be able to make a case. But that is not so. In the first instance, it is quite clear that the watch committee are responsible. That is one of the consequences of local government, and I do not think, therefore, that it would be permissible to call into account the action of the Home Office, who are not responsible.
    SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs): May I submit to you that in order to be a matter of urgent public importance it does not necessarily follow that it is in relation to any action of the Government? Might I suggest, for example, that there might arise in a self-governing colony or a foreign country a matter of such urgent public importance that it ought to be debated in this House, and that is not, of course, within the jurisdiction of the Government at all?
    MR. SPEAKER: If that is so, who is to answer for it? There are a great many matters of urgent public importance which take place in Europe and elsewhere, but surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest that any of them should necessarily be discussed in this House? There must be some responsibility suggested on the part of the Government.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: How am I to show the House that the local watch committee has failed in its duty if I am refused permission to move the adjournment of the House? Is it not a subject for consideration and discussion in the House of Commons that Englishmen have been bludgeoned in the streets of Manchester? If this Motion is refused, what other opportunity will there be to discuss the question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member can show, as he seems to think, that the

    1185
    Home Office is in some way responsible for this affair, I would say that there is an opportunity to-morrow on the Home Office Vote.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.): As one of the Members for the city, may I suggest it is not for this House to assume that the police attacked the people. The whole matter is now under inquiry by the proper authority in Manchester.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a question of merits and not of order. I have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
    Mr. CROOKS: Surely it is a question of urgent public importance—the lives of people who do not seem quite able to take care of themselves. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary consent to send a Commission to Manchester to inquire into the facts of the case?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

    SUPPLY [18th Allotted Day].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,652,548, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants in Aid."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): I believe it is usual that the representative of the Department should make some statement indicating the policy of the Department throughout the past year. This may be the more necessary, seeing that the Education Act of 1902 has been now working all over the country for some time past, and that the Board of Education is brought into relations with the local authorities, great and small, throughout the country for various educational purposes. One prominent feature of the Act of 1902 was that it made it for the first time possible to correlate or coordinate all branches of education in the hands of the great local authorities, each covering a large area and each dealing with education in its various forms. It is true that the counties in most cases are dotted about with what are called autonomous area—boroughs and urban districts of a certain size responsible for elementary education—but they have powers of rating themselves towards secondary education for a small [amount, and the county has further powers of rating them to a larger amount, rendering it necessary that they should work together for the purposes of education other than elementary. I am glad to say that the counties have cordially cooperated with the boroughs and local districts wherever they have been brought into contact.
  If this co-ordination is to be practical in local areas it must also be the keynote of the policy of the Board of Education, which has in so many ways to work with the local authorities, to offer advice and assistance, and to exercise such influence as we can upon their action by means of the dispensation of Parliamentary grants. We have worked with the local authorities on these lines. Two years ago I described to the House how the staff of the Board had been reconstituted to meet the new requirements of the Education Act. But it is essential, if the Board is to work with local authorities, that it should be well informed as to what the local authorities are doing, what are the principles Oil which they are acting, and what is the condition of the various schools throughout the country. To that end we have to some extent this year reorganised

  1187
  the inspectorate of the Board so as to inform as on all the various subjects on which we need information. We have been anxious not to break our inspectorate into special compartments unconnected and incapable of working with one another; but at the same time it was necessary that we should have an inspectorate developed on special lines for special purposes, and it is quite impossible that the same men or women should pronounce a satisfactory opinion on the condition of a technical institute, an old grammar school, a pupil-teachers centre, and the infants'department of a council school; and we have during the past year, without asking for a fresh money grant from the Exchequer, increased the varieties of our inspectors in what I hope will be a useful manner. We have extended the inspectorate for secondary schools. A year ago we had a chief inspectorate of three; now we have eighteen inspectors who will assist in informing us as to the condition of the secondary schools throughout the country, a matter needing constant and careful supervision by the Board. We have also an inspector specially for rural education, whose business it is to assist the rural authorities in providing in their rural schools such a course of study as will interest the children in country life; and, what is most important of all, we have now a staff of women inspectors, with a chief inspector at their head, who will, I hope, be of great use in informing us as to the special needs of the infants' and girls' departments of our elementary schools. I do not say that it is a completed work; it is merely the beginning of a larger specialisation of the inspectorate on these lines. The work of our elementary inspectors has been to some extent simplified. I hope that implification may continue, and that, as we work in closer harmony with the local authorities we may be able to diminish the number of our elementary inspectorate, and in that way to increase the variety of the inspectorate on the lines I have described. This is the beginning of a work which I hope will continue to make progress. These are our great sources of information, together with the Consultative Committee and the Office of Special Inquiry which
  1188
  are now brought into closer relations. But I hope that the Board of Education will be well equipped for furnishing the local authorities with all the guidance and help on the great principles of education in its various aspects on which the local authorities can be expected to work.
  I propose now to touch, first of all, on those branches of education that deal with the conclusion of school life—I mean the evening schools and the technical institutes. There has been during the past year no great increase in the number of these schools or classes, but there has been a very satisfactory development in the thoroughness and efficiency of their work. I think perhaps one reason why the classes have not increased in number is that we have impressed on the local authorities, through whom we mostly work in this branch of our Department, and on other persons responsible fur these institutions, that it is useless for young men or young women to embark on advanced technological study unless they have the rudiments of knowledge necessary to enable them to profit by these studies. We therefore ask for a preliminary test of fitness before the student is allowed to enter on this course. We have organised preliminary classes which prepare imperfectly equipped boys and girls for the proper use and the full advantage of the higher technological classes; but, as is not unnatural, young people who think that they are well capable of going further than their teachers think it advisable are somewhat reluctant to undergo this preliminary test and to attend these preliminary classes; and that may to some extent account for the small increase in the numbers of the classes during the past year.
  I think also that local authorities, now that they have the whole sphere of education under their control, realise the range of their work, and the inter-connection of its various parts. They make technological work a part of a general scheme of education within their area. The courses of study are required to be longer; they are made more complete; and, above all things, they are more closely connected with the industries of the area. In fact, we make it a condition

  1189
  of the grant that there should be a full consideration of local requirements and local industries. In order to bring this about we must work closely with the local education authorities and with the employers of labour. As to the local authorities, all I can say is that we place our inspectors at their disposal, and we press on our inspectors the duty of urging upon the local authorities the importance of associating with themselves the employers of labour in this work. We impress it on them as a duty of paramount importance; and, as to the employers, we are collecting information as to the various ways in which they can promote the attendance of those who serve under them at these classes and institutions. We have some information already and we hope to collect more. The employer may make time for the employee to attend. He may even require him to attend the class. He may pay the fee for his attendance. He may offer prizes. There are various ways, in fact, and many of them are already in practice, by which great employers of labour may promote the education of those who serve under them by means of these technical classes. The Association of Technical Institutions is collecting full information on this point, and we are given to understand that when it is collected it will be placed at our disposal. We hope that our Office of Special Inquiries will be able to utilise the information and will put it in an available form for circulation among local authorities and employers of labour. I hope that in this way we are making these institutions of real use in raising the standard of knowledge and capacity among those who begin early practical work in large industries, and that this side of our work, although it has not advanced greatly in the past year, will advance more rapidly when its benefits are more fully understood. I think they are already largely understood by local authorities and are beginning to be more and more valued by employers of labour.
  Another thing I may say as to evening classes and technical institutes is that we are now able to make a grant for physical training for the first time. We hope that this will be of real use to those students who have not many opportunities in the
  1190
  twenty-four hours of getting the exercise necessary to the proper development of the human frame; and we look for increasingly useful results from this new grant which we are now able to offer.
  MR. WHITLEY (Halifax): Will that apply to classes not held in technical school buildings but in private buildings.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: That is so. I now pass to another part of our work, which also comes at the end of school life—the training of teachers. The phrase "training college" has to some extent become a misnomer, because its name would suggest that it is a place for the training of a person just about to enter the teaching profession; whereas it has become very largely a place for the education of those who were imperfectly educated as children and who intend to enter the teaching profession. The definition of a training college hitherto has been—
  "An institution for educating persons about to become teachers and for giving instruction in the principles and practice of teaching."
  That must necessarily be a large part of the duty of training colleges for some time; because, until we have still further advanced the training of the pupil-teacher—that is to say, the training of the intending teacher in its earlier stages—we must supplement his imperfect education at the training college. But we have endeavoured to indicate what is our policy in the matter by a slight change in phrase, and a training college, in the regulations for this year, is defined as—
  "An institution for giving instruction to persons intending to become teachers in the principles and practice of teaching and for supplementing their education as far as may be necessary."
  If we can improve the education of the intending teacher, both after leaving; school and during his sojourn at the pupil-teacher centre, we shall lighten the burden of the training colleges and remove that extraordinarily miscellaneous quality of attainment on the part of the students who come to them for training and teaching.
  The Committee will see how difficult is the task of the training college if I describe the different kinds of

  1191
  student who go there. There is first, the students who come for one year, and they are persons who have taken a University degree or are otherwise fully educated, who wish to enter the teaching profession, and who come to the training college simply to learn the practice of teaching. Or they may be certificated teachers, well educated, who have not been through the training college, and who come to the college, not so much to learn the practice of teaching as the history and theory of teaching; and to avail themselves of the leisure which the college gives them for the further pursuit of their more academic studies. There is another type of student, who may be called the normal type. He comes for two years, having passed the preliminary examination for a certificate. He is the student who needs the most care and special attention. He is very often over-ambitious to spend the greater part of his two years, not so much in training and in the studies which are directly concerned with the profession, as in the effort to obtain a degree; and I will mention the various precautions which we have been bound to take to prevent this student from expending his time on efforts which are beyond his capacity. Then we come to another class of students who are of two sorts. There is the student of considerable promise who conies to a day-training college connected with a University or University college, deliberately and with the full consent of the authorities over him, to study for a degree while carrying on his ordinary training work. There are also students coming originally for two years, who show exceptional merit and promise and who are allowed a third year to enable them to finish working for a degree; or—what we have arranged for the first time this year, and what will be of considerable value—when they have left the college and been for some time in the teaching profession, who are allowed to come back and have another year of training and study, which is devoted either to the pursuit of more advanced studies, or to going abroad to improve their knowledge of foreign languages. When the Committee consider these various types of student, they will see that the training college is subject to considerable difficulties in adapting its
  1192
  teaching to all the demands of the young men and women who come up with these various degrees of acquirement and with these various aims and objects.
  Last year, in asking for this vote, I dwelt on the disadvantage which it is to so many of these students that they should expend so much time and energy in the pursuit of a degree. I think the House imagined that I disparaged the capacity of students, wished to damp their proper ambition, and was generally disposed to thwart meritorious effort. Nothing was further from my purpose. One is very anxious that the student should get all the benefit he can get from the more advanced work of the training college; but what we have to bear in mind is this—that hitherto the student has come up very imperfectly educated; that he at once comes into a different world of study; that he is not very well aware of his own limitations; that he perhaps over-estimates his own powers; and that he does not realise that the work for a degree, which is necessarily of a somewhat special character, presupposes a wide and solid foundation of knowledge which very often he does not possess. Now we require that, if a two years student is to work for a degree at the training college, he should at least have passed a matriculation examination before he is allowed to work for the degree. We mean two years hence to make that qualification more severe than it is at present. We shall ask for something more than the mere evidence of passing the matriculation to show that the two years student is qualified to work for a degree, and we claim to inquire into the process of the student during his life at the training college and stop it if we think he is wasting his time.
  MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby): Is that the London matriculation examination?
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: Any matriculation examination. I shall say one word as to the provision for training colleges. For the first time now the Government makes a grant, not merely for the maintenance of students at training colleges, but for the provision of training colleges themselves. I think it

  1193
  can hardly be said that the State has neglected the existence of training colleges, because I can assure the Committee that the Government grant, when added to the fee paid by the student, covers the cost of maintenance, but it does not cover the cost of the provision of the training colleges, and there is now a Government grant made of 25 per cent, on the educational part of the college. There is a natural disinclination on the part of the local education authorities to build training colleges, a very natural disinclination, because when they build their college and educate their teacher there they have no assurance that he will not pass into an adjoining, or even a distant, county and give the benefit to some other area of the training which he has received at the expense of the area in which he was educated. Of course that difficulty might be simplified if all local authorities built training colleges of their own, but unfortunately these proposals for the universal building of training colleges are something like the proposals for universal disarmament; the question is who shall begin; and until the local authorities have settled that matter by universal I consent among themselves, I am afraid we shall have to rely very largely on voluntary efforts for the building of residential training colleges and endeavour to develop on the best lines we can the system of day training colleges, which, I think, are doing good work in various parts of the country. But we must guard against what I may call the inferior provision of training colleges. We have had a suggestion from local authorities that they should connect day training colleges with technical institutes, but we have had to point out that a technical institute, valuable as it is on its own lines, does not give that general education which we think ought to form, at any rate, a considerable part at present of the work of the training colleges.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon): The hon. Baronet has dealt mainly with provisions for elementary teachers in training colleges; would he say what has been done or is likely to be done in the training of secondary teachers?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am afraid we have no prospect of a Government grant for secondary colleges, and I am afraid I am not in a position to say that much has been done in the past year in that direction. The policy, then, of our dealings with training colleges is to dwell as much on the training as to endeavour to improve the education which precedes entrance to the training college, so that if possible, though I am afraid it is a remote possibility, one year of the training college may suffice. If we can attain that ideal, the output of every training college would be immensely increased, and the expenditure of the local education authorities would be correspondingly reduced.
  The chief material for the training college is the pupil-teacher, and as regards the pupil-teacher we follow the policy which I indicated two years ago. We would ask that the intending pupil-teacher should have at least two years of general education before going to a pupil-teacher centre. If he cannot go to a secondary school, he should go to a preparatory class, and while at the pupil teacher centre he should work half time only, and during the remainder of that time his education should be continued on liberal lines. We have to meet the convenience of the local education authorities as to the distribution of that half time of the pupil-teacher—that is to say, the local authorities have asked that there should be two terms study and then three terms half-time teaching and then another term of study, so that the teaching may be distributed over three terms. That is a matter of convenience for the staffing of the schools, and in that we are very anxious to meet the wishes of the local authorities. We are further giving a longer term of engagement to the pupil-teacher in rural areas, so that from fifteen to eighteen he may be engaged to work half time. Under the old system a boy or a girl spent several years in teaching during the greater part of every day, with such education as he or she could pick up from the head teacher before or after school hours, or as could be acquired independently. Now we ask for two years training, either in a secondary school or a preparatory class,

  1195
  and for two years half time at a pupil-teachers' centre, and in that way we hope that the education will be continued for at least four years before the student goes to the training college, and that then the pupil will be far better able than before to take advantage of the training offered.
  I do not mean to say that we have solved the very difficult problem of the training of teachers. It is possible that, as the student was kept too closely to practical work in early life before, we have taken him too completely away from the schools now. Time alone can show whether the lines on which we are working are right. On the one hand it may be said that the long term of service of the old-fashioned pupil-teacher gave him a sort of instinctive facility in dealing with a class which the pupil-teacher under the new system will never secure; on the other hand, it may be said that he lost much in the way of education, and that this facility in dealing with a class has promoted that mechanical proficiency and excessive attention to discipline which, I think, is a feature of our English educational system. Though the local authorities have been reluctant to build training colleges, they have been active in the foundation of pupil-teacher centres. They have willingly connected them with secondary schools, and, in fact, we have had to call the attention of the local authorities to this point, that, although it is very desirable that the pupil-teacher should enjoy the larger area and the freer life and education of a secondary school, you really must distinguish the pupil-teacher centre where secondary education is given as not providing the same advantages as the secondary school which is connected, closely it may be, with that centre.
  This brings me now to the subject of our secondary schools. Two years ago I lamented to the Committee that what we did for secondary schools gave such a predominant influence to scientific teaching that we had heard from our inspectors—I am bound to say that I satisfied myself by visiting secondary schools—that the children were injured in their general education, and that they were imperfectly equipped for understanding and
  1196
  using the science taught, because they were so turned aside from languages and the topics of general education that their teaching was faulty and unsatisfactory. We have made very considerable changes in that direction. What was called the "A" grant was the large grant which turned the attention of the schools to science. There was also the "B" grant, a much smaller amount for which much less science was required. We now have one grant for a four years course, rising year by year for general education. Last year I was able to say that we should increase that grant at the end of two years where the teaching became specialised in the direction of science. Now we can, as it were, bifurcate the teaching at the end of two ears, and give a larger grant either to education more fully scientific with more advanced science, or to a course of study in which languages are the predominant element.
  SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University): Do you give up science in the latter schools?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No, they have science certainly. Our object has been to provide a general education in which science plays a proper part, and at a certain stage the student may specialise in the direction of advanced science or in the direction of languages. In no case is science neglected or thrust aside; it plays its part in the general education. I have only one or two other things to say beyond what I have laid down as to the general policy of the Board in regard to the secondary schools. We used to give a certain sum to meet sums contributed by local authorities for scholarships. We have not very much money to spend on secondary education, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be better to throw all our energies into the improvement of the schools by the enlargement of the grant, and then to leave local authorities to do what I think local authorities are much better able to do than we are, to select the boys and girls who are to have the scholarships and to provide them. We have, therefore, withdrawn the grant for scholarships and have given it to the schools, and I believe we are making

  1197
  better use of the money than before Another point is that we have constantly pressed upon the local authorities that they should give to every secondary school some body of persons specially interested in the conduct of education in the district—what is called a governing body—and I think the local authorities are coming to see that without losing financial control or the ultimate authority which they posses? over schools which are their own creation, it is useful to the schools and it strengthens the position of the headmasters if there is a body of persons whose business it is to look after the affairs and interests of the schools and to whom the headmaster may refer directly in regard to matters of school policy when he thinks it desirable. We have also been taken somewhat to task on the subject of fees. On that matter all we ask is that there should be an assurance of financial stability in the school if it is to receive the Government grant. If we can be assured that the school can be satisfactorily run without fees we ask no more, but as a rule I am bound to say that it is better that a fee should be paid. I have seldom found any difficulty, even in a poor area, in the payment of a fee, and I should think the schools in which no fees are paid are comparatively few, and I do not think anyone suffers by the imposition of such a fee as makes the parent and the child appreciate the value of the education given and ensures the financial stability of the school.
  Before leaving this topic and going into the more burning subject of elementary education I should like to deal with a statement, which I have seen not infrequently, that the Act of 1902 has done nothing for higher education, that local authorities are doing nothing, and that the Act has not stimulated interest or in any way promoted the advancement of education to a higher level. I take the centres of secondary schools. In 1902 there were 193 pupil teachers' classes or centres in counties and ninety-nine in boroughs. In 1905 there are 320 centres in counties, and 113 in boroughs, and the increase in number does not fully indicate the effect of the change: These are fully equipped centres for all purposes of education of the pupil-
  1198
  teacher. The old central classes were not perfectly equipped. They were the best that could be got, but they were not prepared or conducted with the adequacy of the pupil-teachers' centres of today. As regards the number of pupil-teachers attending the centres, taking the counties, there were entered in 1903, between January and July, 5,271 pupil-teachers. In January-August, 1904, there were 8,100 entries, and in the county boroughs there was an increase of rather more than 400. As regards secondary schools in receipt of Government grants and under local authorities, they have gone up between 1900 and 1905 from 212 to 599, and the Government grant earned has increased by £103,000. When I add to this that many local authorities have made a most careful survey of their whole area, and have mapped out schemes for the needs of schools in the different parts of the area, I think you may say that the Act of 1902 has stimulated the interest and the efficiency of local work in education to a very satisfactory degree.
  Now I come to elementary education, and to refer to the Code. I would call attention to one or two points in the Elementary Code which I think hon. Members may deem worthy of remark. There is a provision in the Code which excludes teachers from being managers of schools. I should like to say a word about that. I believe the general opinion is that the teacher of an elementary school should not be the manager of another elementary school any more than the master of a secondary school should be on the governing body of another secondary school. I believe that as a general proposition it is a sound one, and the policy which it involves seems good. But it is the case that there are some education committees, on which teachers have a statutory right to serve if chosen, which consider it proper and necessary that all their members should act as managers of schools, and it is practically a condition of membership of the committee that any person on it should be willing to act as manager of one or more schools. If teachers were disqualified altogether from acting as managers they would, although statutorily qualified, be practically disqualified from serving on the

  1199
  education committees. That, I am sorry to say, came to the notice of the Board after the Code was out. It certainly was not my intention, and I do not think the intention of anyone who had anything to do with the preparing of the Code, that where management was an incident to work on an education committee, the teachers should be prevented from taking the part allotted on the education committee. I can only say now that I will take care—and the Department will take care—that provision will be made to meet that in the Code of next year, and in the meantime care will be taken that no teacher will be excluded from a place on an education committee by insistence on that Article of the Code.
  There is another point in our Code which I think most important. It is that part which deals with higher elementary schools. The Minute which created the higher elementary schools in 1900 has become almost a dead letter, partly, perhaps, owing to the larger creation of secondary schools, but mainly, I think, owing to the severe scientific requirements and the necessity for elaborate scientific appliances which were imposed on higher elementary schools. The fact is there are only thirty higher elementary schools, and the number has only increased by five in the last three years. And yet there is a need for schools of this sort. If no intermediate type of schools between the elementary and the secondary is created, I very much fear it will lead to the lowering of the standard of the secondary schools, which ought to be essentially distinct from the elementary schools. There are many boys and girls, particularly boys, who cannot afford the four years course at the secondary schools but who do want something beyond the elementary school which will last on to the end of their school years, and what we propose in our new scheme of higher elementary schools is to drop the severe scientific requirements, and that enables us to lower the grant and so to multiply the schools. If we could not do that I fear we should have some difficulty in taking the line we have done. The object of the higher elementary schools will be to de-
  1200
  velop some part of the teaching of the elementary schools beyond what is possible in the elementary schools themselves. We require that elementary mathematics and English should certainly be taught in the higher elementary schools, and we also provide that some practical instruction should be given connected with the industries or conditions of the locality, which will give to the boys and girls some feeling that their education has, as it ought to have, some bearing on practical life. I think, if we can combine these two things for boys and girls from the ages of twelve to fifteen—a fuller development of the work of the elementary schools or some part of it with a more close connection between their education and practical life—we shall enable a number of boys and girls to carry on their education willingly and profitably in a way in which they have not been able to do before.
  The only other matter connected with the Code to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee is the fact that we have called special attention to the teaching of the laws of health, and we have circulated a syllabus on the laws of health for which I am indebted to two hon. Members, namely—the hon. Member for the University of London and the hon. Member for the Rye Division—to whom I should like to express my acknowledgements, as I cannot help thinking that the syllabus which has been worked out on the lines they have given is one of the most practical and useful of the sort which has yet been issued by our Department or any other authority in charge of these matters.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): Does it contain any remarks on the hygienic value of alcohol?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: It certainly does, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that many of the courses of teaching and lecturing on alcohol suffer from the somewhat exaggerated tone in which their denunciations of alcohol are couched, and from the criticism to which they were exposed on scientific grounds. We have taken care that alcohol and its use are dealt with, and I hope that a proper warning is

  1201
  given to children that it is bad for them, that they ought not to touch it, and that they can do very well without it, but we have not accompanied our remarks on alcohol either with those scientific dissertations or moral denunciations which I think have somewhat tinctured previous documents of that kind.
  On the subject of elementary education there is one very general complaint, and that is the expense to the local authorities. I cannot offer a cure. I will suggest some sort of prevention, and in certain cases I can offer a very mild palliative. I will not charge the local authorities with extravagance. Perhaps it might sometimes be questioned whether it is always necessary to have the very best of everything, and whether appliances might not be made to last a little longer. But, on the other hand, I hope those authorities will not charge the Board with pressing them on to expenditure which is beyond their means. Two things I can say on behalf of the Board. Our new building rules have been carefully redrafted to distinguish what is essential from what might be described as counsels of perfection. There are certain things necessary for the health and comfort of children, and we have made it quite clear that those are necessary, but a great many other things which were so stated as to leave local authorities to consider them essential, we have now put down as things desirable, but susceptible of modification to meet the financial conditions of the area. Then we have distinctly counselled our inspectors that, under the pressure which now lies upon local authorities, and the heavy burden which education is causing them as the Education Act is being brought into work, they should not urge expenses which are not necessary for the health, comfort, or education of the children. That has been the line we have taken ever since the Act came into working, but it must be borne in mind that the remarks of an inspector and even his reports are sometimes misunderstood. The remarks made by an inspector are not necessarily embodied in his report, nor is the report of an inspector the same thing as an order of the Board. If a local authority have good reason to
  1202
  think that the report of an inspector is unreasonable they have only to come to the Board and state their case, and I think they may rely on a fair hearing.
  But there is one word I should like to say to the local authority, and that is that they are running serious risk in some areas I know of over-centralisation. I have some fear that education committees will not let anything slip out of their hands under, I think, a wholly unfounded apprehension that if they do they will lose the control they ought to exercise. If they will not delegate any of their functions, if they will endeavour to do all the work themselves, what will happen? The work will become mechanical, and when once it does it leads to expense. I know of cases in which salaries have been raised automatically—very properly in some cases, but in individual cases absurdly. That is to say, the local authority has determined that the salaries of persons holding certain positions in schools shall be uniformly raised, and they have never inquired what were the existing salaries or what the qualifications of the person whose salary was raised. I have known cases where persons in infant schools with practically no qualification in teaching, and with no expectation of any rise of salary, have suddenly found their salaries doubled merely because the order had gone forth that everything was to be automatically raised to a certain point. Then, if they will no; delegate to bodies of sub-committees, or bodies of managers, they lose the control over small items of expense. If everything is done from the centre by correspondence small savings will not take place, and small unnecessary outlays will take place, or else there will be a great mass of correspondence with tie central authority which is gratifying only to the officials who are there for the purpose of writing letters, and who somewhat enjoy a series of formal letters. And not only is there loss from want of close supervision, and from automatic rises of emolument without consideration of particular cases, but the whole cost of administration becomes very large. I believe I am not exaggerating when I say I have heard of a local authority the cost of whose

  1203
  administration was between £20,000 and £30,000 a year; and when I heard of it I wished I could have that money to raise the grant for secondary schools, especially when one thinks that some of that money went on clerical work, a great part of which was simply irritating. I must say I wish the local authorities would call to mind their powers as to creating subcommittees, and would urge such subcommittees to keep in constant touch with the managers of the school, giving a comparatively free hand to people who have no desire to run them into unnecessary expense, and whose interest in these matters is of importance. I feel that many local authorities are almost at the parting of the ways, at which they will either promote the education of an area, and create an interest throughout the area among many persons in education, or else will concentrate all power, not in the hands of the education committee, but in the hands of the organising secretary, who, owing to the weariness of the education committee for the mass of formal administrative business, will acquire all the power which the education committee thought ill advisedly to retain.
  I would urge upon those local authorities the immense importance of sustaining personal interest in every department of our education, among members of the education committee, employers of labour, visitors and managers of schools. No grant from the Exchequer, and no rate aid for feeding the children, can do what the manager would do who went to the homes of the children and would teach the parents how to live, who would stimulate and organise voluntary effort, and would try to keep the children well nurtured both before school age and during school age. What is also urgently wanted is persons who will watch over the children when they leave school, take care that opportunities are not lost, and see that a boy or girl does not go into some employment where there is a small immediate payment but ultimate loss of the opportunity to avail I themselves of the special capacities acquired at school. A very little time, trouble, and money would turn a boy from an office boy into an apprentice—the office boy being cast on the world
  1204
  before he is twenty, the apprentice moving on to higher regions of skilled labour. It will make all the differences to the future of our children if managers are encouraged to watch over the children, not only while they are at school, but at the critical moment of their life when leaving school. I would earnestly press all local authorities to curb the mechanical ingenuity of their organising secretary, and to do all they canto enlist the interest of, and give work to, all the voluntary agencies that are prepared to take an interest in the management of the school.
  There is another aspect of this question, there are what are called necessitous areas, to which, so far as I can judge, there are only two ways of giving substantial relief. The first is the readjustment of the rating burden, or a redistribution of the rateable area, and that is a subject for legislation, probably of a difficult, but to my mind, of a somewhat urgent character. Or else we need a substantial addition to the aid grant from the Exchequer where a penny in the pound produces less than a certain sum per child in the area. I frankly say I will not ask for money, nominally for education, but really for the redress of the inequalities of our rating system, in order to do what an amendment of the rating law ought to do. That being so, I have to consider what are the remaining resources. There are a great many reasons why children under the age of five should be excluded from schools; their work is of small educational value, their attendance is accompanied very often by considerable risk to health. In tolerably well-to-do families they are almost always better at home, and in very poor families they ought to be provided for by a creche or public nursery, but not by an elementary school. I hoped by this time to have been able to circulate some very interesting reports of women inspectors who were specially asked to report upon the condition of infant schools in various parts of the country, and to inform the Board what educational value attached to them. These reports are very strong and decided, and from what we have seen of them we I have no hesitation in leaving it open to

  1205
  local authorities to exclude children under five years.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Will those reports be published?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Yes, all of them. If you withdraw all grants for children under five we should save £850,000 in round numbers. What would be the result?Some areas would gain by the simple exclusion of the children under five; where the cost of the maintenance of the children exceeded the Parliamentary grant they would gain not merely in maintenance, but as time went on in the provision of schools. On the other hand, a very large number of areas would lose because, where schools in rural areas are small, and there may be only one teacher, they would save nothing in provision or maintenance while they would lose the grant. Of course we might withdraw the g ant altogether and use the money for necessitous areas. But I could not be a party to what is called robbing Peter in order to pay Paul, to taking money from rural districts and an appreciable number of urban districts in order to assist particular areas. We have therefore decided upon a plan by which some of the areas will gain considerably and no area will lose. At present there is an annual grant of 17s. 3d. for all children up to an age between seven and eight, and 22s. for older scholars besides the fee grant and aid grant. We shall withdraw all but the aid grant and fee grant from the children under five, but there will be a uniform grant of 24s. for every child over five. If any area thinks it is to their advantage to exclude children under five, they can do so. On the other hand, if they do not think it is to their advantage, they can retain children under five and obtain the aid grant and fee grant. I do not pretend that this scheme will set the difficulty at rest. But I know of no other way without taking money from someone, or going begging to the Exchequer.
  I have now told my story on the general education question; I fear at some length. But I do not think it is a story of which I or any one connected with the Department need be ashamed. In the course of the last two years and
  1206
  a-half we have brought the Education Act of 1902 into operation. During that time we have been in constant co-operation with the local authorities. With most of them we have worked on the most cordial terms, and I think that, even in cases where there have been differences, no local authority can complain of want of courtesy or consideration on the part of the Department. We have reconstituted our staff in order to meet the new conditions of education. We have done our best to promote interest in education throughout every area and among all classes of the community. I am quite aware that that work is only at the beginning and is necessarily incomplete; and I have no doubt that in many respects it is open to criticism. But I think I can say generally that we have laid down our work on sound lines and in such a way that it is capable of development in many directions, corresponding with the changes in our national life and the needs of our industries and commerce.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said he thought the statement of the hon. Baronet was a very disappointing one to those who expected great things of the Act of 1902. They had been told a story of not very much being accomplished. He had told them that the Education Act had cost a great deal of money, in fact the whole of his speech was a sort of belated repetition of the criticisms which were passed upon the Act when it was discussed in the House of Commons. When the Bill was before Parliament it was pointed out that its administration would turn out to be very expensive and that the results achieved would not be at all adequate to the cost. That was practically the admission of the Secretary to the Board of Education in his speech. They told him at the time that he would land the administration of education into the hands of officials, and that local initiative would be destroyed. What an admission the hon. Baronet had made upon this point. He had admitted that practically the whole thing from top to bottom was in the hands of the officials. That was exactly what was predicted. In opposing the Act they pleaded that the Government should give some sort of

  1207
  interest to the localities and that was what the hon. Baronet was contending now. He asked the managers to take more interest in the schools, and complained that they were appointed by a central authority. Why did the hon. Baronet not listen to their entreaties to give the local authorities the power to elect the managers? The speech to which they had just listened from the representative of the Government was a very earnest criticism of the Act upon the lines laid down by the opponents of the Act two years ago.
  The hon. Baronet said that they had worked very harmoniously with the local authorities. He was afraid this notion of harmony had been taken from the Cabinet and the Party opposite, and judged by that standard, they might say that the local authorities were working harmoniously. In the past the local authorities in Wales had worked hard for education. They had built over 100 secondary schools in ten years and they had organised a first-rate system of secondary education. They had worked hard in the primary schools; and those were just the authorities with whom the Board of Education was in direct conflict at the present moment. He intended to move a reduction in this Vote. Here was an Act of Parliament which was regarded in a very hostile manner by the vast majority of the population in many parts of this country and it was passed without their consent, and without their being consulted. Consequently it had created a great deal of friction. The hon. Baronet knew that the Act would have to be modified in the direction in which those who were hostile required that it should be modified. He did not think anybody would challenge that statement. Seeing that there was only a short interval to be bridged over, they had decided to provoke quarrels with the local authorities which they knew would not be in existence in a year or two because they would come to an end whenever the present Government came to an end. [Cries of "No, no!"] What was the position? For about a year after the Act was passed the Government realised that that was the position of affairs, and on the whole they were prepared to act accordingly. They
  1208
  realised that it was most important to have an irritating controversy over an Act which did not represent a final settlement. But a change had come o'er the spirit of the dream. No Government before had ever wantonly provoked the people in this most irritating fashion. What was the first thing they did? The hon. Baronet had said that they had reconstituted the staff of the Board of Education to meet the changed circumstances. They had done that specially with regard to Wales, for they had handed over the administration of the Act in Wales to a clerk of the Education Department, who was not man of any particular authority, or, judging by his correspondence, of any special intelligence. The name of Mr. Morant, the Permanent Secretary of the Department, did not appear at all. No doubt Mr. Morant was wise enough to see that the action of the Government in regard to Wales was a piece of folly, and did not wish to mix himself up with it.
  What had happened? The first business of those appointed by the Department was to supply the Government with statements to mislead the House of Commons as to what had been done. They had a debate upon the administration of the Act in. Wales in the month of May last, and he wished to call attention to three statements which were made about Carnarvonshire and Glamorganshire. In the debate in May last on the administration of the Act in Merionethshire, the hon. Baronet dragged in as a counter-move statements with regard to other counties. They naturally thought that a Minister would not make those statements without having investigated them, and yet inquiry showed that all those statements were without the slightest foundation. The complaint on that occasion was that in Merionethshire insanitary schools were being planted upon the rates. The managers had been allowed nearly two years to put these schools in order, but had not complied with the requirements of the local education authority, and the Board of Education had upheld them in their refusal. The hon. Baronet retorted that there were local education authorities who were guilty of keeping insanitary schools going, and he instanced the

  1209
  case of Pontypridd. Last year he said the Board had a long discussion with the local education authority and the managers of a voluntary school there. The local education authority insisted on certain alterations. The Board of Education admitted their necessity, but recognised the great difficulty of carrying them out on the existing site. Then the school was transferred to the local education authority, and the first thing that body did was to write to the Board of Education requesting that the school be allowed to remain in statu for two years. Would it be believed that there was not a word of truth in the last statement? It was true that the local education authority requested the managers to make certain alterations on sanitary grounds, and when it was found that the -Board of Education supported that demand the managers abandoned the school. The local education authority took it over, and the first thing they did was to spend a considerable sum of money in carrying out the improvements which they had required of the managers Think of that fact being withheld from the House.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I deny that the local authority proposed anything. When they asked that the school should remain in statu the Board of Education insisted on certain requirements being carried out, and after a time the local authority carried them out.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Baronet did not even now see that he was misleading the House in a most material particular. The inference he wished the House to draw was that, having asked the board of managers to improve the sanitary condition of the school, the local authority on themselves becoming possessed of the school had, without spending a penny on it, asked the Board of Education to allow it to remain as it was for two years. But the hon. Baronet also withheld the fact that the local education authority gave an undertaking to build a new school in the district within eighteen months.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: That is really not the case. The hon. Member
  1210
  has attributed to me a false statement and a suppression of fact of which I should not dream of being guilty. The local education authority insisted on requirements. We entirely agreed. Then the school was transferred, and the first thing the local authority did was to ask us to allow the premises to remain in that condition for two years, until they could make other provision. They said nothing about making alterations. We insisted on their making these changes, and they were made. The material fact was that the local authority insisted on the managers making the changes. But when they came into possession themselves they asked the Board to allow the premises to remain as they were for two-years. [MINISTERIAL cheers.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet states one thing now which he withheld then. He says that he knew that the local authority was making certain provision for improving the sanitary condition of the school.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I was not aware of anything, except the demand of the local authority to allow the school to remain in statu for two years.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: He knew they were going
  MR. DUKE (Plymouth): Is the hon. Member in order in assuming that the statement of the hon. Bayonet is untrue, and that the hon. Baronet made it deliberately knowing that it Was untrue?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Carnarvon is getting very near the line.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I am, deliberately. The Secretary to the Board of Education has made a series of false statements, and I will not have them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order in making an imputation of deliberate untruth against the Secretary to the Board of Education.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said he had made a deliberate false statement. I said he made a series of false statements, and I still say so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The difference is this. If the hon. Member states that the Minister made statements that were inaccurate—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: False.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of proof. If he says that the hon. Gentleman deliberately stated that which he knew to be untrue, that is out of order.
  MR. LLOYD -GEORGE: I have simply to repeat what I said before, that the hon. Gentleman made a series of statements which were false. The word "deliberately" was imported by the hon. Member for Plymouth. When that hon. Member very improperly intervened I was asking the hon. Baronet two definite Questions. Did he know that this money had been expended, or was in course of being expended, upon improving the premises; and did he know at the time that the local education authority had undertaken to build a new school, and that they only decided to use the existing school as temporary premises?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I answer at -once, though I do not think the Questions are material. The point was that the local authority said to the managers, "The school must be improved, and at once." They became possessed of the premises by transfer and they immediately wrote and asked the Board of Education to allow them to remain in statu for two years. I am perfectly well aware that during these two years they were going to build a new school. As to the alterations, all I knew was that the local authority which had decided these matters to be urgent asked that they should be allowed to remain as they were for two years, and the Board of Education insisted that changes should be made.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And that they were then made. The hon. Gentleman withheld a material fact.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I was not aware that they were. The Board said that they must be made, and the demand was so urgent that I thought they must be made, but I did not know.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And did not even inquire. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that even now it was immaterial whether this school was to be used for temporary purposes or permanently. That was his view of telling the whole story to the House.
  Turning to the case of Denbighshire, he said that the charge brought by the hon. Baronet was that while the council had surveyed the voluntary schools before the appointed day, they had not yet appointed anyone to survey the council schools. There was not a word of truth in that charge. The Denbighshire County Council appointed a surveyor to examine both classes of schools, and the work was completed in the case of both before the appointed day. The same resolution covered both the provided and non-provided schools, and they were examined at the same time. He recollected the cheers with which that statement was received in the House; hon. Members opposite felt that it was a triumphant Answer. But there was not a syllable of truth in the statement. The hon. Baronet, when his attention was called to the matter, refused to withdraw the statement in the House of Commons, but after about three weeks he wrote a letter to the Denbighshire County Council saying that that was not exactly what he meant—that what he really intended to say was that after the appointed day they did not hold the balance evenly between the two sets of schools, that he was sorry the phraseology was not quite correct, but that in substance and in fact the statement was perfectly true. That was the hon. Baronet's notion of the conduct of a gentleman when a false charge had been brought against the education authority! The statement ought to have been withdrawn and apologised for in the House of Commons, where. it was made.
  The same thing happened with regard to Carnarvonshire. Two or three schools were instanced where the repairs had not

  1213
  been up to the standard. The statement was absolutely correct as far as it went, but the hon. Baronet did not state the whole of the facts. Although there were two or three schools where the requirements had not been complied with within a month of their receipt from Whitehall, the local education authority had actually spent on repairs £6,400 out of revenue and had applied for loans to the amount of £25,000 for the purposes of enlarging and improving the school accommodation. That was £31,000 for a small county, representing between £2 and £3 per head per child in the schools. The hon. Baronet was aware of these circumstances, and his omission to mention them was a withdrawal of facts which had the result, he did not say intentionally, of misleading the House.
  Another ground of complaint was that the hon. Baronet, while pressing the local education authorities to administer the law, was himself breaking the Act of 1902 and his own regulations. In Merionethshire about two years ago notices were served on the managers to repair their schools. Last year the hon. and learned Member opposite contradicted the statement that notices had been served. He now had the notices in his possession; they were most elaborate, giving the full report of the surveyor, and setting forth the requirements in respect of which the schools were to be repaired.
  MR. DUKEthought that if reference were made to Hansard it would be seen that he merely asked whether notices had been served. He had been told that notices had not been served, and therefore he asked the hon. Member, who was likely to know and was usually well-informed about these matters, whether he knew.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he recollected distinctly the hon. and learned Member saying afterwards that that was not his information. There were very few appeals to the Board of Education. Some of the schools were so bad that a short time ago two had to be closed. But although the managers had not obeyed the law that they should comply with the reasonable requirements of the local education authority, the
  1214
  hon. Baronet, in defiance of his own law, compelled the local education authority to maintain these schools. When the local authority asked about the repairs they were told that their first business was to maintain, and that if they did not the Board would not press the managers to comply with the law. What an extraordinary proposition These schools were insanitary, badly lit, and unhealthy, and the position taken up by the hon. Baronet was that if the teachers were damaged by the withholding of a part of their salaries the Board would retaliate by forcing the children into these insanitary schools. What a position for a great constitutional authority to take up. And how had the Board acted as a Court of Appeal? They sent down one of their own clerks with an inspector to visit these schools; no notice was given to the local education authority; even their surveyor was not informed; but this clerk went round and said, "Oh, you need not take any particular notice of these things; you do so and so, and you will be all right." The next time the local education authority pressed for the carrying, out of their requirements they were told, "An inspector was here the other day with a clerk, who told us that if we did certain things we need take no further notice of you." Was that what a Court of Appeal was supposed to do? What would the hon. and learned Member opposite think of a Court of Appeal which, before the case came on, sent its clerk to one of the litigants without notice to the other side, saying, "If you do certain things we will back you up when the appeal comes on, and judgment will go in your favour?" When the appeal came on the Board backed up their clerk, and upheld the opinion which had been delivered beforehand ex parte. That was a fraud on decent administration. And this was the Department which was telling the county councils in Wales how to administer the law, and threatening them with all sorts of pains and penalties if they did not carry it out.
  But this was not all. The county of Glamorgan afforded another remarkable case. Two years ago the local education authority sent their surveyor to inspect all

  1215
  the schools. A full copy of his report was sent to the managers of the non-provided schools, with a request that they would point out any respects in which they complained of it. In May, 1904, the Board of Education gave a decision considerably modifying the requirements of the local education authority, and in some respects falling below the minimum of their own regulations. The local authority, however, accepted it. Then the Board of Education extended the time within which the managers were to carry out the requirements. That time had expired, but a considerable number of managers had not yet complied with the requirements even as modified by the Board of Education. Being advised that it was contrary to the Act of 1902 to maintain a school of which the managers declined to comply with the reasonable requirements of the local education authority, the county council gave notice that after July 31st, unless the requirements had been complied with, they would cease to maintain the schools. They had no other course open to them, and yet the Board of Education had stepped in and practically told them that if they ceased to maintain the schools they would be put in default. That was not administering the Act of Parliament. It simply meant that all the provisions with regard to structural requirements and repairs were thrown into the measure to secure its passage through the House of Commons, that they were never intended to be carried out, and that the only part of the Act which was meant to be enforced was that providing for the maintenance of these schools. Then in a correspondence the Department had tried to mislead the public by introducing all sorts of matters which had no basis in fact. They said that their decision in May, 1904, was not a hard and fast decision intended to be carried out, but simply a general indication of the lines upon which they thought the managers ought to proceed. Then they began to say that the requirements were unreasonable, that the maintenance of schools could not be refused because a path was not properly gravelled, or because a door opened in one direction instead of another. There were no such cases in the whole of the county, and the writer of the letter knew it perfectly well;
  1216
  they were introduced simply to prejudice the decision of the local education authority, who were face to face with the dilemma that if they carried out Section 7 of the Act of 1902 they would be put into default under the Act of 1904.
  Part of the complaint of the Board of Education against the county councils was that they withheld payments which were overdue. Would it be believed that the Board of Education had adopted exactly the same course with regard to the education authorities? In the case of Merionethshire they had not paid the aid grants yet, although the education authority should have received by this time a substantial installment. Upon what principles did the Secretary to the Board of Education found his complaint when he himself in January last withheld payments from the education authorities.?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I have withheld no payments except in due course of law under the Defaulting Authorities Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the regulation of March 9th, 1904, laid down that the aid grant should be paid in two portions, one installment early in the year at 4s. per head of the average attendance and the balance early in the second half of the financial year. Neither of those two installments had been paid.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that aid grants were paid in advance for the average attendance in schools maintained during the year. The Treasury allowed them to pay that money in advance, but the Board of Education would not be acting fairly if they paid the money where they had reason to believe that the local authority was not going to maintain the schools. The moment the Board of Education got an assurance that the schools would be maintained they would send the money.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Board of Education under the Treasury Minute was supposed to pay this money in two installments. He wished to know if the hon. Baronet could point out a single school in Merionethshire which had not been maintained by the local authority,

  1217
  where the salaries had not been paid, and where all the requirements had not been carried out.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Why do they not say that they are going to do that and then they will get the grant.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was an extraordinary proposition. Those schools were carrying out the law, and the Board refused to pay what was due unless "they gave an assurance that they were going to act as a citizen ought to act.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Has the hon. Member himself not said from time to time that they ought not to carry out this law?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Did the hon. Baronet say that he was not going to pay any money to any county which at any time said it would not carry out the law? If so, why did he pay any money at all to Merionethshire or East Ham. The West Riding of Yorkshire also said they would not carry out the Act, and therefore why should he insist in taking this exceptional course in the case of Merionethshire. He supposed it was because it was a small county, and it was just the size of thing the Government liked to hit. Did the hon. Baronet say that he would pay no money unless the local education authority gave assurances which he had no right to ask from them.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: All money earned will be paid, but we are not obliged to pay, and we ought not to pay, money in advance to authorities which have from time to time refused to carry out the law.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid that Merionethshire was carrying out the law, and the moment it did so payments were withheld. This Act was quite bad enough, but when it was administered hi this spirit it was absolutely intolerable. The Board of Education were bringing pressure to bear upon local authorities to improve their schools. If there were insanitary schools he trusted the authorities would be compelled to put them in order. They did not complain, however, -of pressure of this kind, and the only
  1218
  stipulation they made was that where the Board of Education made requisitions upon the local authorities they should be made upon the merits of the case and not as a punishment. If better ventilation was required it was all right to demand it, but such a demand should not be made purely to punish them because they were making requisitions upon somebody else. If the hon. Baronet only made such requisitions he would get no complaints; in fact, the more requisitions he made of that kind the more expensive and obnoxious would the system become. In Merionethshire the education authority gave the schools two years to comply with their requisitions, but a great many had not yet been complied with. The hon. Baronet made requisitions at the beginning of this year on Merionethshire and he had withheld the grants from schools there because his requisitions had not been complied with. If he considered two years was sufficient in this case why did he extend only three months indulgence to a council school?
  In the case of Merionethshire the hon. Baronet complained that the ventilators were not of the right kind. He might say that those ventilators had been put in with the sanction of the Board of Education three or four years ago, but they had been condemned by the representative of the Board of Education. Later on representations were made as to whether those ventilators would be allowed to be used in other schools; and the Board of Education took two months to consider the matter. A month later they withheld the grants because those ventilators had not been put into the schools, although they had taken two months to consider whether they were the right sort or not. During the last eighteen months £13,000 had been expended upon improving schools in Merionethshire. If that sum were applied to Surrey it would be equivalent to £150,000 spent in improvements and in the enlargement of school accommodation. That sum was equal to £3 per head per child in the council schools, and therefore the charges made by the hon. Baronet could not be brought against Merionethshire. But if those schools were in an insanitary condition whose

  1219
  fault was it? It was entirely the fault of the Board of Education, because the present Government had been administering the Education Acts for the last ten years and they had allowed those schools to get in their present condition.
  Take the case of Denbighshire as an illustration of the way in which the law had been administered by the present Government. In 1894 a school was condemned because of inadequate accommodation, and the Board of Education prepared plans for increasing it. The Conservative Government came in in 1895, and said they could not allow the school board to improve the school. The inspector reported year after year, condemning the school on account of the inadequate accommodation. The school board sent the plans back to the Board of Education, which returned them, and at last they gave the real reason, which was that there was a Church school in the district. They wanted to force the children to attend that school. That was in Denbighshire. That school was reported on by the inspector. They never knew it was reported on until this Act came into operation. When they got hold of the report they found that it had been condemned for years by the inspector, and that the Board of Education did nothing. They declined to allow the school hoard to extend the accommodation of their own school, and they allowed the other school to go on. That was the sort of thing that had gone on. It had gone on for two years under the hon. and learned Baronet. It was only after ten years that the position had become impossible. The children had actually to be taken into the open air and instructed there because there was no room for them in the school. If this was the way the law was administered by the Board of Education, how could they expect the local education authorities in Wales to carry it out? It was their Act of Parliament, and they were bound to administer it fairly and impartially The Board of Education were not there representing the interests of the non-provided schools. They were there to carry out the Act of Parliament, and they ought to do so impartially. The Welsh local education authorities were carrying out the Act against their
  1220
  will. They represented people who bated it and who would take the first opportunity to alter it. The Board of Education having passed this Act should administer it impartially.
  What was the position in Wales at the present time? There was an Act of Parliament which was obnoxious to the vast majority of the people and which deprived them of all interest in the schools Non-conformists formed four-fifths of the population, and most of the spiritual, moral, and social work of the villages was done by them, and yet they were to have only two out of four managers, which practically disfranchised them, and were not allowed to have a single teacher in the schools because they were disqualified by the trust deeds. The bulk of the people who paid the rates out of which the schools were maintained were Nonconformists, and, moreover, these people were those that contributed most largely to the wealth of the district by their labour. It was exceedingly hard, therefore, that these people should not be allowed to take any interest in their schools. Having regard to the peculiar position of Wales, one would have thought that the Government would have shown some consideration for the county councils. An Act of Parliament was imposed upon the people of Wales which was an insult to their faith, and the local education authorities were expected to administer it. Welsh Members were bound to bring these facts before the House, and when the time came they would appeal to the country upon this matter.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon with very great regret and sorrow. There were not many opportunities in that House for discussing education, and it was a pity that the discussion that afternoon should be interrupted by a speech of such sectarian bitterness. The special charges which the hon. Member had brought against the Board of Education would no doubt be replied to in due time by the Secretary of the Department. He would only say that it appeared to him that a great many of the accusations appeared to reply to themselves. He did not

  1221
  know that the hon. Baronet would have an arduous task in replying to the parts of the speech which did not reply to themselves. It was perfectly right and constitutional that the hon. Member should attack the Secretary to the Board of Education, but it was quite unusual, and he thought quite un-Parliamentary, to mention by name the permanent Civil servants of the Crown who were not responsible to the House for their acts. [An Hon. MEMBER: But they are] Their duty was to obey their official chiefs, the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary to the Board of Education. They were not present in that House to defend themselves, and the hon. Baronet was responsible to the House for everything they did and for every letter they sent to a local authority.
  He totally disagreed with the hon. Member for Carnarvon when he said that the effect of the Education Act of 1902 was to diminish local interest in education. The whole of his speech showed what an extraordinary amount of interest there was. In the autumn of last year he had the privilege of taking part in a Welsh education meeting at Shrewsbury. It was attended by men of every creed and every political opinion. The whole question of education was discussed in the most businesslike manner, and there was not a word of religious bitterness brought into the case at all. It was a practical meeting which he dared say had produced a great deal of good to education in Wales. He looked upon speeches such as that to which they had just listened as mere transient phenomena which would very soon pass away. The great principle of the Act of 1902 which made the municipalities of this country responsible for education would never be repealed and would never be altered. No doubt changes would be made in the working of the Act in various particulars, but he believed that the religious difficulty which had arisen in Wales and in a few counties in England would be a transient matter and would not affect the lasting good which the Act would effect.
  He had given notice of a Motion to reduce the Education Vote by £500,000,
  1222
  but he did not intend to move it. He did want to call attention to the enormous and preventable waste of money in connection with the education of a large number of children who were not fit to receive the instruction which was provided. The theory of the Board of Education seemed to be that when they had provided schools, teachers, and apparatus their business was to teach any children who came, that they had no responsibility for the condition in which these children were, and that they had no obligation even to see that they were in a condition to receive instruction. It seemed to him that it would be a wise and reasonable thing for the Board of Education to take some trouble to see what was the condition of a child when it first came to school. In Germany every child when it first came to school was medically examined. The child's condition was recorded—its weight, its chest measurement; and this medical examination was repeated every year, so that in a Prussian school they had the history of a child's physical progress at school from the time of entering until the day it left. He could not help thinking that there were a good many education authorities in this country who held a medical examination of this kind, more or less. He had been very much surprised when the hon. Baronet told the House that a Committee had been directed to inquire into the various systems practised by the different local authorities in that regard, and he would be very much interested to learn what that Committee had found out. He would be very much interested to know how much the local authorities had done to satisfy themselves as to the physical condition of the children.
  He would remind the Committee that in this matter the Board of Education had the most absolute power; in that they could put into the Code the conditions on which the Parliamentary grant was to be paid. Why should not the Board of Education make it a condition of receiving a grant that proper and reasonable attention should be given by the local authorities to the fact whether, when the children came to school, they were in a condition to

  1223
  receive instruction? That was a reasonable condition, because otherwise they spent large sums of money, which the Committee voted, on children who were physically unfit to receive instruction. The Committee should recollect the immense responsibility which rested on the State, on the Board of Education, and on the local authorities on behalf of these children, who were under their daily observation from the time they were five years old till they were fourteen. Medical testimony was unanimous that during that period, if proper care was taken of the children, all the mischief that had been done by malnutrition in early infancy could be retrieved; that if it could be only assured that from five to fourteen years of age the physical condition of the children was adequately cared for, almost all that mischief could be cured. The local education authority and the local sanitary authority had absolute power to ensure that the children were properly treated and cared for during school time; and he was bound to say that the Board of Education had shown an indifference in this matter and that many local authorities had entirely neglected their duty. At Charlottenburg the education authority picked out of the schools all the feeble children during the summer months, put them into an electric tram and carried them into the forest, where there was a special forest school, at which these children were kept during the whole day in the open air. They had play, and meals, and everything which could conduce to the restoration of their physical health. And then they were brought back at night to their own homes. The effect of that was that these children were restored to their families completely cured and well both as regarded their bodies and minds. That could not be done here, because none of the buildings in the forests would answer to the requirements of the Board of Education.
  He wished to call attention to the enormous waste of money caused by epidemics. He was told that a large number of schools were closed on account of epidemics, such as measles and smallpox; and while they were so closed, the salaries of the teachers and
  1224
  the rent of the schools went on, while no teaching of any kind was given. There was no provision made in the schools to detect the beginnings of such an, epidemic. He thought that instructions should be given to the teachers at the beginning of such an epidemic, to report to the medical officer. The cost of epidemics was one of the greatest sources of expense to the ratepayers, and if there were medical inspection that could be prevented, at the outbreak, by the isolation of the children who were observed by the medical officer to be suffering from the first stages of the disease.
  Another point was that a great number of children were totally unfit to receive instruction because they were so overworked out of school hours. In 1899 he told the House of Commons that a great part of the money voted was wasted on that account. Ultimately a joint Home Office and Education Office Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, and that Committee made a most excellent Report and recommended legislation. But would the Committee believe it, in this Metropolis a local inquiry was going on on the same subject promoted by the Home Office? No by-laws had been made upon the subject by the Home Office or the Education Office, though the London County Council Education Committee had recently made by-laws on the subject.
  Another point was that a proper medical examination of the children in school would lead to the stamping out of that dread disease—tuberculosis. All medical authorities were agreed that that was a disease that ought not and need not exist in a civilised community; but the seed-bed of tuberculosis lay in the bodies of these unhappy, ill-nourished children. A proper examination in the schools of children from three to five years of age would discover the symptoms, and the disease could be stamped out. He did not think that the hon. Baronet had laid great stress on the observance of hygienic-laws in the schools. The hon. Baronet had referred to the encouragement given in the syllabus to hygienic education; but if they were to make hygiene effective, it must not be taught in the same way as any other special subject

  1225
  The present object seemed to be to prepare boys and girls to answer questions in examination papers, and there it ended. But what was wanted was to go into the pupils houses. He wanted to teach young mothers, and to establish a system of visiting such as was established in most German cities and under which competent people went and instructed young mothers in their own homes how to bring up their children.
  He had listened with great interest to the statement of the hon. Baronet that local authorities were no longer to be compelled to provide schools for children between three and five years of age. He thought that was a step in the right direction. But he did not think they would be able to get the public generally to give up the right of having their children cared for by the local authorities. And what they would have to do would be, not to abolish infant schools, but to turn them into nurseries where children were not to be taught, but where they were to be amused, cared for, and looked after. They did not want very highly trained teachers who had studied all the 'ologies and taken a very high degree at training colleges for that purpose, but they wanted a motherly person who was fond of children, and who was a good nurse. He was sorry to say that the Board of Education did not really yet realise what a child was. It was true they had some women inspectors, and he believed they had told the Board a good deal about children they did not know before. Those women inspectors, however, were a very small number compared with the schools, and he hoped they were going to be increased, because he always thought women knew a great deal more about little children than men. He did not think that the Board of Education realised that a child of five years old was only a baby. We were quite singular in beginning education at so early an age. In no country but ours did they begin until the child was six and in some cases seven. If they were going to have little children of five years of age at school, they must treat them as babies; they could not treat them in the same way as older children. Yet he found in the Code of this year—a very important and advanced Code, which gave a great promise
  1226
  of further progress on the part of the Board of Education—the following clause—
  "The necessary recreation interval in the case of infants under five years of age must be fifteen minutes in duration and may be extended to half an hour."
  That was very good, and, if he were a teacher, he should certainly make it half an hour. Then they went on to say that in the case of scholars over five years of age the interval must be ten minutes. Therefore, a child of five years of age was treated just like an older child. It had to be in school the whole time the school was going except for ten minutes. He had no hesitation in saying that anybody who knew and watched and studied children would never put such a provision into the Code. Unfortunately, it was in, in being in it must be observed, because the Controller and Auditor-General would disallow grants made for children if it was shown that they had had half an hour's recreation. He hoped inspectors and the authorities would overlook any transgression of that rule. Ten minutes out of a school morning was not enough recreation for a child of five years of age. No artist made his model sit so long as that. An artist's model had ten minutes interval every hour. Surely a child who was kept in one place ought to have not more than twenty-five minutes instruction at a time. In the school at Charlottenburg to which he had referred they had no more than twenty-five minutes instruction at a time. They might have altogether two hours in the course of the day, but not more than twenty-five minutes at one time. He was quite sure, if the Board of Education would consult their inspectors before the next Code was drawn up, they would find this recreation clause would undergo very considerable alteration.
  He thought it would be an excellent thing if provision were made, in all the schools, for the children being washed. It was a small matter, but it was a very important matter, and it was very easily done. It could be done in a very cheap and simple manner. There were some schools in which children were washed, but there were a great many in which they

  1227
  were not washed, and he believed, if such a provision were made by the Board of Education, it would cost very little money, and would not only conduce to the health of the children whilst they were at school, but would give them habits of cleanliness which would be of enormous advantage to their health in after life. Nothing was more disagreeable to the world at large than dirty people, and he was quite sure if this regulation were introduced into the elementary schools we should have a race very much cleaner and, therefore, better and healthier. He hoped he had introduced a totally different atmosphere into the debate than was introduced by the Member for Carnarvon, and he hoped in the rest of their discussion they would remember they were all Christians, and that there were a great number of things which would conduce to the health and welfare of the enormous mass of children whom the Board of Education had to instruct, and upon which they could agree.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he always listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, for he always spoke with knowledge. But the hon. Member had that day complained of the hon. Member for Carnarvon for his arraignment of the Board of Education, and had implied that it would be better on the one occasion which they had in that House to discuss educational questions if they confined themselves to matters upon which they could agree and offered practical suggestions for improving the educational machinery of the country. They all agreed with that. He was Sure all of them would wish to bring all the knowledge and experience that either as legislators or as private citizens they had acquired as regarded the education of the country to the assistance of the Board to make the system complete. But he would ask his right hon. friend who began the sectarian controversy and who introduced the element of antagonism into Wales?
  There were one or two topics on which the Parliamentary Secretary had touched to which he desired to refer. One was raised by the right hon. Gentleman just now. What was being done with regard
  1228
  to the Committee which they were promised at the beginning of the session? Nothing had been said by the Secretary to the Board of Education upon that subject. When was the Committee going to report, and would the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give some effect to its recommendations? It seemed to him that what the right hon. Baronet had said about training colleges was far from satisfactory. There was no part of our educational system more unsatisfactory. In 1837 the intention was that training colleges should be established by the Government. That plan was unfortunately abandoned, and sectarian institutions under a quasi-private management were allowed to grow up and were subsidised by the Government. That had turned out a most unsatisfactory method, whether they looked at it from the religious or the educational side. These men ought to be brought up with other young men who were going to be engaged in other occupations. He believed we gave far too much money to sectarian colleges, and he was of opinion that if the Government had undertaken from the first to establish these colleges it would have been more economical. He thought the right way now would be, as he was glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary was doing, to make them as much as possible day institutions. In 1902 a proposal was made to enable local authorities to establish training colleges, and he gathered from what the Parliamentary Secretary had said that that proposal had been carried out to a very small extent. How could they expect that local authorities would spend large sums of money in the establishment of such colleges? That was always a hopeless dream on the part of the Government, and it was pointed out at the time that the Government could not expect local authorities to spend money in that way. But that was only one aspect of the financial side of the question which did not receive the attention it should have done.
  Our educational expenditure was growing at an enormous rate. The Parliamentary grant this year exceeded £17,000,000, of which £11,000,000 were spent on elementary education in England and Wales. In addition to that,

  1229
  the sum which, this year was to be expended from the rates was roughly estimated at £8,000,000. So that there was £19,000,000 of money, partly Treasury and partly local, spent on elementary education in England and Wales. That was a most stupendous sum, which in his opinion was too large. He would not say it was too large if he was sure that it was all well spent because he believed if it were well spent, it might conduce to the benefit of the country. But he did not think there was anyone interested in education who did believe it was well spent, who did not believe that large economies could be effected, and who did not believe that we were not getting value for our money. There was only one way to see that this money was well spent, and that was the way pointed out by Mr. Robert Lowe many years ago, that there should be some effort made to see what the work was that the grant did. It was too large a subject to go into the details of at the present time, and he merely called attention to it because he thought the time was approaching when they ought to have some real inquiry into the system under which grants were given. A great many grants were given and they ought to be simplified and given on a different system; they ought to be more proportionate to the performance of the schools, and the inspector ought to have some other alternative to that which he at present had, which was, as he believed, that an inspector might either reduce the grant by a shilling a head or else recommend that the school should lose its grant altogether.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Board of Education took a much larger power to reduce the grant. It might fine the school or rather the local authority in respect of an unsatisfactory school.
  MR. BRYCE: Is that on the inspector's report.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Yes.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he was far from being sure that it was a good thing that the inspector should be an autocrat in a matter of this kind, because unless they found men who were really angels those men were apt to make mistakes in their
  1230
  inspections. A full investigation was required on this matter. Whether that investigation should be by Parliamentary Committee or Royal Commission or by some other body he was not prepared to say, but the matter certainly required more consideration than it had had, and the question should soon be approached in a serious spirit.
  One great cause of expense had been referred to by his hon. friend in that part of his speech in which he dwelt on the difficulty arising in the administration of schools from over centralisation. If everything was done from the centre they could not have those small economies which were so effective. Too much power would be given to the permanent officials, especially to the organising secretary, who would believe he had everything to do, and who would oust all the managers in order to do it. His hon. friend had waxed quite eloquent in pointing out how much the managers might do for a child, and how much the interest the local managers took in the welfare of particular children in a school might do for the children of that school; how much a child might be helped on in life, and how great a stimulus might be given to its progress. But those remarks had not been heard for the first time; they were first heard in 1902, in the shape of counsel given to the Government as to what the inevitable result would be if they persisted in introducing their system of areas far too large and so removing the local authority from close contact with the people. Everything that had been said by his hon. friend that day had been said before, by way of prophecy, and it had come true. In 1902 it was pointed out that if the county was made the local education authority it could not know in many cases what was going on in the county; and that the local education authority would be deprived of local knowledge. Now they heard that their time was taken up in dealing with trivial questions which ought to be left to the managers. But that must be so. If the managers were given such small powers they could not take the initiative, and if they were continually obliged to write letters on these trivial matters to the organising secretary they

  1231
  would not get men of the same organising spirit, because they would not get the chance to do what they wished to do. That was one of the real morals of the Act of 1902, and one of the reforms which would have to be introduced when they again dealt with education would be to give the local authority a more local character and so do away with one of the fatal faults of this unfortunate Act.
  Another point in which the Act had fulfilled their predictions was that comparatively little had been done for secondary education. They had been told that the result of the Act would be that elementary and secondary education would be in the same hands, that they would work well together, and that much would be done in the way of secondary and technical instruction. Comparatively little had been done. Far less had been done than the country needed. One of the most pressing needs of the country was secondary as well as technical instruction. That had proceeded with very slow steps, and the Board of Education was not able to do much to stimulate it because the rates were rising and elementary education was absolutely necessary. And while local authorities felt that they were obliged to spend so much on elementary education they were a little chary of dipping into the pockets of the ratepayers for secondary or technical instruction.
  What else had they learned from this Act? A phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister always haunted them The right hon. Gentleman had said so many times that this was a great educational reform that at last he had come to believe it so far as a Gentleman filled with philosophic doubt could believe anything. They were told that in future years this educational reform would take a high place in the achievements of the Government, but as a fact it had placed upon the local authorities a large amount of work the expense of which they were not able to bear. No one who knew London and other large cities would say that the work was better done now than by the old school Boards. As regarded the controversial side, the ink of the Act was hardly dry before the highest prelates of the Church were inviting Nonconformists to meet them
  1232
  in conference to consider how the Act might be amended, so little was finality secured, and thus, ever since, instead of discussing the question from the point of view of the improvement of educational methods, they had been obliged to continue the discussion of sectarian grievances.
  Much had been heard about the difficulties in Wales, and the Committee would expect the hon. Baronet to try to prove that the Board had sailed with an even keel and had not made any requirements upon the educational authorities to carry out the law so far as their duties went without at the same time allowing them to see that the non-provided schools also carried out their obligations. In addition to the troubles in Wales there had been thousands of passive resisters in England, and the movement showed no signs of diminution. Great authorities in England, such as the county council in Yorkshire, were associating themselves with the action of Wales, and declaring that they would go to the extreme limit allowed by the law to restrict the mischievous results of the Act. That was the consequence of passing a law which was unwelcome to the Dissenters of England. The Government were warned as to the area they proposed to introduce, the probable loss of local interest, and the enormous additional expenditure that would be entailed, and all that had happened was the natural result of what was a rare occurrence in England, viz., the passing of a Bill against the obvious will and sentiment of the mass of the people. This was notably the case in Wales. Wales was unlike England in many respects, and in none more than in her passion for education and her willingness to spend money on educational purposes. Thus Wales was just a case in which a wise Government would have felt that it was undesirable to do anything that might check education or place the people in antagonism to the educational machinery. Common-sense men would have either passed a separate Bill for Wales or at any rate exempted Wales from the English measure, and so have saved themselves all the trouble which had now come upon the Government. He did not know that there had ever been a better example

  1233
  of the danger of endeavouring to use a majority against the dormant sentiment of the people.
  The great deficiency in the political character of the Prime Minister was not only that he had a disregard and almost a contempt for facts in the main, but that he seemed to think that when face to face with some strong popular conviction, all that was I necessary was to pour scorn upon that conviction and proceed to treat it as though it were non-existent. What a good time the right hon. Gentleman would have had had he lived in the seventeenth century ! What a valuable counsellor he would have been for Charles I. Strafford would not have been more successful in bringing about civil war than the First Lord of the Treasury. But unhappily all these misfortunes had fallen on the innocent head of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who, he believed, had been the most unwilling agent in pushing through the later portions of the education scheme of the Government, and who would probably be only too glad to deal in a lenient spirit with the Welsh county councils if the Act permitted him to do so. He wished the hon. Baronet well out of the difficulties into which the Government had fallen. All would agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge University that these troubles were only transient and would soon pass away. Welsh Members might take comfort in the fact that they would last no longer than the present Parliament.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON Dublin University): And some portion of the next Parliament.
  Mr. BRYCEsaid they might last for some portion of the next Parliament, but he hoped for no long portion. There was a general agreement that the present Act could not stand, and that one of the first duties of the new Parliament would be to endeavour to bring about that accord between popular sentiment and the law which ought always to exist. No doubt there would be difficulties, but none greater, he hoped, than the
  1234
  common-sense of the people would overcome. In this matter they relied with some confidence on the commonsense of the English people. He believed they desired to have some kind of religious instruction, to do no injustice to anyone's convictions, and to have a share in the management of their own schools. With these simple principles before them, he did not despair of the new Parliament solving this tangled problem. Therefore, he trusted that they might look forward at no distant date to a cessation of the-troubles by which they were now assailed from the sectarian side, and to the devotion of the energies of the House to the bringing of the educational system into full and proper accord with the needs of the country.
  MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)said that in one sense every Act of Parliament dealing with great educational questions must be capable of amendment from time to time, but as regarded the main principles of the Act of 1902, he entirely differed from the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He believed not only that that Act was good and right in its inception as a great educational reform, but, considering many of the novel principles and ideas which were introduced, that it had on the whole worked exceedingly well, and had entirely realised the best hopes of its strongest supporters. He entirely denied that the Act, instead of stimulating, had deadened local interest in education. No Act of recent years had done so much to arouse local interest—in some cases amounting to friction—in educational questions.
  The account given by the hon. Member for Carnarvon of the friction which had arisen in Wales showed that the interest of the Welsh counties in educational questions had been rendered not less, but more, acute by the Act of 1902. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member, he would only say that if he desired to promote harmony in the working of the educational machinery he could not be congratulated on the methods he had adopted. But the speech had an entirely different object. The hon. Member had never disguised the fact that he wished to bring the Act of 1902 to an

  1235
  end, and his speech to-night was perfectly consistent with that attitude. It was not delivered from a desire to promote educational efficiency, but to do what he could to make the Act work as badly as possible, in order that he might obtain increased support in his attack on the educational policy of the Government. He was not blaming the hon. Member, but at all events he should not talk about any desire to promote harmony between local authorities and the Board of Education, as he must know that the speech was designed to produce the maximum amount of friction between the local and the central authorities.
  As to the working of the Act, while he held that the country area was the only possible area for educational efficiency, he agreed that it was always lamentable when the managers did not take any efficient or effective interest in the schools with which they were connected. He agreed that at present local managers were not taking that local interest which under the Act one would have anticipated. He thought the reason—and he knew it was the reason in his county—was that the county council had attempted far too much to centralise its administration. It had attempted to interfere with the coal scuttle and all those minor matters which ought to be left to the managers, with the result that the managers, who probably under other conditions would be the best managers, said that they would not have their time taken up by these petty details being constantly referred to the central authority. Could that be dealt with under the Act? He said it could. He disagreed that there was anything in the Act to prevent the formation of committees. He thought committees ought to be formed in order to decentralise if necessary. If county councils took up a reasonable attitude and left these matters of minor detail and of merely local interest to the local managers, they would have the same local interest as formerly, supplemented by county stimulus, which was of great advantage, at least in agricultural districts, as regarded the pressing forward of the great interests of educational reform. So far from there being any
  1236
  reason why under the Act there should be a lack of local stimulus, he said that if the Act were properly administered it brought that about to a greater extent than could ever have been done under the old conditions.
  Everyone in the House surely disliked sectarian animosity, and especially any political and sectarian animosity in connection with education. The difference between them—and he did not want to make any special charge against hon. Gentlemen opposite—was who promoted that sectarian animosity? Speaking on behalf of the Church of England, he said that they had never taken any steps which could properly be considered to be calculated to promote any sectarian animosity in the matter of elementary and national education. This sectarian difficulty never came to the front in local districts on educational matters; it only came to the front when it was made the substratum of political friction, which ought to be kept outside of education altogether, but which did more than any other topic to interfere with what was the real interest to all, viz., the best treatment of the children of the country. The whole history of the case showed that sectarianism in religious education had been brought forward, and deliberately brought forward, for political purposes outside the real educational question altogether.
  Undoubtedly the great question as regarded education in the future was the financial aspect, and that was very largely emphasised by what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said. He said that about £19,000,000 a year was being spent at the present time for our public elementary education, and that of that £19,000,000 about £8,000,000 came from the rates. If £8,000,000 came from the rates, it meant roughly an average rate of between 9d. and 10d., because a penny on the rate produced rather over £1,800,000. Therefore, they had got, in addition to an enormous expenditure of £11,000,000 from the National Exchequer, no less a sum from the rates than something like9½d. in the £Why was that? He considered it arose from two causes. First, as regarded a large number of educational matters, they had overlapping authority; they had power given

  1237
  for instance, to the inspector of the Board of Education, and they had power given to the inspector of local authority. They might have them making different and even inconsistent requirements as regarded school buildings, and, if they were not to have absolute waste—and he thought there was an enormous amount of waste in our educational organisation—they must make each party duly responsible for particular portions of the educational expenditure. Where the county authority was responsible it ought to have control; and where the Board of Education was responsible it ought to have control. While they had two bodies with overlapping authority they got no sense of responsibility whatever as regarded expenditure for educational purposes in many directions, with the fatal result that at the present time a very large proportion of our educational expenditure was, he believed, being entirely and unfortunately wasted.
  It was not, however, only the way money was spent, but also the way in which money was raised; they had overlapping in the raising of money as well as overlapping in the spending of it, and what they must have sooner or later if they were not to be overwhelmed by expenditure on elementary education was the local rates supplying the local objects, and the central funds supplying those purposes under the control of the central Board. So long as they had money supplied by the central Board and controlled by the local authorities they must have waste, and, in the same way, so long as the localities had to provide expenditure in respect of matters of control by the Board of Education and in respect of which they had no local control they were certain to. have waste, and it really must be essential in some early reform of our educational expenditure to draw out carefully what ought to be provided from the National Exchequer and what ought to be provided locally. It must be separated, and what came from the National Exchequer must be supervised by the Board of Education much more effectually than now, and what was provided locally must be supervised by the local authority, which would have
  1238
  full responsibility for that expenditure. It was a most faulty system, and especially in our educational administration at the present time, to allow the Board of Education to put any kind of expenditure upon the ratepayers, the ratepayers not being liable to the Board or responsible or in touch with the Board. They therefore had one body saying what was to be spent and another body finding the money. He said frankly that he despaired of any reform whatever until the matter was taken in hand and dealt with on principle from top to bottom. They had no guarantee in the future that the-expenditure might not be more oppressive than it had been in the past, and if they made it too oppressive they would create a reaction which would tell very heavily, perhaps for some period of time, against the whole education system of this country. Although they had speeches on general theory and general principle, if these speeches were not to have practical application they were of no use whatever.
  As to training colleges, was it conceivable that they could have any proper system under present conditions? Could they have no proper solution of one of the great questions of education, namely, the proper supply of teachers? Of course it was a national matter, and nothing but a national matter, to provide an efficient body of teachers for our elementary education system trained in proper colleges by the State. Until that was done he did not think it was any good for the representative of the Board of Education in that House to come do, in and give certain figures as to the increase of the training colleges. That was not going to the root of the matter at all. The difficulty was a financial one, and in order that the people should find the money they must convince them that the burden was placed on the right shoulders. Being a national burden the rates ought not to be called upon at all How could they expect one county to provide a college when the teacher trained there might be employed in another county.
  He agreed entirely with what the hon. Baronet said in regard to higher elementary schools. He wished to emphasise it because of its importance in agricultural

  1239
  districts where they could not have a proper system of secondary education. In the poorer rural district it was extremely important that they should provide some system to take the place of the higher elementary schools. There was only one matter which he did not quite appreciate, aid he wished an Answer on the point. Did the hon. Baronet mean that he would find himself in a position to have a greater number of these, schools by reducing them to less efficiency than they were in at the present moment. He said he would alter the character of the schools. He gathered from that that the hon. Baronet meant decreasing their efficiency.
  The only suggestion of economy made by the hon. Gentleman was one in which he entirely concurred. There could not be more wasteful expenditure than the providing of an expensive school system for children who were not capable of profiting by that education owing to their very early age. He entirely concurred in the statement that children between three and five years of age ought not to go to the elementary schools at all. They were spending vast sums of money on the education of children between three and six years of age, and they were making them less efficient than if they had commenced their education at the latter age. How long were they going to allow this to go on? This was not a theoretical matter. How could anyone justify the spending of money in order to cause deterioration in the ultimate condition of the people of this country? That was what was stated on the face of the code. It was not that they did no harm, hut it was that they did a great deal of harm, and did it at a great deal of expense. That was not only wasteful but deleterious, and it ought to be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. Parents, they knew, liked to get rid of the children at an early age, but if that was so let crèches be provided for the children so that that they could have places to play in, and that, when the educational age did arrive, they might be able to take advantage of the system which the nation provided. How long were they to talk theoretically, and yet allow a matter of this kind to be a
  1240
  blot on our education system? In connection with this change the hon. Baronet said there was a saving of £850,000. He should have thought that the saving would have been very much greater. He was entirely against dealing with children at a time when it did more harm than good. He understood that it was by saving on that expenditure that the hon. Baronet thought he might assist the necessitous districts. He did not believe that any substantial benefit would be given to the necessitous districts under the hon. Baronet's scheme. He believed the remedy from that source would be absolutely fallacious with regard to the poorer necessitous districts which were at present so oppressed. As to the working of the Act of 1902; he entirely differed from the views expressed on the Opposition side of the House. He believed the Act was working admirably.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said he found himself in agreement with what was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down in regard to the local financial burden in connection with education. That part of the general statement of the Parliamentary Secretary which had reference to the cost of education was by far the most important part of it. The burden of education at the present time represented a very acute problem, and it was becoming much more acute. Unless they went very carefully indeed the burden was so heavy on localities that they would create a dangerous reaction against education.
  What was the position before the passing of the Act of 1902, in regard to the question of local finance? There was no local rate at all in the case of eight county boroughs, in the case of about a fourth of the municipal boroughs and urban districts, and in about a third of the rural parishes. The mean rate in the places in which there were rates was 12·2d in the £1 in England, and 13·5d. in Wales. The Act had revolutionised all that. All the hitherto non-rated areas now found that they had a rate for education imposed on them for the first time. In the administrative counties the result had been to equalise very largely the local burden for education,

  1241
  because they brought under contribution areas which had never contributed at all in the past. They had equalised so that they had to pay 6d. or 7½d. for an education rate all over the county, whereas before they only paid in a third of the county nothing at all, and in the other two-thirds from a half-penny to 2s. 6d. In the urban areas under the Act of 1902 there had been a uniform increase in the charge for local education. That was acutely true, especially in the rapidly growing areas where there was a large industrial population and a low rateable value. In East Ham the rate immediately prior to the Act of 1902 was 17. 8d. in the £1; it was now 34d; in Edmonton it was 21. 7d. before the Act, now it was 36d.; in Halifax it was, before the Act, 18. 8d., now it was 25d.; in Norwich it was, before the Act, 17. 5d., now it was 25d.+; in Walthamstow it was, before the Act, 22. 3d., now it was 29d.; in West Ham it was, before the Act, 28. 74d. and now it was 35d. The direct effect on these industrial areas was enormously to increase the rate. "What was wanted was a thoroughly scientific inquiry into the incidence of the local burden on account of education. They wanted to ascertain the proper proportion which should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer and by the local ratepayers. What was wanted was that a largely increased proportion of the whole amount of the burden should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer and less by the local authority. They wanted to bear in mind one vital factor in this scientific inquiry as to the cost of the burden of education, and that was as to the relationship between the proceeds from the rateable value and the number of the working class children to be educated.
  Let him give a few examples of the wide diversity which existed at the present time. In the urban district of Beckenham the Id. in the £1 produced per child in average attendance 8s., while in Edmonton it produced only 1s. 6d. per child, and yet the system of giving Exchequer relief in these two areas was absolutely identical. Now, examine the education rate; at Beckenham it amounted to 8½d., and in Edmonton it
  1242
  was 3s. Take East Ham, Id. in the £1 brought in Is. 10d. per child, and in Ealing 7s. 9d. per child. The direct result was that in East Ham the education rate was 2s. 10d. in the £1, and in Ealing 7d. He would take two instances from the provinces. At Bournemouth 1d. in the £1 produced 7s. per child and the rate amounted to 4¾d.; while at Gateshead 1d. in the £1 produced 1s. 7d. per child and the rate was Is. 9d. It was on account of that great diversity that he asked that there should be a scientific, financial inquiry as to the incidence of the burden of the education rate, and the true proportion which ought to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer and the local authority.
  It was true that by way of immediate relief the children under five were to be excluded from the schools if the local authority desired it. He entirely disagreed with that suggestion, although he admitted there was a lot to be said on both sides, especially in relation to the slums of our great cities, unless due provision was made for municipal cr`ches. He contemplated with quite other than equanimity the putting out of these infants into the gutter or the alternative of their being burned to death in their own wretched homes. What he wanted was infant schools for the care of these poor children. If money was to be saved by this process, it should, of course, go to the necessitous areas. That was a difficult problem, no doubt, but it ought to be faced. Take the case of East Ham, which had been brought before the House already, when the Government did give, in some form or other, a pledge to mitigate the enormous amount of the education rate in that borough. There they had got 2,000 children under five years of age; 3,000 between five and seven; and 16,000 over seven years of age. What were they going to do in that case? East Ham would lose 17s. on the 2,000, which was equal to £1,700. But it cost more to educate these infants than the government grant realised. So if they were all turned out the generous estimate of the net gain on that loss, so to speak, would be £400. Then they gained on the children between five and seven years

  1243
  of age at 7s. per child a total amounting to £1,000, and they gained on the l6,000 children over seven years of age £1,600. That was at the very outside. The total gain then would be about £3,000.
  £3,000 a year in East Ham was really 1½d. in the £. The East Ham rate at the present time was 34d., so that the relief the Government was offering East Ham would reduce their rate from 34d. to 32½d. The right hon. Baronet called it a very mild palliative; he should call it something stronger. He wanted to hear what East Ham would say about it, and he hoped his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham, who had taken a lively interest in this, would give them his views. He thought the right hon. Baronet might have excogitated something better than this; they had £80,000 to play with, and they used it indiscriminately. Here was a sum which they were to use for the special purpose of assisting necessitous areas, and they took this little pittance and scattered it right and left everywhere. Why did they want to spend it in a 9d. agricultural area or a 4¾d. urban area when they had got areas where the rates reached 3s.? All the sum ought to be spent exclusively and entirely upon those necessitous areas. He could well understand that East Ham, West Ham, Walthamstow, and Leytonstone would be angry with the Government, especially after the pledges they had received in the matter.
  There was one other matter with which he was bound to deal, and in connection with which he personally had received some little disillusionment. When the Bill of 1902 was before the House he ventured to move, on October 28th, an Amendment that it should not be lawful for any body of managers to make it a condition of appointment in the case of any teacher that the said teacher should undertake to perform or to abstain from performing any duties outside the ordinary school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school. He did not desire that a teacher who consented and wished to play the organ and conduct the choir should not be at liberty to do so, but he desired that it should not be made a condition of his employment. The Committee, he
  1244
  thought he might fairly say, was on October 28th, 1902, entirely with him. The House agreed that his proposition was a fair one, but it was pointed out to him that it was undesirable to put it in the Bill, and he agreed that perhaps that was the right view. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Prime Minister undertook that the matter should be dealt with in the Education Code, and thereafter the following was put in the Code and was there now—
  "The teacher should not be required to perform any duties except such as are connected: with the work of the school or to abstain outside the school hours from any occupations which do not interfere with the due performance of his duties as teacher of a public elementary school."
  He was profoundly disappointed and even disgusted with the serious breach of faith, as he thought, on the part of the Department and the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the non-fulfilment of the pledge set out in the Code that the teacher should be free to take or leave those duties as seemed desirable to him. It was really a breach of faith with the House of Commons. He had called the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a letter from the Rev. James Payton, of Hopton Wafers Church School, Cleobury Mortimer, of February, 9th, 1904. It was to a teacher applying for a post, and the following was an extract from it—
  "Your application is being considered by the managers. In regard to music, may I ask if you know anything of the organ. The present master has played ours, and for that, and looking after the lamps, receives a small annual payment of about £4. This would be open to his successor. Of course this is a private matter and is no condition of the appointment."
  It was all very well to say that, but the applicant would say that, if it was essential and he could not do it, he would not get the post. He had put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary and the following was his Answer—
  "I have seen the contents of the letter to which the hon. Member refers; it is a letter of inquiry addressed by one of six managers to a candidate for a teacher's place, as to whether be can play the organ, and contains some information as to work done by the retiring teacher outside the duties of his post. There is nothing in the letter to suggest that the undertaking of this work was a condition of appointment—indeed, the exact contrary was stated—

  1245
  or that the manager who wrote the letter addressed this inquiry on behalf of his five colleagues."
  The Parliamentary Secretary was too simple for this world, or he would have known that that reply was a distinct encouragement to managers to put those conditions in. That reply was followed immediately by all sorts of other advertisements of a similar kind. He would read one or two examples—
  "East Stoke School, Dorset.—Wanted Head Mistress at Christmas for Church school, one who could play the organ sometimes preferred."
  He would take Oxford next—
  "Stratton, Audley, Bicester, Oxon.—Wanted the Head Teacher, or a member of his family, to undertake the duties of organist in Parish Church on separate terms."
  Let him take Devonshire—
  "Wanted, Headmaster; harmonium, Church, extra. Choral service."
  He would go to North Riding. There there was a gentleman, Mr. Chambers, of Brompton Vicarage, Yorkshire, who wrote—
  "I have to thank you for your application. We should give preference to any candidate both able and willing to give their help on Sunday with a small organ in church, and to teach the choir (mostly the day-school boys) hymns, etc. It is my unpleasant duty to say that we have one or two applicants who seem likely to suit us, and who are both able and willing to take the organ."
  He enclosed a circular and he said it was prepared for candidates for the curacy, and—
  "Will give you an idea whether you will be able to co-operate loyally with me. If you think not, you had much better say so at once. We have no use for a bigot or a Protestant."
  He would take another case from Wiltshire, viz., Stapleford—
  "If applying, please send the following particulars with your application form: Are you a communicant of the Church of England? Musical—able to play any instrument? If appointed, can you assist in the Sunday school? I hold two parishes, and the teachers in each take the Sunday school duties. The locality is healthy. Water supply good."
  This great Act, which he believed would put a stop to all this, had been used in such a way as practically to continue these applications, and he was a little ashamed that the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of his pledges to the House, had not put his foot down more strongly and stated that these things should not be
  1246
  done, and that the school should be struck off the grant list if they were done. The point he was making was that the Department had not done what it ought to have done. He thought they had agreed to pay the teachers for teaching and that if they wished to have their Sundays to themselves the Board of Education could secure that. But the Board did not seem to have done much in that direction. He had been simple enough when the Act was in Committee to trust to the hon. Baronet's promises that these things should be put in the Code, when he should have insisted on having them in the Act itself and not have trusted to the subterranean methods of the Department. He hoped the Committee would insist that the Parliamentary Secretary should assure them that he would be more firm in the future than he had been in the past in insisting on the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and that he would give the teachers the freedom to do what they pleased in their private time.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)said he altogether agreed with the remarks made by previous speakers as to the enormous expense of elementary education. The sum expended had been arrived at, not by policy, nor by foresight, but by a series of accidents. Different changes had been made in the Code with the desire of extending and improving education, and the expenditure had been in favour not of economy but extravagance. While any sum spent on elementary education beyond the amount necessary was really mischievous, secondary education was being starved, and nothing better could be done for education than to transfer a considerable sum from elementary to secondary education. The stipends of the highly qualified gentle men who were now taking part in the instruction in secondary schools were such as to be most injurious to those institutions. These young men who had distinguished themselves at college, and taken high degrees, received a salary quite unequal to their deserts, and their prospects for the future were not such as anyone could desire.
  The right hon. Member had spoken of the Act of 1902 as having broken

  1247
  down owing to the size of the areas. He himself could see no reason whatever why power should not have been given to sub-divide some of the large areas. The area of the West Riding of Yorkshire was no doubt enormous, and the difficulty in dealing with that vast area was increased by the fact that it was not uniform. It was broken territory, and it was interfered with by county boroughs which had powers of their own quite independent of the local authority. But a large area was not necessarily unworkable, because in the adjoining county of Lancashire they had a similar area in which there was no discord; where there was entire union and complete harmony. This arose not from the constitution of the district but from the temper and tone of the population. He concurred with what had been said by several Members who had preceded him as to undue centralisation. He believed that decentralisation was necessary, because the central authority was overburdened with a multiplicity of detail with which it was unable to deal, and, on the other hand, the managers had not that freedom of action which was absolutely necessary for the sake of the schools themselves. Managers on the spot knew much better than people at a distance what were the real needs of a school, and if they had to confine their energies to filling up forms, analysing abstracts, and producing reports, they might case to take that interest in the local school which was essential if that school was to form a valuable educational centre.
  The question of the training of teachers could not remain in its present position. When the time came for dealing with the colleges, regard would have to be had to those in existence; to secularise colleges which had been erected by different religious denominations would be an act of injustice, and would inflict an injury upon the cause, not only of religious education, but of education generally. Any such attempt would lead to bit erness and controversy, and could not fail to be most prejudicial to the cause of education. One difficulty was in connection with the training in day-training colleges. In such colleges as the University of
  1248
  Leeds or of Manchester the student had not only to learn his business as a teacher, but also to pursue the general branches of literature and science taught at the college, thus having double duties to perform. The same difficulty had been experienced abroad. He heartily welcomed the changes in the Code this year with reference to the training of teachers. One of the greatest difficulties in connection with the subject was the wastage of teachers. Teachers were educated at vast expense, and then after a few years they frequently left the profession and took up other careers, which was hardly in accordance with the promises they had given. Another great difficulty was the uncertainty that existed as to the scene of their future activities. Yorkshire or Lancashire could hardly be expected to found magnificent and liberally-equipped institutions when they had no guarantee that the students trained therein would remain in, their respective counties. That was the fatal objection to the system of purely provincial colleges. He believed that the only method of dealing with the problem was by making the training of teachers a national charge and placing the training colleges under national management. The pupil-teacher difficulty, which was intimately connected with the training of teachers, would, he believed, tend to become even more acute in future years, as there was an increasing reluctance on the part of many young men to become pupil-teachers.
  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.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended [27th July].
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 14, line 1, to leave out to the end of schedule (Tralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour Order.)—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question again proposed, 'That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'time' in page 16, line 6, stand part of the Bill."
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  SUPPLY [18TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS IV
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,652,548, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants in Aid."
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL,continuing his speech, said when the Committee adjourned he was dealing with the question of the pupil-teachers. When he read the words "pupil-teachers" in his notes he was reminded of the warm sympathy with which his old friend Mr. Forster regarded these boys and girls, and how he had always looked forward to the time when they would enter on their career under happier circumstances. That time had come, and all felt great satisfaction at the fact that their labour would be less arduous and that their prospects were more hopeful. They had had exactly the same difficulty with regard to the pupil-teachers as that which had occurred in the case of the day-training colleges. They had to
  1250
  carry on, on the one hand, special training, and on the other they had to have regard to the general culture of the teacher, as without technical knowledge he would fail in teaching, and without general information and culture he would fail no less lamentably from a different cause. As regards general culture, the attention of educationists would no doubt from time to time have to be turned to that difficult problem. He was not certain that some of those engaged in training colleges did not exaggerate the importance of technical training.
  Coming to the question of children under the age of five years, he said that historically the addition to the schools for the accommodation of children under five years of age was not voluntary on the part of the localities but forced upon them by successive Governments. This was one of those questions in which the Administration would have done wisely to pay attention to local opinion rather than their own views. In dealing with this question of infants between the ages of three and five years, they were confronted with two facts which could not be ignored. The children were there, and the schools were there, and it would be quite impossible to leave these young creatures on the streets to tike their chance. Whether the institution was called a crèche, a nursery, or a school, these institutions must exist. The children must receive due attention, and expense must be devoted to their welfare. He believed from many visits he had paid to schools that many of these baby rooms were nothing more than nurseries. Upon the last occasion he visited such a department he asked the teacher what they did, and her answer was "we mostly play." That was, he believed, a literally true and accurate account of what took place in these baby rooms. It was important that great attention should be paid to the health of these young creatures, but the Committee must not be oblivious to the fact that these babies had mental faculties which might develop somewhat more rapidly than many believed.
  He congratulated the Government on the simplicity of the new code. All the parents had an interest in the

  1251
  Code adopted in the elementary schools, and such was now the composition of the Code that everybody could understand what it contained, and would know what was going on as regarded the children. The system of endowed schools had undergone a great change in the last few years. The endowed schools were now regarded as part of the great educational system of the country and no longer treated as separate compartments. This was a subject on which the Government must congratulate themselves. By the present action of the Board of Education as regards these schools they were between two forces. On the one hand, they had those who desired technical education and on the other those who confined their attention, perhaps unduly, to the classical side of education. The education of this country ought to embrace both. The mere classical scholar was apt to become a narrow pedant, as was also the mere man of science. What was desired was a combination of both sides.
  He rejoiced in the new rules respecting buildings; they were more elastic than formerly and they were more to the advantage of education. He believed that when they had had regard to the proper amount of cubic space and the sanitary conditions and ventilation generally they had reached the end of their necessities and that when they went beyond that they injured the cause they were desirous of promoting and wasted money.
  He believed that solid progress was being made under the Act, although there were some who did not regard the operation of the Act as he did. But each must be guided by his own experience, and his experience had been a happy one. No doubt there were difficulties and struggles and antagonism, but he believed those difficulties would pass away and that the more interested people were in the progress of education the less inclined they would hi to enter into those quarrels, some of which were so trifling that it was difficult—except to a heated imagination—to recognise their existence. He hoped they would be able to concentrate their whole attention on the education of the people
  1252
  of the country, but he could not see any hope of a solution of the-educational problem if they were to restrict themselves to. a system of secular education. He was perfectly convinced that secular education was odious to the mind of this country, and that peace and harmony would never be secured by such a system. He believed one result of the Act of 1902 had been to create in the country a wider and more intelligent interest in education, and that in years to come the citizens of this country would enter on their various duties with minds much better prepared than those of their predecessors. They would be better acquainted with the noble literature of their own tongue, and would be more familiar than at present with the history of that land of which, they ought to be proud to be citizens. He believed that in the future all difficulties would be removed and this very perplexing problem solved. Of course they could not foretell the future, but he felt sanguine in regard to it; and of this he was perfectly certain, that peace would, never come upon the educational world by the abolition of an Act of Parliament or by the fall of one Government.
  SIR ALFRED THOMAS (Glamorganshire, E.)said that if the hon. Baronet who had just sat down felt any difficulty with regard to the future of the training colleges in reference to religion he would recommend him to take a leaf out of the book of Wales. In Wales they had no difficulty with regard to that question. They had settled it, and settled it in a way that was entirely satisfactory to all. They had been denounced as reckless agitators and as having but one object in life, which was to excite their fellow-countrymen into rebellion. It might be news to some of the supporters of the Government to be told that, speaking for colleagues with whom he was associated, he could say that for the past two years they had been the restraining force that had kept several Welsh counties from open revolt. Also it was but scant justice to say that his hon friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs had done all in his power to find some means to bridge over the gulf that now divided the friends of provided

  1253
  and non-provided schools. In fact, they at one time thought he had succeeded, and he would have done, had the other Bishops and clergy been as wise in their generation as the prelate of St. Asaph. So anxious was the Member for Carnarvon to meet the scruples of Churchmen that he was prepared to go further in that direction than the majority of Free Churchmen desired. Though he himself would not have volunteered to offer the terms presented by his hon. friend, yet he would have had no hesitation in affirming that so wishful were the Nonconformists of Wales to terminate the strife that they would have faithfully and loyally carried out the St. Asaph concordat. But as those terms were rejected by the other Bishops and clergy he was now quite certain that if approached by these gentlemen who refused the concordat to come to terms on the basis of the draft agreement the Free Churchmen of Wales would refuse even to discuss the question. The Church people had lost a golden opportunity, one that would never recur again, and it was only fair to say that the great majority of Nonconformists were not sorry that such was the case. But let it not be forgotten, in all the bitterness that might yet arise, that the friends of sectarian education were given the opportunity of securing a system of religious instruction which was approved by the ablest leader of the Church in Wales, and that they had not the good sense to take advantage of the concession.
  The Government were warned time after time what would be the result of that measure, a piece of legislation enacted in defiance of the expressed disapprobation of the people. He had no hesitation in saying that no measure enacted in face of so much opposition ever received more lenient treatment than the Education Act of 1902. If they wanted proof of that they had it in the statesmanlike letter of Mr. Mansel Franklyn to the Board of Education. That document showed how anxious the county council of Glamorgan were to give managers of non-provided schools ample time to comply with the requirements of sanitary regulations. It also showed the partiality of the Board of Education in encouraging
  1254
  non-provided schools to evade the requirements of the county surveyor. Indeed, if the Board of Education were as anxious to smooth the path of the Act as they had been to pile up obstacles and difficulties, even the Act as it stood might have been workable. Whether it was the wish of the Board that such should be the case it was not for him to say, but if we were to judge by the action of the Board, the last thing they desired was the peaceful and satisfactory administration of the Act in the Welsh counties. They especially desired to draw the attention of English Members to the demeanour of Mr. Mansel Franklyn, for in him they would see how a gentleman in a perfectly independent position, who was neither a Nonconformist nor, he believed, a Liberal in politics, viewed the question. When the history of this great strife was written, his name would be placed among the most highly honoured, as one of the boldest and bravest champions of freedom of conscience. They had been blamed for not advising county councils to put the non-provided schools upon the rates. Had those who advocated such a policy seriously thought what would be the result of such a policy? It would result in making four-fifths of the Welsh people passive resisters. Surely they did not wish the Liberal councillors to stultify themselves and their friends and become self-made revolters? No, it had been their wish and ardent desire if possible to repress and not to incite strife. They again said that it was in the power of the Board of Education to so adjust matters as to make it possible to proceed without coming to a dead-lock. If that were the desire of the Board of Education then they might reckon upon the Welsh Members as their allies. But if they were determined to make the Act as odious and distasteful as possible to the Welsh they would find that Welsh Members would not desert their friends but would be with them in fighting the battle of the people. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,652,448, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Alfred Thomas.)
  LIEUT. COLONEL PRYCE JONES (Montgomery Boroughs)claimed the indulgence of the Committee to reply to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He wished to compliment the hon. Member upon his brilliancy in debate and upon possessing a soft and persuasive voice, and he was only sorry that upon this occasion the hon. Member was not advocating a cause more worthy of his great abilities. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member bad forgotten that at the present moment there was a Government in power which believed in retaliation. Why should the Board of Education, who represented the Government, not exercise full control aver the grants given by the Government? Surely they were entrusted with full powers in regard to the money devoted to educational purposes in all parts of the country. Two-thirds of the money for elementary education came from the National Exchequer, and it was only right that the Board of Education should have full control over that money. Did the hon. Member for Carnarvon believe in using his influence to administer the Act properly? He challenged him on that point.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of course I am in favour of administering the Act properly, but my notion of what is proper may not be the same as that of the hon. and gallant Member.
  LIEUT. - COLONEL PRYCE -JONESsaid that the non-payment of the salaries of the teachers when they were due was a deliberate evasion of the law and a defiance of that House; it was a defiance of the Act of Parliament passed in the year 1902 for the improvement of education all over the country, and yet by adopting the course they had done the Welsh county councils were now breaking and had actually roken their own contracts with the school teachers in order to further some end which he was quite at a loss to understand. In Montgomeryshire the Act had not been administered as it ought to have been. It might interest the Committee to know what had been done in that county. the education authority there consisted)f the whole of the members of the county council, including the aldermen,
  1256
  nine-tenths of whom were gentlemen who voted according to the orders of the Party of which the hon. Member for Carnarvon was the distinguished leader; and besides these there were some twenty co-opted members and most of these also acted under the same orders as the members of the county council; so that the minority were always out-voted and their position was not an enviable one. The minority had loyally abided by the Act, and they had always supported the majority whenever they believed that they were acting in the interests of education, and they had never retaliated in any way. The majority had appointed a number of clerks and sub-clerks to fill the different positions under the education authority, as the fruit of their victory, and it was extremely hard for the minority to find that they had been treated in the way they had been. Some of the most capable educationists in the county were numbered amongst the minority. Only a few weeks ago this authority decided that they would not pay the teachers' salaries although the minority loudly protested against that course being taken.
  The hon. Member for Carnarvon had stated that the Act would come to an end when the present Government gave up office. The same thing was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Agricultural Rating Act, but it had been renewed several times since that prediction was made, and he ventured to say that the Education Act would continue in force even after His Majesty's Government had ceased to exist and had given way to a Government which might be better but would probably be much worse than the present Government. [An HON. MEMBER: That is impossible.] What chance was there of the Education Act being amended in the direction which extreme Nonconformists desired, whatever Government or whatever Party were in power? What chance was there of any Party altering the main principles of the Act of 1902? That Act was passed by the very large majority of 237, and even the Defaulting Act passed subsequently did not cause a single Member of the Front Opposition Bench to speak in opposition

  1257
  to it. The provision made in the Act was the only way in which they could have denominational schools, and, while people insisted upon denominational teaching, such accommodation would have to be provided. As the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) said on the Second Beading of the 1902 Act—
  "If the denominational schools are taken over, denominational teaching must go on."
  How were hon. Members on the opposite side to get over that stile?
  The hon. Member for Carnarvon had complained that the Education Act threw the management of education too much into the hands of officials, but in his own county the Party opposite were themselves to blame for this state of things, because instead of allowing the old voluntary managers to remain as in the past, the friends of hon. Members opposite insisted upon appointing district committees in a small county and appointing clerks at good salaries, thus burdening the ratepayers with unnecessary expense. The charges made by the hon. Member against the administration of the Education Act did not appear to him to be well founded. He did not think that the Nonconformists would be any better off after a settlement of this question by the Party that may be returned at the next election, and he was as anxious as anyone that they should have a compromise now which would meet the views of moderate men of all sides. He only wished that the faddists and extremists on both sides would leave this question to others to settle in an amicable spirit. He was extremely obliged to the Committee for the patient hearing they had given him, and he hoped hon. Members would again show their determination to back up law and order and support the Board of Education in their efforts to act fairly and justly to all schools, whether voluntary schools or Board schools.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)said he had listened to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member opposite with interest, and he welcomed his statement that in his own county
  1258
  and in the Principality generally he would like moderate counsels to prevail on both sides It ought, however, to be remembered that the present great difficulty had not been brought about by hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side, but was due to the fact that they felt very keenly the extra burden and the injustice of the Act of 1902. He sincerely hoped that the moderate friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would find some means of reducing that burden and le seeing that injustice in order to bring about a condition of affairs which would be more conducive to the welfare of education in the Principality.
  The hon. Baronet who introduced this Vote referred to the general work which had been done under the Act of 1902, and, among other things he referred to the increased inspectorate which he had initiated for the purpose of inspecting schools throughout the country. He had made out that there had been a considerable increase in that inspectorate, and they all knew from the figures which had been given that the Education Act of 1902 had been a most expensive piece of legislation. The Act had been brought in mainly for the purpose of saving the voluntary schools, and in carrying out that object a huge burden had been placed upon the ratepayers throughout the Principality and throughout England, and the result had been also to add vastly to the expenses of the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, from that point of view the Act of 1902 stood condemned. That fact alone was sufficient to condemn the Act, and it would require all the ingenuity of the successors of the present Government to keep the expenditure within due limits, and at the same time maintain the efficiency of education. They could not have a better illustration of the increased expenditure which had been brought about than this enormous increase in the inspectorate in addition to the increase in local expenditure upon officials.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I may say that I announced with some satisfaction that it would not be necessary for us to ask for any additional money.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid they had been looking forward, to a reduction of the burdens thrown upon local authorities, and now they had had additional burdens thrown upon them. With regard to the inspection of the schools, where one or two inspectors were considered sufficient in the past under the present system sometimes four inspectors visited the same locality to study the schools, and that must add considerably to the burdens thrown upon the Imperial Exchequer. The hon. Baronet had also referred to female inspectors. That was a very good step, but he did not think it had been carried out to any large extent.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had pointed out that it was essential for the proper administration of the schools, and for other reasons, that there should be some attempt made either locally or Imperially to obtain medical inspection of the scholars. He was afraid that that idea had net been advancing lately under the new Act. Before this Act came into existence there was in various parts of the country a tendency to give medical officers charge of schools for the purpose of inspection, and that was a very salutary step because it aimed at looking after the general well being of the schools and the scholars. In some parts of the country that tendency had been checked under the new Act. He thought, there was not the same tendency to appoint medical officers for schools as there was formerly. He hoped the hon. Baronet would in his official capacity encourage the movement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University rather prophesied too much when he said that by this means they could stamp out tuberculosis; still they might do much to mitigate the spread of that disease by proper medical inspection.
  As to the great question of race deterioration, the only way in which they could find out the true position in which the population stood would be by the study scientifically of the whole of the school population of the United Kingdom. If there were attached to the various schools under that Act a system of inspection by medi-
  1260
  cal officers, a collection of vital statistics would be gradually built up which would show the actual condition of our growing population. If they only took the statistics of recruiting for the Army, they would think that the deterioration was very great, but, on the other hand, scientific bodies which had expressed an opinion on this point said that the evidence was not sufficient to justify many of the alarming statements made as to race deterioration in this country. That question could only be settled satisfactorily by a study of the growing population, and if they had a system similar to that which existed in Prussia and some other countries for the medical inspection of children when they came to school, and once a year during the period of their school life, they would obtain information which would be invaluable for social as well as for scientific purposes, and would once and for all justify or destroy the statements about race deterioration.
  When they came to deal with the greater question as to how they should treat the very poorest of the population who came to school under conditions which rendered them unable to benefit by the instruction provided, medical inspection would enable them to separate those children and see that they were properly fed. The question of feeding children was one of the greatest difficulties they had to face. There were on the one side serious social considerations, and on the other side they had to consider the irreparable mischief which might be done to the growing population. He believed that the only way to solve the question was by systematic medical inspection such as existed on the Continent. He believed scores of men might be obtained for a small honorarium who would be at the call of the headmaster or headmistress for the purpose of reporting on the health of the children. In that way they would save ten times the amount which the inspection would cost by preventing the occurrence of epidemics. What happened now? A child was sent to school in accordance with the compulsion placed on the parent. The child had a little sore throat which was looked upon as a trivial matter and yet it might be the

  1261
  origin of a diphtheritic trouble which might cause the school to be shut up and hundreds of pounds lost to the ratepayers. Careful supervision of children in the early stages of disease would prevent many schools being closed from epidemics and many young persons being lost to the country, and sorrow would be prevented in many a humble home. In various parts of the northern districts of Scotland schools had frequently to close on account of the outbreak of disease. If the Secretary to the Board of Education would give heed to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University he would take a step forward which would be fraught with great good, not only to the educational efficiency of the country, but also to the health and well-being of the scholars.
  He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the syllabus which had been issued dealing with the subject of hygiene. He was glad that his hon. friends the Members for London University and for Rye had assisted in the preparation of the syllabus. The great feature of such a syllabus should be simplicity. Some of the books of this kind dealt far too elaborately with certain controversial subjects. He did not think that classes on hygiene were likely to do all that some expected. He thought that a wise teacher, properly taught himself, could convey in simple language the principles of the laws by which people should live and maintain their health, and could thus render much more efficient service than could be obtained by having a regular system of instruction in classes for young people.
  He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to pause a little before he proceeded too far in excluding the younger children from the schools. He himself did not wish young children taught much under five years of age, but if infant schools were to be done away with they should, in the interest of the poor, find some substitute, in order that the children might be properly disciplined and nourished. Some kind of kindergarten and creche would be an ideal system for the treatment of young children who could not be looked after at home. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman
  1262
  was taking steps in that direction. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would proceed cautiously and not inflict a hardship on poor people who had hitherto availed themselves of the infant schools.
  SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)said that he was not personally enthusiastic on the subject of education in rural districts, and he was delighted and rather surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Aberdeen denounce the extraordinary and frightful expense of education in those districts. The right hon. Gentleman was an expert on the subject, and he was sure that the Committee would take his words to heart. He welcomed the right hon. Gentleman as a robust and most useful recruit, and he regretted that he had not found salvation when the Bill was introduced three years ago, and that he did not vote against it on every occasion, as he had done himself. He thought the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division was right when he said that if the Education Department were not careful of what they were about there would be a reaction. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would go to the eastern counties he would find a considerable reaction already. What they complained of was the extraordinary expense of education to the country. It was £19,000,000, and what had they to show for it? There was something to show for the money which was spent on the Navy and Army, but the only asset they had got in the case of education was the hon. Member for Oxford University, who sat on the Front Bench. That was all very well, but it did not do much good when they came to pay their rates. What they wanted to do in rural districts was to put the whole of the education rate on the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not understand why people in the agricultural districts should pay for education by direct taxation, and he protested with all the force of which he was capable against the ruinous charges which were put upon them simply to carry out the wishes of faddists of fanatics who thought about nothing but education, and who were only too glad if they could make the co t as much as possible. He regretted that he would not be able to support the Amend-

  1263
  ment of his hon. friend. He was sent there to support the Government and he was not going to vote against them. The light hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and his hon. friend below the gangway had, he was bound to say his enthusiastic though somewhat platonic support.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)said there was no man in the House who understood educational matters better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. The right hon. Gentleman had brought a very important question before the Committee. It had been referred to in the House on different occasions during the past year but they had done nothing at all. The problem how to feed the starving children who came to the schools was one which ought to be faced. The Blue-hook contained melancholy reading on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman told him some time ago that such a thing as hungry children going to school in Germany was unknown. It was stated that 10 per cent, of the children attending elementary schools came in a semi-starving condition. It was very difficult to say how the question should be dealt with. He thought it would be necessary to have a regular system of feeding those children. It could be done at a very small cost. He believed it could be done for a penny per meal. He started an experiment in his own parish, and he found that a child could be provided with a wholesome meal for a halfpenny. The children should be medically examined and those who were underfed should be provided with meals. The cost should be levied on the parents in all cases where they were able to pay. It would cost about £1 a year to give one meal to each of those children. No doubt the rates were extremely heavy in many parts of the country, and he was the last man to advocate the throwing away of money, but this was not throwing away money. This was really a necessary expense. Those who had read the Report on physical deterioration must feel the force of what he said. He did not know that a more melancholy Paper had ever been issued to Parliament than that. A large part of the town population was very often utterly underfed. The children
  1264
  received food which they could not digest, and from the earliest age they became feeble rickety creatures unable to earn a living. A great part of the problem of the unemployed and the unemployable arose from that fact. The problem of the slum population would never be solved until they had a compulsory system of continuation schools in this country. The children who now ran wild in the streets should be given a course of technical and industrial education.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)said it was very unfortunate that in the debates on the Estimates it was not possible to concentrate attention on one particular subject and obtain the judgment of the Committee upon it. They had before them most prominently the question of the administration of the Education Act in Wales, but the circumstances were such that they were bound to introduce other topics, and he feared that in the result they would not get a definite decision on any particular question. He was one of those who did not approve of the whole of the work of the Board of Education, but equally he was bound to express his disagreement with the remarks which had fallen from hon. Members opposite with regard to the effect of the Education Act. He ventured to say that the general effect of the measure in England, if not in Wales—and he was in as good a position to judge as hon. Gentlemen opposite—was that it had brought about greater good than he should have dared to hope when it was introduced in 1902. He gave the Board of Education credit for their part of the work which had been accomplished. The teaching staff in the voluntary and the council schools had been increased in number and quality; inadequate apparatus had been thrown aside and modern appliances had been introduced; school buildings had been very materially improved; the health and comfort of the children within the schools, whether council or voluntary schools, had been materially improved; the children were leading better and healthier lives; and the local authorities had been brought into contact with elementary and secondary education in a better way than under the old system. Schemes of scholarships

  1265
  which were utterly impossible under the old school boards had been set forth, the training of teachers had been materially improved, and many young people were going to the secondary schools, and afterwards into the pupil - teachers' centres and training colleges, in a way which was utterly impossible before the Act of 1902.
  He admitted that the Board of Education had not been able to do much except in the way of guidance and direction in regard to the secondary schools. The local authorities had accomplished far more for the secondary schools than many hon. Members would have dared to hope for in the stormy months of 1902. Professor Michael Sadler had rendered valuable assistance by going about advising the great local authorities as to the schemes which they should adopt in their several districts for the coordination of elementary, secondary, and higher education. The must not be impatient. They must not in the contemplation of the difficulties which had arisen, and which had been largely influenced by sectarian prejudice in Wales, give them undue prominence and lose sight of the great good that was being accomplished in the country. He did not regret that the cost of education had increased, but he regretted most emphatically the present division of that cost as between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the local authorities. He was bound to dissent from the view which had been expressed several times that evening that the Education Act of 1902 had accomplished no good and produced much mischief. He was one of those who looked at the Act, not from the point of view of the voluntary schools, or from the standpoint of a political Party, but simply from the point of view of the children of the next generation, and he could say that the Act had done a great deal of good.
  There were one or two phrases in the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education with which he agreed, viz., those in which the hon. Baronet had drawn attention to the fact that in some districts the new educational authorities were attempting to take the details of educational administration into their own
  1266
  hands, and out of those of the local managers. This constant attention to detail resulted in the loss of primary control. He hoped that the education committees would accept the advice of the Secretary to the Board of Education, and delegate more of their powers to local managers. In this way the committees would be able to d vote more attention to working out the larger problems of education, and would obviate the danger of letting the whole control of educational work fall into the hands of permanent officials, than which there could be no greater danger to the cause of education in this country.
  His main object in addressing the Committee was to call attention to one special detail in the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education. Several months ago he had himself endeavored to bring before the House the serious difficulty under which several districts laboured on account of the utter impossibility of carrying out the Education Act in consequence of the heavy burden that fell on the local rates. The statement of the hon. Baronet in regard to this point was, to his mind, not very clear. So far as he understood the hon. Gentleman, the local authorities were now free to exclude children under five years of age from school. It was admitted that both educationally and from the point of view of public health these children were better excluded, yet the Board of Education went on encouraging their attendance by the grants offered. Was that courageous? Was that safeguarding the future of the children? There was a mass of evidence that the health of children under five years of age was impaired by attendance at school, and the medical profession were unanimous in supporting that view. He himself believed that epidemics amongst young children, which were the cause of so much sorrow, would be lessened or prevented if these very young children were excluded from the public schools. In his judgment, infants of tender years should be taught under the care of trained nurses in a creche where their deficiencies and deformities could be recognised and treated. The Board of Education, with its usual lack of courage

  1267
  and disregard of public opinion, went on I paying grants for these children under five years of age. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: And you go on voting for them.] His hon. friend was somewhat too previous, and, as usual, inaccurate. It was unfortunate that this vote could not be taken on that particular issue; otherwise it had been his intention to move a reduction of the Vote as he had done on other occasions without much help from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  As he understood the scheme of the hon. Baronet, these children were to be paid for, but not at the full rate. Was the difference between the lesser grant and the whole grant of 35s. to be devoted to the relief of the heavily-rated districts? A scheme had been worked out which it was calculated would give East Ham the relief of a 1½d. in the £. If the hon. Baronet was prepared to give more, how much would he give? Three pence? He would take the amount as three pence, and that would leave the local authority of East Ham with a rate of 2s. 9d. in the £He was sure that the local authority would not take that petty relief, and he ventured to prophesy that the Board of Education would have more trouble in this matter in the autumn than over the Welsh schools. There was a growing feeling in the country that the present system was manifestly unjust. He insisted that the proposed scheme was unworthy of the Government; and certainly it was utterly insufficient for the district he represented. He wondered that anybody, knowing what the difficulty was, and how heavily these people were burdened, had the courage to stand up and propose such a paltry scheme. The money would be absolutely frittered away over, instead of being ear-marked to assist, the districts where the need was the greatest. If he could have a clear issue on this question he would record his vote against the Government, and he held that if the districts whose opinion he attempted to voice were represented in the House according to population, the Government would not have dared to propose such a scheme.
  MR. EDWARDS (Radnor)said he sympathised with the hon. Member who
  1268
  had just spoken in the bitter feeling that he had towards the scheme of the present Government. The hon. Gentleman, like Mr. Snodgrass, had apparently made up his mind to take his coat off. It seemed rather late in the session to have found out what he ought to have done earlier. There had hardly been a speaker on the Ministerial side who had said a good word for the Government in the matter of education. The only exception was the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs, who was one of his own countrymen. He, however, had not had time to be labour the Government because he spent the whole of his speech in belabouring the hon. Member for Carnarvon. In doing that he had quoted a speech by the right hon. Member for East Fife who asked—
  "What are we going to do?"
  We have only one remedy in this matter. After all, it is a very simple remedy. It is that if you want to give children sectarian religious instruction you should do it at your own charge. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education, in May last asked how it was possible to have two standards for good repair—one for voluntary schools and one for council schools. To suggest that there was a double standard in Wales was an unjust imputation. The same accusation had been made in his own county. At one of the meetings of the education committee a member said it was reported that a great difference was made by the committee between provided and non-provided schools, and the same sort of statement was used by an hon. and learned Member opposite. His friend said that statement was perfectly untrue as regarded the county he lived in. Of course, his friend was a Radical and Nonconformist, and many people might suppose that his information was rather biassed. But he appealed to the chairman of the building committee, who was a Churchman and Tory, and he confirmed his friend's statement and said it was quite true that they were treating the non-provided schools and the provided schools on their own merits. There was therefore no foundation for the charge of a double standard. He dared say the managers of some of the voluntary schools had found themselves in difficulties, but he thought they had produced

  1269
  their difficulties by their extravagance in spending money which was not their own. In his own county there was a very great increase in expenditure after the appointed day in the first year under the Act. For example, in the matter of books and stationery two years before the appointed day the average expenditure was £427. After the appointed day it rose to £585, an increase of £158. For fuel, lighting, and cleaning the average before the appointed day was £498. That rose to £575 the first year after the appointed day. If the schools were as efficient as they were said to have been before the appointed day, it seemed to him to have been gross extravagance to have increased the expenditure in that way.
  The Board of Education were very hard on the Welsh county councils and charged them with law-breaking. In Wales they found the clerical party also charging the Welsh county councils with law-breaking. He desired to speak with respect of the leaders of his Church, but was it wise for them to bring this charge against the Welsh county councils, and to denounce an opposition which was based on conscience? At that very time a Royal Commission was sitting, which had a mass of startling evidence before it of law-breaking on the part of the clergy who, in matters of ritual and doctrine, were breaking—conscientiously, no doubt—but still breaking their legal oaths and solemn pledges. The Nonconformists of Wales were breaking no oaths. The only thing that they avowed was that education which was paid for by the people of the country should be under their control.
  With regard to the charge of lawlessness one of the Welsh Bishops, the Bishop of St. David's, had set the seal of his approval on the Welsh Nonconformist policy. The Bishop, on the 30th May, demonstrated that the county of Merioneth, by using the aid grant under Section 10 of the Act of 1902 mainly for non-provided schools, would have been able to maintain all these schools without taking a penny from the rates. The Bishop regarded this manipulation of the aid grant as the "dignified course which would have
  1270
  been worthy of the county's honourable religious record." These were his words about a country which he and his friends denounced as law-breaking when it suited their convenience. The Bishop, so far from questioning the justice of the Nonconformist contention, showed them a more excellent way of carrying out their policy, and after that Episcopal sanction they could no longer be charged with law-breaking. But the Welsh county councils were more scrupulously legal than their opponents in refusing to use the aid grant which was calculated on the average attendance in all schools entirely for one class of schools. The balance of the aid grant which came out of the Imperial Exchequer was, he believed, handed over to the Diocesan Associations. He was told that these Diocesan Association had used that balance for the repair of voluntary schools. What he wanted to point out was that a conscience which saw in the aid grant at one time a means for repairing non-provided schools and at another time a method of carrying on the Welsh policy, whatever else it might be, was certainly not inelastic. The Welsh people were the most law-abiding people in the United Kingdom, and their consciences were sensitive to anything like outrage. In Wales it was a matter of conscience, and he would ask whether English Churchmen were wise in needlessly offending their Welsh brethren, when at no distant date, as they all believed, the Act must and would be amended. Meanwhile, what was happening? The officials at Whitehall, instead of establishing and setting in order a great system of national education, were spending their time in answering architectural conundrums, and in voluminous correspondence about paltry quibbles and straw-splittings. It reminded one of the earlier days of Rugby football when they saw two sides hacking each other fiercely while the ball lay at a distance neglected by both. Was it too late to plead for wiser counsels in the matter of the administration of the Act in Wales? If the controversy went on, probably neither side would get what it wanted. Was there not yet time for the leaders of both sides, by mutual consession, to put an end to the strife? Wales was unanimous and resolute, and it

  1271
  felt acutely and expressed with vigour the growing feeling of all classes of the community about the injustice of the Education Act of 1902.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford)said that, representing as he did East Ham, he must express regret at the meagre relief which was to be offered to the distressed districts. He remembered well the words used by the Prime Minister as to the extravagance of East Ham in the administration of the Act, and he was fortunate to prove that East Ham was not extravagant, but compared favourably in the matter of economy with any other district, the cost per head being £3 7s. 5d. as compared with £4 1s. 6d. for London. The proposal of the Secretary to the Board of Education to give relief all round was not in conformity with the promise held out to the East Ham Council when it rescinded its resolution. He did not say that a pledge was given to East Ham that the distressed districts should be relieved, but he did say that they were under an impression that relief would be afforded them, and in consequence of that they rescinded their resolution. He would, if he might, point out the great interest and anxiety which existed in East Ham with regard to the matter. It was a supporter of the Government who moved that the council should not administer the Education Act; and on the day in which the resolution of the council was rescinded, he had a long talk with Mr. Effingham begging him to rescind the resolution in order that the hands of the Government might be unfettered. That gentleman took his advice, and the excitement under which he laboured was so great that he died within half-an-hour of having rescinded the resolution. He thought he was doing something which would unfetter the hands of the Government, and which would enable relief to be afforded to that distressed district.
  What was the relief? He gathered that instead of 22s. per head, the annual grant, they were to get 24s., 2s. more, and that children from three to five years of age need not attend the elementary schools. That was no relief at all, and the proposal of the Government at this
  1272
  late period of the session would produce throughout the country the deepest disappointment, because they had hoped that the money which they would now save and which would not go to the education of children between three to five years of age would have been allocated, not to districts which were well off and which had only to pay 4d., 5d., or 6d. in rates for educational purposes, but to districts which had to pay, as East Ham would have to pay next year, 3s. to the educational rate, in spite of the relief which had been promised. It would cause the bitterest resentment, and would no doubt be the means of united action on the part of distressed districts in order to see what they could do to force the hands of the Government.
  What was it that East Ham and other districts required? They said they did not educate the children for East Ham alone. The burden was cast upon them of educating the children to a certain extent for the whole of the county. Whether they dwelt eventually in London or East Ham they were bound to give them an efficient education, and was it fair for the Government to give money at its disposal to rich towns and boroughs which had voluntary schools, which did not require the dole, and which could do without it thoroughly well, and not give relief to them? Relief was promised in the Act of 1902; it was promised that the relief given to distressed districts would be greater than under the act of 1897. Nothing of the kind had taken place. East Ham, as he could conclusively prove, received less. It only received 10s. 3d. per head now, whereas under the workings of the old Act it received 10s. 6d. per head. Consequently, it was in a worse position than before; it felt that the pledges given to it as a distressed district had not been fulfilled, and that in the hopes raised when the deputation waited upon the Prime Minister they had been disappointed. East Ham in the last few years had grown from 20,000 to 120,000 in population, and they must now look forward, although they had a general rate of 9s. 6d. in the £to that rate being increased, not only owing to the increase of population, but also on account of the burden

  1273
  cast upon them in the administration of the Education Act. The position of East Ham would become more and more intolerable. When other districts found themselves in the same position, he did not know what their action would be. He remembered that when the i council decided to rescind their resolution, they said that they would again decline to administer the Act; and they would do all they possibly could to show how impossible it was for them to tear the enormous burden which would be cast upon them in the future. He thought the opinion was shared by all that the burden of education should not rest upon the district alone, but that it should be borne by the State with a certain contribution from the local authority. He appreciated what the hon. Member for Camberwell had said with regard to the need for a better administration of moneys, and with regard to the equalisation of the State contribution and the local burden. The Government should make good the deficiencies which the local authorities were unable to bear, and until that was done there would be no satisfaction, and the Education Act of 1902 would be a farce.
  MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)said there was a good deal of sympathy on their side of the House with the hon. Member who had just spoken and with the hon. Member for West Ham in their disappointment that the Government had not fulfilled the pledge given early in the year, but their sympathy was tempered with the feeling that it was rather late in the day for anyone to be deceived by the promises of the Government. He intended to vote with the Welsh Members, and he desired to express the feeling of continued amazement which filled him when he contemplated the educational position in Wales. After all, the people in England could hardly claim to be regarded as great lovers of education, but if there was one part of the United Kingdom where they really cared for education, it was Wales. The Welsh people had shown it by the sacrifices they had made and were prepared to make for it. Yet they found themselves in a position of declaring war upon that part of the
  1274
  United Kingdom. He sometimes thought the action of the Department must be based upon ignorance, and that the mistakes made in dealing with Wales arose from supposing Wales to be the same as England. Surely a wise Education Minister would have delighted to honour Wales, and so have administered the Act as to deal with a people who loved education in a gentle way, encouraging them in the good course they had hitherto pursued. Instead of that, however, the Government had declared war upon the very people who had cared for education. They had passed through the House, by means of the closure, a Coercion Act for the Welsh authorities, who, after all, were carrying out the will of the people who elected them; and they were trying to compel the Welsh people to accept a system which did violence to their consciences. It was a foolish attempt and was doomed to failure.
  He could not say that the speech of the Minister of Education that afternoon was pitched in a very triumphant key. It was very largely an admission of the criticisms made upon t e Education Bill when it passed through the House in 1902. Member after Member had pointed to the danger, admitted that day by the Minister, of increasing centralisation, and the displacement of all local management and interest in the carrying on of the schools. He could endorse that from his personal experience as a manager. Authorities were taking more and more into their hands and were depriving managers of practically all functions in connection with the schools, and he thought the right hon. Baronet would have to do something more than implore the education authorities not to destroy local interest, and would have to compel them to leave more to local initiative and management if he wished to prevent the whole educational system from passing into the hands of the officials of those authorities. Centralisation at the present moment went down to the smallest detail, and managers were discouraged from taking any practical interest in the schools. He was not surprised that the managers were not trusted and that local interest was

  1275
  dying out, because the parents of the districts were not allowed to choose the managers. When the school board in a town in his constituency was dispossessed, the chairman and the leading members of the board were ignored, and two people who at the last election had been rejected were placed at the head of the managers. That was the way to kill education in the country. Nothing made up for local interest: no machinery, no equipment, no expenditure would secure an efficient system unless the parents cared about education and were in a position to give effect to their interest in the schools. The Act of 1902 was killing the interest of the localities', and they were not getting full return for their vast expenditure upon education. Unless steps were taken to revive the interest of the localities, there would be mere and more to criticise and complain of in the working of the Education Act.
  He wished to thank the Minister for his promise that lessons in hygiene and temperance would in future be included in the curriculum of the schools. As an old temperance worker, he would like to congratulate the temperance societies on the work which they had done and which had at last been crowned by the acceptance of their teaching by the Government. The history of the movement was one of extreme interest. The unlearned had taught the learned, and scientific men were taking lessons from men who had no science other than the experience of life. The doctors of to-day were learning the lesson pretty thoroughly. Last year a remarkable petition, signed by nearly 15,000 doctors practising in the United Kingdom, was presented by a deputation, headed by Sir William Broadbent, to Lord Londonderry, asking the Education Department to establish hygiene and temperance teaching in the schools. Lord Londonderry replied that he could do nothing until the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee had been issued. That Report was a justification, if any were needed, of the statements made by the doctors in their petition, and endorsed their recommendation that all the children in the schools
  1276
  should be trained in hygiene and temperance. The right hon. Baronet talked about exaggeration in some of the syllabuses drawn up in this connection, but he would ask Members not to rule out any statements as extravagant merely because they went beyond their own experience. In this matter the strongest statements had been made by men who knew most about it. He had been engaged in temperance work for twenty years, and his statements on the matter grew stronger year by year the more he knew about the subject. He was therefore not surprised to find that the Committee on Physical Deterioration used strong language, and declared that it was convinced that the consumption of alcoholic stimulants was a most potent and deadly agent of physical deterioration. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet would call that exaggeration. It was certainly strong enough to satisfy even himself, and he was thankful the Minister was willing to act upon it and introduce this teaching. But they had not seen the syllabus, and he felt some uneasiness lest in his desire to avoid exaggeration the hon. Baronet should have minimised the truth. What they wanted was a course of teaching in hygiene and temperance which would exactly state the present position of the scientific world upon the quest on. He did not understand why the right hon. Baronet had not consulted the representative committee of doctors which waited upon Lord Londonderry. He regretted that he had not taken counsel With that powerful body, which would, he felt sure, have supplied the Board of Education with a course of teaching which would have been safeguarded from exaggeration by the eminent scientific attainments of the men composing it, and which would have embodied neither more nor less than the truth upon this vital question.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)said that as a Member for an agricultural constituency, he should like to be allowed to voice the complaint the agricultural districts had. He did not speak as an enemy of education at all, for he had always done his best to assist the Board of Education, and he supported the

  1277
  Education Act and still had no doubt that their expectations in regard to it would be fulfilled; but he spoke on behalf of farmers unable to understand fine points of education, and he thought he might be able to show that, although they were good friends of education, they did labour under considerable difficulties. Farmers did not and could not understand the extraordinary benefits that would result to them in the long run from education. He had hoped that the present Act would have overcome those difficulties to a certain extent, but the education was no better than it was, and the charge had been very heavily increased. Whatever the result might be in the long run, there was no doubt whatever that at the present time the education rates under which farmers laboured were very heavy and difficult to bear. The hon. Member for Camber-well, with whom he always wished to find all the fault he could, had an unfortunate knack of putting into his speeches something with which he was bound to agree, and the hon. Member had admirably voiced the hope, which he also entertained, that the Government would inquire into the incidence of taxation as between the local and the Imperial contributions. He would not, like his hon. friend behind him, boldly demand that the whole of the burden should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, but he certainly thought that some proportion, to be determined after proper inquiry, should be so borne, leaving the balance to be provided by the locality as a guarantee that the money would not be wasted. He did not believe that sectarian feeling would ever be eliminated. The main point he desired to press upon the Government was that in the country districts they were suffering under a burden which, while not impossible, was very difficult for them to bear, and that people whom they had persuaded of its value were being made to dislike education by reason of the heavy pecuniary sacrifice they were called upon to make.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had dealt with several points, some of which hardly concerned the Board of Education at all. The spread of infectious disease and the
  1278
  employment of children out of school hours concerned rather the Local Government Board and the Home Office than the Board of Education, but in respect of managers looking after the homes of school children, he had always advocated that as the real remedy for some of the evils of which complaint was made. He fully agreed that to the personal influence of the managers on the homes of the children we might look for an amelioration of the condition of the children. As to the feeding and medical inspection of children, he hoped soon that the Committee which had been appointed would make its Report. He believed it would appear that there was more voluntary effort available for the purpose of feeding children than had been supposed; that individuals and small bodies of persons, as well as the known and recognised societies, had provided meals for children without any attempt at organisation; and that if all these resources were brought we together should go a long way to meet the difficulty. As to medical inspection, there was a great deal already going on in the boroughs, though not in the counties. Many of the new local education authorities had medical officers of their own, being sanitary as well as education authorities. They did not appoint medical officers, as the school boards did, for special education purposes, but they used to some extent the officer who belonged to them as sanitary authority for the purposes of the schools. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he entirely agreed with him that this question of medical inspection was of the utmost importance, and that he hoped for good results from the Report of this Committee. So far as he had anything to do with the matter, he would do his best to promote the medical inspection of children in the schools.
  The right hon. Member for Aberdeen had addressed the Committee somewhat as though he were speaking on the Second Reading of a Bill amending the Education Act of 1902. He commented on the shortcomings of the Act, and on the various ways in which it might be bettered, but in one matter he did injustice to the Act as it stood. He said that the managers of the schools had no power, could have no power, and could receive no power

  1279
  such as the managers formerly possessed from the local education authorities. If he looked at the schedule of the Act he would see that the managers could have just as much authority as the local authority chose to give them. They could constitute sub committees consisting wholly or in part of their own members to deal with any matter that the local education authority chose to entrust to them, so that there would be no difficulty in constituting sub-committees for elementary education throughout an area and entrusting managers with extensive powers which would make them fully capable of attending to the details of the affairs of the elementary schools. As regarded the effect of the Act on secondary schools and the action of local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman complained of it as likely to be of no effect. All he could say was that the number of secondary schools had been trebled in the last three years, and the right hon. Gentleman would have to go back a number of years under the law as it stood before the Act of 1902 to find anything like such an increase. With reference to the fear that by reducing the grant the Board would reduce the efficiency of the higher elementary schools, he might say that the had reduced the grant because they had reduced the excessive requirements which made the schools so expensive that no local authority chose to bring them into existence. They could combine the extension of the teaching in the schools with the technical instruction suited for the requirements of the area at a less cost than was involved by the maintenance of higher elementary schools under the rules of 1900. They had not sacrificed efficiency in any way, although they had been able to reduce the grant.
  Some hon. Members had been very severe as to the proposals he had nude in regard t o the use of the money which might be saved by the Exclusion of children under five. He had never suggested that he was offering a remedy for rating inequalities. Those could only be dealt with by a serious effort to alter rating burdens or rateable areas. What he did offer was the employment of money which would
  1280
  be saved by the exclusion of children under five so that no area would lose, and that some areas would substantially gain. The hon. Member for Camberwell and the hon. Member for West Ham seemed to him unduly to minimise the substantial reduction in the burden upon East Ham which would result from this exclusion. They seemed to forget that every child under five was stated by the hon. Member for West Ham to cost the local authority £1 over aid above the Parliamentary grant, and that for every child between five and seven and a-half the increase of grant was 7s., and above that age 2s., which meant a substantial addition to the resources of the area. In addition to that, the provision of school accommodation in areas with growing populations was materially effected, and their liabilities considerably diminished by the exclusion of children under five years of age. It was not entirely a settled question whether children of five were better inside or outside of school, though his own inclination was towards the view that they were tatter outside. To say that the Board of Education had shown a want of courage in leaving it to the local education authorities to determine what. was best for their respective areas was an unfair criticism on the Board, and showed some little want of confidence in the local authorities. He believed the division of the grant was a fair division. His critics forgot that if the money saved by withdrawing grants for children under five had been exclusively devoted to the necessitous areas, these rural counties which had nothing to gain by his exclusion of these children and much to lose by the withdrawal of the grant, would have suffered heavily. At any rate the Department had done the best it could with the money at its disposal, not for the relief of rating inequalities, but for educational purposes.
  He deeply regretted that the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should have introduced in terms of reproach the names of permanent officers unable to defend themselves?. Such action was unusual and uncalled for, and he believed it would be deprecated by most Members of the House. For every word spoken, every letter written,

  1281
  and every act done by those gentlemen he personally was responsible, and he was glad of the opportunity of paying a just tribute to the eminent merits of the officials concerned with whom he was proud to act in the work of his Department. The hon. Member also thought fit to say that he had made a series of deliberately false statements.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must correct that. If I said that the hon. Member made a deliberately false statement the Chairman would certainly have called upon me. to withdraw. I distinctly said that I did not charge the hon. Member with making deliberately false statements. "What I said was that he repeated statements that were false, which is a very different thing.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he understood the hon. Member to use the word "deliberate," but he gladly accepted his assurance that that was not so. With regard to Denbighshire, although he had made a blunder in the mode of expression, as he admitted to the Denbighshire County Council, in substance and spirit what he said was strictly true. In March the county council wrote to all the voluntary schools requiring them to carry out the improvements demanded by the inspector by April 1st. In February and March the Board of Education wrote to the county council asking them to carry out certain improvements and repairs in the council schools, but they were met time after time with the statement that these matters must be referred to the county surveyor, who would not enter upon his duties until the beginning of April. He submitted, therefore, that he was right in saying that different standards were established for the council and for the voluntary schools. He was glad to say the county council withdrew those demands upon the voluntary schools and gave them a reasonable time to carry out the improvements required.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)asked whether the hon. Baronet was aware of the time that elapsed between the service of the first notice with regard to the reports and the 1st of March to which he referred.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas understood to say that the voluntary schools received no formal notice of the requirements before March 1st.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS:That is not accurate.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON,passing to the Pontypridd School, said the facts were these. In 1904 the county council wrote to the Board saying the school was insanitary and unfit for the use and occupation of children. The Board agreed, and the school was transferred to the council. Immediately afterwards the council asked to be allowed to utilise the buildings for eighteen months while another school was built. The Board stated that they could only allow it ii the alterations in the offices were made which the county council themselves had demanded from the voluntary school managers. He believed that within a reasonable time those alterations were carried out, but his point was that whereas the county council had said that the school was unfit for the occupation of children while it was a voluntary school, immediately it became a council school they asked to be allowed to us it without any alterations whatever.
  Mr. LLOYD - GEORGE: Only while they were building a new one.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: But they had already said it was unfit for the use and occupation of children.
  SIR ALFRED THOMASasked whether they did not make certain alterations before they used it.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that, as to the Carnarvonshire schools, he thought the hon. Member for Carnarvon must know very well that there were a great many in serious need of repair, but the Board of Education had the greatest difficulty not merely in getting the repairs done but in getting an answer from the local authorities as to when they would be begun. And when loans were talked of, he thought the hon Member ought to know that, so far as he could learn from the Local Government Board, the only two loans authorised were one

  1283
  for a school at Llandudno of £4,000 and one of £600 for general repairs, and that really was a very small proportion of the £30,000 which the hon. Member said, in so magnificent a way, was the amount which the local authorities were prepared to spend in the repair of their schools.
  The hon. Member said they had provoked a conflict. But who started the conflict? Who started the "No Rate" resolution? Who started what was popularly known as "the Lloyd-George" policy? He did not think the Board of Education could be said to have embarked upon a conflict in Wales when the hon. Member for Carnarvon had gone about the county addressing public meetings and urging the local authorities to set at nought the Act of 1902. The Board were asked "Why make this a period of conflict?" His reply was that they could not allow it to be made a period of oppression; they
  could not allow the teachers to have their salaries dealt with as was the case in the county of Montgomery, where money which teachers had earned during the quarter preceding the holidays was withheld, and where not merely inconvenience, but actual distress was caused by the action of the local authority; or managers to be oppressed by the nonpayment of money due to them for the maintenance of the schools. Sorry as they were to continue the conflict which was begun by the hon. Gentleman, the Board of Education must see to the observance of the law, and they must take care that no injustice or hardship was done either to the managers, teachers, or children in the voluntary schools.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 220; Noes, 250. (Division List No. 319.)

  AYES.

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hardie,J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Allen, Charles P.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Harwood, George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Doogan, P. C.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Benn, John Williams

  Dunn, Sir William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Black, Alexander William

  Edwards, Frank

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boland, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brigg, John

  Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrew's Bghs

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Burns, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Burt, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Buxton, N,E.(YorkN.R.Whitby

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Field, William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cawley, Frederick

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lambert, George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gilhooly, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Langley, Batty

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Grant, Corie

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Crean, Eugene

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Cromer, William Randal

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Crombie, John William

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Levy, Maurice

  Crooks, William

  Hammond, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cullinan, J.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Lloyd-George, David

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Mara, James

  Spencer, RtHnCR(Northants)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Shee, James John

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Parrott, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  M'Kean, John

  Perks, Robert William

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tillett, Louis John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Price, Robert John

  Tomkinson, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Toulmin, George

  Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Moss, Samuel

  Reddy, M.

  Wallace, Robert

  Moulton, Johu Fletcher

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Muldoon, John

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Murnaghan, George

  Richards, Thomas

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Murphy, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Norman, Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whiteehapel)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. Isle of Wight

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Young, Samuel

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Yoxall James Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehy, David

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR, THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Slack, John Bamford

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dixon-Hartland- Sir F. Dixon

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Bull, William James

  Dorington Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Butcher, John George

  Doughty Sir George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Campbell, J. H. M(Dublin Univ.

  Douglas,Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O

  Carlile, William Walter

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH.

  Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A(Worc.

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edwd.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. JSir(Manc'r

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Chapman, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn GeraldW(Leeds

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Finlay, Rt. HnSir RB(Inv'rn'ss

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fison, Frederick William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael H.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Forster, Henry William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Bigwood, James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bill, Charles

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Gardner Ernest

  Bingham, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Garfit William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'm'ts)

  Brassey, Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn Sir Joseph C.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  1286

  1287

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gretton, John

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Halsey, Rt.Hn. Thomas F.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hamilton, Marq. of L'nd'nderry

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col.Ed. J.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, Rt HnSirHE(Wigt'n)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Maxwell.W J H(Dumfriesshire)

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Smith, Abel H(Hertford, East)

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith. HC (North'mbTydeside

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Spear, John Ward

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hoult, Joseph

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stroyan, John

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Talbot, Rt. HnJ G. Oxf'd Univ.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Tuff, Charles

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Peel Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Turnour, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Percy Earl

  Vincent, Col. SirC. EH(Sheffield.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn Col. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Kerr, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lawson. Hn. H.L.W.(Mile End)

  Randles, John S.

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

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

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lockwood, Lieut, Col. A. R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Renwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alerander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

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

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  SECOND READING
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said that the extraordinary disadvantage of continuing business at this hour (12·15) was that a large majority of the Members of the House were not in a fit frame of mind to carry on discussion. It might easily happen that important Bills would slip through, not because they were innocuous, but because the titles could not be

  1289
  heard when read by the clerk. He had not heard the title when it was first read and he thought it desirable that the senior clerk should endeavour to develop more distinct enunciation of the various important proposals that came before the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Bill before the House.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he was endeavouring to explain, but for the hubbub of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this was an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter]. Hon. Gentleman opposite would have cheered much more heartily if it had been an Expiring Government Continuance Bill, and they would have come down with a much bigger majority to vote for the Second Reading. He objected to this Bill on principle and on its details. It embodied one of the very worst principles connected with the legislation of this country. It took up certain Acts, and certain clauses of other Acts. It did not differentiate as to how far an Act was good or bad, or as to whether it was required or not They were merely scheduled—whether it were an Act to prevent Irishmen from carrying arms in their own country, or to encourage jury-packing in Ireland; or a Bill to provide for the continuance of the Government of the day. The viciousness of a Bill of this kind was that it lumped together a number of Bills connected with principles which were vital, and it was carried without, discussion. Of course, in a Bill of this kind one was deprived, from the very nature of the case, from going into the schedules. Why should Parliament meet year after year, and session after session, and adopt a hotch-potch system like this? It was an inartistic system. It simply enabled the Government to drag on its existence from month to month, and when they did not know what they were going to do to reform these old laws, they put them into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. [MINISTERIAL ironical cheers.] He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they did not know the first principles of the British Constitution. They had come there that night for another purpose than to discuss the Expiring Laws Continuance
  1290
  Bill. His point was that such a Bill ought not to be necessary. It was an anachronism and it was a scandal to continue these old Acts in this slap-dash fashion—Acts like the Peace Preservation Act, and the Sunday Closing Act. [MINISTERIAL ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed, but they held the liberties of Ireland in their hands. It would be far more manly and honest for the Government to come forward and face the House of Commons and discuss each one of these Acts.
  MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated a number of objections, many of them of a very serious character, to the class of legislation represented by this Bill, and against the methods of dealing with them. It would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that at the end of last session he had an opportunity of moving an Amendment which enabled the House to express its opinion on the kind of objection represented by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He then moved—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that when important Acts of Parliament have been passed for a limited period, any of such Acts should be included in a general Hill for the continuation of expiring laws brought in at the close of the session without affording any fair opportunity of considering the propriety of its discontinuance or modification."
  That was the Amendment which he begged now formally to submit to the House in order to enable it to come to a decision on the question at issue. It was framed in accordance with precedent; and it followed almost exactly the phraseology of the Amendment moved many years ago by the late Mr. Butt.
  Any hon. Member or right hon. Gentleman who ran his eyes over the list of thirty-five Ants in the schedule could not fail to see how very varied and important the subjects dealt with were. The object of putting them in the schedule was to enable the House on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to discuss and examine them. They were not placed permanently upon the Statute-book in order that the House might, under the form of this Act, have an opportunity of reviewing and revising them year by year; but all the advantage

  1291
  of that inconvenient method of legislation would be destroyed if they were to allow the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to become a mere matter of form. It was not only not a mere matter of form, but it was intended to bring the whole of the legislation which they desired to renew year by year definitely before Parliament in order that Parliament might express its opinion upon it in detail. It was no partisan assertion that he made, because the House would remember that the Vaccination Act was specially placed in the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in order that it might be discussed from time to time when questions about its administration arose. He ventured to renew the general objection he made last year of throwing thirty-five Acts, some good, some bad, s me indifferent, some important, and some insignificant, into one single measure, and then trying to pass that measure through the House as though, forsooth, it was a matter of small importance. He followed a great and important example in criticising the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The late Lord Salisbury expressed very strong opinions indeed against that method of legislation. Mr. Disraeli, a Constitutionalist even superior to the late Mr. Butt, also attacked the method, and the present Prime Minister, whose respect for constitutional forms was so well known, had on several occasions commented severely upon it. It was not necessary for him to state at any greater length the reasons which actuated him in moving the Amendment, and he would content himself with formally moving.
  MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)seconded. He said he really considered this method of prolonging Acts of Parliament without discussion was one which should not pass without protest; and he thought be could show that there was at least something in the contention that had been raised. There were some matters in the Bill of very little importance, but there were others of the greatest importance which had been purposely made annual Acts because it was intended that they should be debated year by year. There was one such Act which affected the defences of the country, viz., the Suspension of the Militia Ballot Act.
  1292
  When that Act was passed, it was the obvious intention that the House should review in each year the reasons why it should not continue that method of ensuring the due defence of the country. For his part, if he were asked whether it was wise to suspend the Militia Ballot Act, he should say it was wise under ordinary circumstances but that it was not wise this year, when the whole defences of the country had be thrown into the melting-pot, to suspend this Act without obtaining some assurances from the Government as to the Auxiliary Force.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the separate Acts in the Bill; he must wait until the schedule is reached.
  MAJOR SEELY,continuing, said that there were many Acts which were specifically intended to be the subject of discussion every year; otherwise they would not have been made annual. And if that was so, it was not only proper, but their duty to discuss them before they were re-enacted, and he hoped an opportunity would be given for the fullest discussion of them when the Committee stage was reached.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'That.' and aid the words 'in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that when important Acts of Parliament have been passed for a limited period any of such Acts should be include in a general Bill for the Continuance of f Expiring Laws brought in at the close of the session without affording any fair opportunity of considering the propriety of their discontinuance or of their modification."—(Mr. Churchill.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)said the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and every Bill of the kind passed for the last thirty-one years were a violation of a solemn pledge given on July 25th, 1874, by the Government of that day. An Amendment, almost on the same lines as that proposed by the junior Member for Oldham, was then proposed by Mr. Butt and was accepted by the Government, and he recollected Mr. Butt then saying that

  1293
  henceforth, over every Act which was intended for a limited time there would be full powers of discussion and amendment. He had the solemn pledge of the Tory Government of that day, and pledges then given by the Treasury Bench had some force and solidarity. This Amendment was based upon observations made by Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon in 1873, when they appealed against the gross impropriety of the system of re-enacting legislation in an omnibus Bill. In 1874 there was I a full discussion of the various Acts in the schedule, and Mr. Disraeli distinctly stated that two particular Acts I should no longer be contained in a Continuance Bill, and that if their continuance were required separate Bills should be brought in early in the session when there would be an opportunity for discussion. Thirty-one years had elapsed, and yet one of the Acts mentioned by Mr. Disraeli was included in the schedule of the present Bill. After that, what was to be thought of the pledges of any Government? Then, too, the Bill embodied the vicious principle of legislation by reference, which made it impossible for any ordinarily intelligent man to be sure of his ground in dealing with its provisions. Because the Bill embodied statutes which were bulwarks of the Constitution, such as the Ballot Act, which ought to be made permanent, and statutes contrary to the principles of the Constitution which ought to be repealed, and because the measure was a standing monument of the violation of a solemn pledge which Irish Members were foolish enough to accept, he should support the Amendment.
  Mr. WHITLEY (Halifax)said that last year when this Bill was under discussion in Committee it was shown that many of the statutes included in the schedule were hopelessly out of date, and it was suggested that the time had come when a small Committee should be appointed to revise the schedule of the Bill. He was not sure that a pledge was not given in that direction, but at any rate the case was largely admitted. He hoped that the Prime Minister would give an. assurance that if he occupied his present position at the beginning of anew session
  1294
  he would give his consideration to that suggestion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)referred to the inclusion of the Arms Act in the Bill, and pointed out that in Ireland the Wild Birds Protection Act was in perpetual force there because the Irish people could carry no arms for sporting purposes. The seagull in Ireland had become a land bird. He had seen the gulls come many miles inland year by year, with the result that the crops of the farmer suffered seriously and the young fish in the rivers were disappearing. It was time the Government seriously considered the question with a view, at any rate, to farmers being allowed to use sporting weapons for their own defence.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)appealed to the House to come to a decision. He did not withdraw from what he had previously Said on this subject. Every Government during thirty-one years had felt that whatever might be the objections in dealing with Acts in this particular way, the impossibility of rejecting this Bill on the Second Reading stage was overwhelming. It would throw the whole country into confusion. Whether a Committee would be able to find a remedy he could not say, but to revise the Bill in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Halifax would be the business of a session, because, of course, the decision of the Committee upon each individual Act would have to be reviewed by the House. He could not pledge himself to appoint a Committee in another session, though he admitted that the subject might be worthy of consideration.
  MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)said the House had heard the customary speech from the Prime Minister on this Bill. Last year the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the House to tolerate the system for one year more.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I am quoting from Hansard.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member means that I said the system would come to an end in a year he is in error.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid he distinctly remembered the right hon. Gentleman asking the House to tolerate the system for one year more. They had tolerated the system for another year, and they were now entitled to enter an emphatic protest against its continuance. The fact that a foolish thing had been done for twenty years was no reason for its further repetition. A large body of opinion in the House had always protested against this method of legislation. That this was a crude and ill-considered Rill was shown by the fact that it embodied many antiquated and obsolete Acts. It was time some steps were taken to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to make permanent those laws which should be permanent, and repeal those which had become obsolete. Nobody would suggest the repeal of the Ballot Act or the Corrupt Practices Act, and it was absurd that the House should be asked every year to re-enact those measures instead of their being made permanent. Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Disraeli, the late Lord Salisbury, and many others, had declared that the system should be carefully considered, and brought within stricter limits, while in 1874 Mr. Disraeli distinctly premised that two Acts, one of which was the Arms Act, should no longer be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that if its continuance was necessary a separate Bill would be introduced. Not the slightest effort had been made to give effect to those pledges, and the Arms Act still appeared in the schedule. To show the absurdity of the inclusion of some of the Acts he might mention the Sand Grouse Act. He was not an authority on grouse, but he was informed that there were no sand grouse in the country; why, then, should the House be asked to re-enact that measure? Another Act was one dealing with the Irish linen trade. It
  1296
  was seventy-one years old, and there was not a single clause in it to which any member of the linen trade paid the slightest attention. The time had come when the House should take a firm stand and insist on the fulfilment of the pledges which had been given. Nationalist Members would continue to oppose with the utmost energy the passing of this Bill so-long as it included the re-enactment of the Arms Act against which they had never ceased to protest, and which was administered all over Ireland in a scandalous and partisan manner.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)joined in the protest against the method of legislation embodied in this Bill. After an absence of some years from Parliament he had noticed many changes in the House, in its procedure, and in its personnel; only one thing seemed unchangeable, and that was the Expiring. Laws Continuance Bill. Governments might come and Governments might go, but the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill went on for ever. If there was one thing, more than another which he had heard inveighed against by Judges on the Bench and all who had to deal with the administration of the law it was legislation by reference. If there was anything worse than legislation by reference it was legislation by an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If Acts were good they should be made permanent; if they were bad they should be removed from the Statute-book. To take only one instance, Members probably did not know that the Sunday Closing Act was a partial Bill applying only to certain parts of Ireland. If it was a good Bill it should be applied to the other parts, and if it was bad it should be removed from the Statute-book. He protested against the method of legislation which was exemplified by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)rose to continue the debate.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 320.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, Maj-Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Myers, William Henry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEd'm'nds

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bigwood, James

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Pryce Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Bingham, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brassey, Albert

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

  Randles, John S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Reed, Sir Edw. James(Cardiff)

  Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ

  Hoult, Joseph

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Renwick, George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, Rt HnJ. A. (Wore.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Kerr, John

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

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

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Shaw-Stewart, SirH. (Renfrew)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks, NR

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, HC(North'um. Tyneside

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S

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

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dorington, RtHn. Sir John E.

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Stanley, Rt, Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stroyan John

  Dyke Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Raginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Faber Edmund B. (Hants). W.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fellowes Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tuff, Charles

  Finch Rt Hon George H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Turnour, Viscount

  Finlay Rt HnSirR. B. (Inv'rn'ss

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Milvain, Thomas

  Welby, Sir Charles GE. (Notts

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, and Viscount Valentia.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Wylie, Alexander

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N E)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Charles P

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Priestley, Arthur

  Poland, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reddy, M.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E Haviland

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Richards, Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, John (Galway East)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Roe, sir Thomas

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington

  Shackleton, David James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy David

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crooks, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Slack, Jonn Bamford

  Cullman, J

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soares Ernest J

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N

  Edbank, Master of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Tomkinson James

  Ellice, Capt. EC(S. Andrw'sBghs

  Mooney, John J.

  Toulmin George

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Trevelyan Charles Philip

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Moss, Samuel

  Villiers, Finest Amherst

  Eve, Harry Irelawney

  Muldoon, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick Charles

  Murphy, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ffranch, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Field. Williiam

  Nolan, Col. JohnP(GaIway, N.)

  White, Patrick Meath, North)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark,NE

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.

  Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Young Samuel

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Churchill and Major seely

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.

  O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question"
  The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 321.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlingcon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Welloslev

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

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG. (Middx

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nd'rry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bingham, Lord

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Randies, John S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brassey, Albert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Butcher, John George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Renwick, George

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

  Howard, John(Kent Faversham

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomsoi

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpoo')

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kerr, John

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Keswick, William

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N. R

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham)

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Spear John Ward

  Dickson Charles Scott

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Hn. Arthuur (Ormskirk

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir JosephC.

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Long Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stroyan, John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tollemacne, Henry James

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Turnour, Viscount

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Marks Harry Hananel

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Finlay, RtHnSirRB. (Inv'rn'ss.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Myers, William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Greene, SirE. W. (B'rySEdm'nds

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  1303

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Mara, James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J

  Allen, Charles P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Holland. Sir William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hutchinson. Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Priestley, Arthur

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones Leif (Appleby)

  Reckitt, Harold John

  Boland, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reddy, M.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Reid, Sir R. Thresihe(Dumfries

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan. W.

  Richards, Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Rose, Charles Day

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crooks William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan J

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Slack, John Bamford

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Elibank, Master of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thompson, Dr.E C(MonaghanN

  Ellice, Capt. E. C. (SAndrw'sBghs

  Mooney. John J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Toulmin, (George

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Moss, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Muldoon, John

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Ffrench Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Field, William

  Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Griffith, Ellis, J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Donnell. T. (Kerry, W.)

  Young, Samuel

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  TELLER FOR THE NOES—Mr. Churchill and Major Seely

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, James(Rocsommon, N

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Mallev, William

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow

  Mr. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put"
  Main Question put. accordingly, and greed to.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 31st day of July Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes before Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
North Eastern Railway Bill; North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Stone haven Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Esk Valley Power-Gas Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment. The said Amendment to be considered on Thursday next.
Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Black pool Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Corbett Estate Bill [H.L.]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [H.L.]; Nottingham Corporation Bill [H.L.]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]; Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Liverpool Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Bristol Corporation Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PARLIAMENTARY AGENCY.
  Rules to be observed by the officers of the House and by all Parliamentary agents and solicitors engaged in prosecuting proceedings in the House of Lords upon any petition or Bill. Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  NEW ZEALAND APPEALS.
  Return of appeals from New Zealand to His Majesty in Council, from January, 1903, to July, 1905, inclusive. Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  CANADA.
  Correspondence relating to the garrisons of Halifax and Esquimalt.
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy, for the year 1904.
  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (OBSERVATORY).
  Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope to the Secretary of the Admiralty, for the year 1904.
  TRAMWAY ORDERS.
  Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Tramways Act, 1870, during the Session of 1905.

  TRADE REPORTS. I. (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3466. France (Martinique).
  No. 3467. Turkey (Smyrna).
  No. 3468. China (Amoy).

  II. (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES)
  No. 635. Japan (Report on Japanese Paper-making).
  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSIVES FACTORIES AND TESTING STATIONS IN BELGIUM, GERMANY, AND HOLLAND).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Captain M. B. Lloyd and Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, on visits to certain explosives factories and testing stations in Belgium Germany, and Holland.

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 450. Wei-hai-Wei (Report for 1904).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF HERTFORD).
  Order made by the county council of the county of Hertford dividing the Northern or Hitch in Parliamentary Division into polling districts.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Closing order made by the Ballymoney Urban District Council.

  FORESHORES.
  Treasury Minute, dated 29th July, 1905, directing the application of moneys received by the Board of Trade in the year ended 31st March, 1905, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the foreshores of the United Kingdom.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that the Amendment standing in his name was to give effect to what the Select Committee agreed upon if it were necessary. When this Bill was referred to the Select Committee it was understood that it only applied to places which had building by-laws under the general law, but not to those which had building by-laws and regulations under a local Act of Parliament. It did not seem to be quite clear in the words of the exemption section that it only excluded
  1056
  the administrative county of London. He could not undertake to say whether or not there might be some obscure references in other parts of the Bill which might exclude not only London but any place which had a local Act of Parliament. But as the intention of the Committee was that no place which was working under a local Act should be included he thought it well to make it clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'London,' to insert the words 'and of such places as have received their authority in reference to public health, or to regulations affecting building, from local Acts of Parliament.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HYLTONhoped his noble friend would not think it necessary to press this Amendment. He had taken legal advice and was told that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, because where special Acts existed they were not affected by this Bill, which only affected by-laws made under the general Public Health Act:
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that after that statement on the part of the noble Lord he would not press his Amendment. It was clear that the Bill had no chance of becoming law this year, and therefore if anyone looking into it felt apprehensive that this point was not safeguarded, it could be made clear by drafting.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, with drawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to:
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to:
  Clause 4.
  LORD BURGHCLEREasked to be allowed to say a few words on this clause as a member of the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred. Their Lordships would perceive that Clause 4 was in substitution for Clause 5 of the original Bill, to which he thought there was some general objection in all quarters of the House. By Clause 5 the Local Government Board were permitted to

  1057
  over-ride the decisions of the elected authority—namely, the district council—and substitute by-laws of their own in place of the by-laws which had been made by the district council; but by the present clause, as approved by the majority of the Select Committee, the Local Government Board were not enabled to over-ride and themselves enact by-laws for an area presided over by a district council, but only to cancel existing by-laws. Their Lordships would see that the position in that case would be that if the Local Government Board were permitted to cancel by-laws the area affected would then become without any by-laws at all. There were many districts in the country at the present moment which had no by-laws. He thought it would be generally agreed that it was desirable that they should have by-laws, and the effect of this clause would be simply to add other areas to those which already had no by-laws.
  Then there appeared to him to be a great defect in this clause, as it pointed to no persons who were to set the Local Government Board in motion, and left it, therefore, to the Local Government Board itself to take the initiative. He did not know what the opinion of the Local Government Board was upon this clause, but he ventured to think they were not perfectly satisfied with it as it at present stood, because it was obvious that if the Local Government Board had to take the initiative, not only with regard to districts, but with regard to villages and specific buildings, they would be compelled, if the Bill was to be of any value at all, to increase their inspectors, which would also mean an increase in expenditure. There was another objection to this clause. It gave the Local Government Board power to disallow a set of by-laws which had been agreed to by the district council and had become, in consequence of the solemn approval of the Local Government Board, the law in that district. The Local Government Board were given power to break this solemn contract, and to cancel the existing law on their own ipse dixit.
  He would not go so far as to say that they were reviving the dispensing power
  1058
  of James II., but he would say they were putting a new power in the hands of a Ministerial Department which he ventured to think had never been given to any Department before. It was obvious that there must be some form of dispensing power, but the question was in what body the dispensing power was to be vested. For his own part he had ventured to suggest to the Select Committee that all district councils should be given a statutory dispensing power within safe limits. But, if they did this, they were faced with this problem. How were they going to set them to work if they were lazy and refused to put the statutory power in action? or how were they to restrain them if they put it too much in action and used it for unsatisfactory purposes? He would suggest that the electors, if they considered themselves aggrieved by the action of the district council in not putting the Act in force, should have the right to appeal to the Court set up by this Bill; that the decision of that Court should be final, unless when it was referred again to the district council a majority of that council should disapprove of it, in which case it should be open to the electors to call upon the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry, and their decision would be final. In that way the objections to Clause 4 as it stood would be got over and the Local Government Board would not be unnecessarily called upon to increase the number of their inspectors or incur additional expense.
  He had not put down an Amendment in this direction because he felt that the Bill could not become law during the present session; but if he was assured by the representative of the Local Government Board that they absolutely approved of the course laid down in this particular clause, and if he was also assured that the Government were prepared to give facilities in another place in order to enable the Bill to become law this session, then he reserved to himself the right of putting down Amendments on the Third Reading. He was sure they were all anxious that something should be done in this direction, and he looked upon the Bill as a step in the right direction.
  LORD KENYON, on behalf of the Local Government Board, assured the House that that Department looked upon the Bill with very great sympathy, but there were some of its details which required alteration. He thought that every one of their Lordships must feel that something was necessary in the way of an amendment of the present working of by-laws in rural as opposed to urban districts, and the President of the Local Government Board looked with great sympathy upon the attempt to modify the present action in this matter. At the same time, the Local Government Board felt that there was no chance of the Bill passing into law this year, and they certainly did not propose to give facilities in another place for the passing of it. It did not seem necessary, therefore, to go into it in very great detail. As Lord Burghclere had said, there were considerable differences of opinion with regard to this clause, and the Board did not feel themselves able at present to advise in these particular details. The suggestions of Lord Burghclere were not on the Paper, and therefore he could not state what the view of the Local Government Board was concerning them. But the suggestion that there were no means of putting the Local Government Board in motion was hardly correct. What would take place would no doubt be this, that an aggrieved person would write to the Local Government Board, who, if they thought fit, would act on that person's suggestion. He did not think there would be much difficulty in that course. While approving of the general principle of the Bill the Local Government Board withheld their consideration of its details until next year.
  LORD HYLTONhoped Lord Burghclere would acquit him of any discourtesy if he did not enter into any lengthy defence of this clause as it stood, as his noble friend had not put down any Amendment. They all felt that owing to the advanced stage of the session the Bill could not become law this year, but he hoped the Local Government Board would be good enough to give the details of the Bill their careful consideration during the recess, in order that early next session, when it was reintroduced,
  1060
  the Local Government Board might not tell the House that they had not had time to consider the details of the measure. He really thought that in self-defence he must say that the Bill was brought in some months ago; it had had the good fortune to be favourably received by their Lordships' House and of being fully considered by a Select Committee. He could not help feeling that the Local Government Board had had ample time to consider the details. At any rate, he hoped that during the recess the matter would receive their full consideration. As regarded the dispensing power which Lord Burghclere would like to see given to district councils with regard to by-laws, he could only repeat what he had said when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that he thought it would be a great misfortune to allow districts council to have this dispensing power, as it would undoubtedly lead to very undesirable results, and would not, so far as he could see, prove useful in any case.
  LORD BURGHCLEREpointed out that district councils had a dispensing power at the present moment, because all they had to do was to make a fresh set of by-laws and get the Local Government Board's approval to them.
  LORD HYLTON: But only with the approval of the Local Government Board.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that as he understood Lord Burghclere did not intend to divide on this clause he should not do so, because he thought everyone was agreed that there should be some amendment of the law to enable more reasonable regulations for buildings to be applied. If he might be allowed to correct the noble Lord who represented the Local Government Board, he would point out that the application of strict town conditions was inapplicable, not merely in rural district areas, but in many urban districts as well. The question was not the character of the local authority controlling the building but the character of the building itself and of its isolation. He did not think that at this moment they could discuss the rather elaborate alternative which had been sketched by Lord

  1061
  Burghclere and which was not even on the Paper. He did not himself place very high the danger of the action under Clause 4; but he did place rather high the mischief of putting into an Act of Parliament a transition from the region of settled rights to the region of dependence on an arbitrary will. On that account he would be glad to see Clause 4 out of the Bill. As they were all anxious that something substantial should be done, he urged upon those who would have the Bill in hand with a view to its presentation next year, that they should consider what was the best policy in order to put the Bill in such a form as to make the possibility of its becoming law as certain as possible.
  On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYexplained that this Amendment was also one to give effect to what was agreed to in the Select Committee. Lord Ken-yon had communicated to him the opinion of the Local Government Board that there was a danger, if the provision stopped short at the words "an appeal to a Court of quarter sessions," that the person who would now have a right to take the opinion of a superior Court on the legality of a by-law might be shut out. He therefore moved to add the words in his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 19, after the word 'sessions' to insert the words 'and to such other appeal as may now by law be open to him'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD KENYONsaid that since he communicated with the noble Lord he had had a further opinion on this point. Clause 5 of the Bill purported to give to persons aggrieved by the requirements of any by-law the right to obtain a summons for the decision of a Court of summary jurisdiction as to the validity of the by-law, subject to an appeal to quarter sessions. The Amendment sought to give an addition to the right of appeal. It was not at all clear what was meant. Perhaps the noble Lord wished to enable one of the parties to
  1062
  have a case stated under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, but the right to have a case stated was not, strictly speaking, a right of appeal. It was only a right to have the decision of the Court reviewed on the point of law. The Amendment as it stood would effect nothing, but would leave matters precisely where they were.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYintimated that he would not press his Amendment, his object having been to call attention to a matter which they all agreed to in the Select Committee. The Bill would pass into careful hands before it appeared in Parliament again, and he hoped it would be made clear that the Court of quarter sessions was not to be the final Court of Appeal.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said that the first part of Clause 5 was intelligible enough, but the second part was an entirely new departure. As a matter of drafting it ought to be in totally different sections. The first part of the clause contemplated deciding a point of law, whether a particular by-law was valid or not; the second part referred to a question of discretion, whether or not under the circumstances the law ought to be insisted on. Those were totally different things, and had no relation to each other. With regard to the first part of the clause, he agreed with what had been said by the noble Lord in moving the Amendment. The question of the validity of a by-law was a matter of extreme importance, and the notion of leaving the final decision on that point to a stipendiary magistrate or even to quarter sessions was a mistake. The question of the validity of a by-law might affect the whole neighbourhood, and he thought it an extraordinary thing to leave the final decision on such a matter to the tribunal in the clause. The second part of the clause was a novelty in our law. It was to this effect—
  "Any persons challenging the reasonableness of such requirements may appeal to a body of three persons appointed by the county council, who shall determine whether it is reasonable and desirable that such requirements be dispensed with."
  Not only was this provision a novelty in our law, but the course proposed did

  1063
  not seem to him to be either a practicable or a desirable one to pursue.
  LORD HYLTONsaid his original Clause 5 was differently worded. He was not responsible for the present wording, for his clause was considerably mangled, he was sorry to say, in the Select Committee. He fully recognised that there was a certain amount of novelty in the clause as it stood. But the tribunal proposed to be set up was not a novel one, because all new buildings in London could be referred, in the last event, to a tribunal of skilled persons; and it was the opinion of the Select Committee that it would be a good thing to get the county councils in the country to set up such a tribunal, which should include the county surveyor and possibly the county medical officer of health. He recognised that the Bill might require some amendment should it be brought forward in another session, but its promoters were very anxious, and he hoped the House would take this view, that the Bill should pass their Lordships' House as it stood this session. They knew it could not go any further this year, but there was a general feeling, not only in the House but in the country, that some considerable amendment of the present system of building by-laws was absolutely necessary, and if this Bill were read a third time as it stood it would show that their Lordships sympathised with the desire for some reform in these matters.
  LORD BURGHCLEREpointed out that the provision originally gave to the Court of summary jurisdiction not only the power to decide on the validity of the by-law, but also with regard to the reasonableness of each requirement. He had ventured in the Select Committee to say that he did not like the idea of a judicial body of that kind interfering with what he might call the administration of an elective body, and he proposed to divide the two things, giving to the judicial body the power of deciding on the interpretation of the law, and to the committee of the county council the power of deciding on the administration of the law. He thought that was the idea in the heads of those who supported the Amendment bringing
  1064
  the clause into its present form. As the Bill would not be further proceeded with until next session, there would be ample time for this point to be considered.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that both Lord Kenyon and the noble Lord opposite misunderstood his criticism. He said nothing about the propriety or impropriety of having some authority which might make a by-law elastic. That was a totally different thing. This clause gave the three persons to be appointed under it power to over-rule the by-law.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid they had plenty of evidence that occasionally local authorities waived their by-laws when it became a matter of common sense that they should be waived. Sometimes, if the local authority were a mixture of technicality and virtue, they insisted on their by-laws being carried out, however absurd they were. He entirely agreed with Lord Hylton that it would be very undesirable to give the local body which made the by-laws power to dispense with their own by-laws, but they felt that there should be a body external and impartial to which there should be a prompt and cheap appeal. It could be dealt with in this way with a minimum of cost and a maximum of speed. It was extremely desirable that they should have a new enactment to meet this growing evil.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  On Question, Clause 5 agreed to
  The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 159.)

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Bill which I have presented to your

  1065
  Lordships this year, and the Second Reading of which I am now about to move, is a very considerable modification of those measures which I have submitted previously. The Bill is an extremely short Bill, consisting practically of one clause. I have modified the provisions of the Bill which I introduced before in deference to the feelings of the House and to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The noble and learned Lord, speaking, I think, with his tongue in his cheek, referred me on the previous occasion to the wisdom of Parliament which my attempts at legislation were hurling them selves against. I think an historical examination of the circumstances of 1856 and 1857, and of the conditions under which the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 became law, will show that the wisdom of Parliament ultimately expressed itself, as it generally does in our legislation, in a compromise between two opposing factions; and that the Bill which was then passed, while opposed on account of its latitude by one section of opinion, was opposed by another section because it did not go far enough.
  The object of this Bill is to add to the reasonable grounds for divorce a vinculo the matrimonial offence of desertion, and to insert in the operative section—Section27—of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, additional words giving desertion without cause for two years and upwards as a ground for a divorce a vinculo. I may be asked why I have taken the particular period of two years. I have taken the exact period and the exact words used in the Act of 1857, which is now in force, to describe the matrimonial offence of desertion. The remedy now given is one of judicial separation, and the object of this measure is to give a judicial remedy and a superior remedy—an entire divorce a vinculo. I do not wish to repeat the many quotations I have already given to the House, but I need hardly tell your Lordships that an extension of the grounds for divorce has had support in this country from different quarters from the time that the question of divorce was first discussed. At the time of the Reformation it was, of course, perceived that an extension of the grounds for
  1066
  divorce was a logical and natural accompaniment of a Protestant country, and of a country which no longer felt itself bound by the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
  In the discussion on the Bill of 1857, which constitutes the present law of this country, we find that extensions of the ground for divorce were urged. The Prime Minister of that time, Lord Pal-merston, himself said in the House of Commons that he considered that a judicial separation was not a satisfactory remedy for the matrimonial offence of desertion. Mr. Gladstone opposed the Bill itself, naturally, at all its stages; but Mr. Gladstone himself said that he could readily conceive that there were other causes which might be as good and as reasonable causes for divorce as the cause of adultery. Your Lordships' House also took an active part in the discussion, and several noble Lords expressed the opinion that desertion should be a ground for divorce. Protests were presented by Lord Lyndhurst, by Lord Hutchinson, and by other noble Lords, stating that desertion should be in their opinion a ground for divorce, and a division was taken upon an Amendment to that effect. But from 1857 to the present time practically no amendment has been made in the substantial law of divorce in this country.
  There have been some changes since then, and they have been changes partly of legislation, partly of judicial decisions, and partly of custom. One of the changes was effected by what is known as the Weldon Act, by which a decree of restitution was no longer enforced by attachment. Another change in the marital law arose out of the Jackson case. The effect of that decision has been that a husband and a wife in this country are no longer by the law of the country compelled to live together. A husband and a wife may separate without a judicial separation and may live entirely apart, but although the present law allows that, subject, I admit, to proceedings for desertion after a time, and subject to a decree of judicial separation, the law does not provide for any further breaking of the bond, and leaves the unfortunate persons in that position without any

  1067
  remedy or any possibility of a future life in the married state.
  I wish to quote to your Lordships an article in The Times. The Times, I think, will not be accused of being a revolutionary newspaper; yet in a leading article on the Jackson case (March 20th, 1891) The Times is to be found recognising the absurdity of a legal fetter when all moral bonds are broken. This is what The Times said—
  "It has been laid down that a man and woman cannot be compelled to live together against the will of either. Very well. We have not a word to say against it. The principle is in harmony with modern feeling and with modern legislation. But if this is so, if Mr. Jackson or anyone else is thus deprived of his wife's society for good and all, why should he be in any way bound to her? Is it not a flagrant injustice that he should in future be compelled to regard himself as her husband, more or less responsible for her actions, certainly responsible for her debts, she bearing his name, and he bearing the burden of her claims upon him? Freedom is a very fine thing, but let it not be one-sided. If a woman for no fault of the man is entitled to desert him, he ought in common justice to be free to have nothing more to do with her and to marry again."
  I have another quotation from a recently-published work which contains the reminiscences of one of the most experienced of our stipendiary magistrates, Mr. Plowden—who has been driven by his daily Police Court experience to write as follows—
  "I cannot help observing that I have often found myself wishing in the course of my duties that magistrates were clothed with the power to grant divorces as well as judicial separations. These latter are only in the nature of compromises, and often fall short of the full measure of relief which the circumstances demand, and which is not less deserved than ardently desired. To stretch a chain is something, but it is not the same thing as to break it. And there must be many and many a matrimonial link which galls and chafes so cruelly that to sever it in twain effectively and once for all offers the only hope of happiness."
  Mr. Plowden goes on to say—
  "With regard to the far larger question of amending the grounds for divorce, whatever may be the objections to such a course it can hardly be contended that the existing condition of things is wholly satisfactory. I say nothing of what some consider to be the transparent unfairness which puts the husband who seeks relief in such a much better position than his wife. What presses on the minds of some people who recognise the propriety of granting divorces is the un wisdom of limiting relief practically to cases of infidelity. To tell a wretched married couple leading a cat-and-
  1068
  dog life, with no particular blame on either side, that the law will not help them unless one or the other is secretly unfaithful, is really almost an invitation to sin."
  These, my Lords, are the deliberate expressions of opinion of Mr. Plowden, and you will see that on his experience there has weighed the necessity—the imperative necessity—for some change in a law, which has remained practically unaltered for fifty years.
  Turning from authorities at home, I invite your Lordships' attention to the significant fact that this is practically the only Protestant country in which you have not some other ground for divorce than adultery. It is the case in the Protestant States of Europe and in America. We have this very matrimonial offence of desertion recognised in Scotland as a fitting ground for divorce, and your Lordships have an example there at hand from which you are able to judge whether the extension of the grounds for divorce in that respect has or has not worked evil to the community. I do not feel that it requires any apology on my part for bringing this subject before your Lordships. This is distinctly a social matter which is crying aloud for a remedy. There is a social injustice perpetrated by the present state of the law; there are a large number of people who are suffering from the present state of the law and suffering in an unmerited way, from no fault of their own, but simply because this country has so far refused to amend its law and bring it into harmony with the requirements and desires of a great many of the subjects of this country.
  I was accused by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack on the last occasion when I brought this subject forward of doing so because I had a personal interest in the matter. I confess I did not quite understand the charge. If the noble and learned Lord meant that I was thirsting to avail myself of some remedy I can assure him he is mistaken. But if he meant that I have had experience of the injustice of our present law, I agree with him; but I do not see that that is any reason why I should refrain from doing all I can to prevent other people undergoing unnecessary suffering. It is also said very often that it is not for a private Member to bring in a

  1069
  measure of this character, but it should be left to His Majesty's Government. There are, no doubt, a great many measures that should be brought in by the Government, but I think all practical legislators know that the Government never bring in a Bill until they are forced to do so by the pressure of public opinion. It requires the pressure of public opinion, and very often a pressure extending over a long series of years, before the Government will take in hand a reform, however much it may be required.
  I daresay that after many years some measure of this sort or some more comprehensive measure may be brought in by the Government, but at the present time I feel compelled to bring this subject before your Lordships, and I can assure you that some extension of the grounds for divorce, however it may be supported in this House, has already the support of a very large body of public opinion among thinking men and others who have been brought in contact with the necessity of the case and who have felt that the present divorce law does not provide an adequate remedy, more especially in so far as the poorer classes are concerned. This is a subject which your Lordships should be willing to discuss and consider impartially, and exercise your judgment upon as to whether any remedy is needed and what remedy. It is for the purpose of giving your Lord-ships that opportunity that I have
  (Bill to be read 2a this day three months).
  brought in this measure, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Earl Russell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, the noble Earl is entirely mistaken in his reference regarding myself. I certainly had no intention of saying a word which could be supposed to have any personal application to the noble Earl. This is a matter which can only be dealt with by the Government when it is shown that there is a large body of feeling in favour of the change. The relation of marriage has so many consequences attached to it that it would be very rash indeed to make experiments in the law of marriage, and I am sure your Lordships are not disposed to think that any case has been made out at present for an alteration of the law. I therefore feel it my duty to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day three months.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided. Contents, 4; Not-Contents, 44

  CONTENTS.

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Chelmsford, L

  Colchester, L

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Minto, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.)

  Onslow, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Roberts, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  James, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Bath, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Colville, of Culross, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Linlithgow, M.

  Cross, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Newton, L.

  Hood, V.

  Overtoun, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Stalbridge, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Stanmore, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Thring, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Windsor, L.

TRADE MARKS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into a long description of it. It is principally a consolidation Bill, and I understand there is no opposition to it on the part of His Majesty's Government. The Bill has been before a Select Committee of the House of Commons. It gives greater latitude to the definition of a trade mark. The law with regard to appeals is hardly altered at all. The Manchester clause dealing with cotton marks is included. There is also a provision to prevent persons making an improper use of the Royal Warrant. I understand that there is no opposition to the Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Spencer.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I only rise to say that His Majesty's Government very willingly give their assent to the Second Reading of this measure. I understand that the more important of its provisions have been prepared with a view to meeting the representations which have been made by the chambers of commerce and by other trade societies. During the passage of the Bill through the other House, the Board of Trade took a sympathetic interest in it, and the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade gave evidence before the Committee to which the noble Earl has referred embodying the views of his Department. The result of the deliberations of the Committee has been to make considerable improvements in the Bill itself, but at the same time I must tell the noble Earl that the Government will have some Amendments to move when the Committee stage is reached. I believe that those Amendments are not of a controversial character, and there is no reason why they should delay the time of your Lordships' House. If
  1072
  the Government Amendments are accepted, there is no doubt that this Bill will strengthen an important branch of the law, and that it will be of considerable value and utility in commercial circles.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
  LORD STANMORErose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House, and their approaches. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a right rev. Prelate who made his maiden speech in this House a few days ago appealed to the indulgence of your Lordships on the old schoolboy ground that it was a first fault. I am afraid that with regard to this Motion I cannot so appeal, for I have for several years past brought it before you annually. However, perseverance and patience sometimes obtain a reward, and I have reason to believe that on the present occasion my Motion will receive a more favourable consideration from His Majesty's Government than it has hitherto been fortunate enough to obtain. That being the case, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships by repeating for the fifth or sixth time the arguments which I have urged in support of the Motion that I have brought forward and am now bringing forward again.
  But though I shall not enter into all those details, I wish in a few words to point out what the object of the Motion is and what it is not, because I find that on the part of some of my noble friends in this House there is a misapprehension on that point. The appointment of this Committee does not imply, of necessity, any addition to the decoration of the House. Primarily it has nothing whatever to do with decoration. What it has to do with is the completion of that which is incomplete. With the exception of this apartment and the Library there is

  1073
  no part of this division of the building that is fully finished, and the object and duty of the Committee if appointed, will be to ascertain first of all what is incomplete, and, secondly' what is the best mode of remedying that incompleteness. It may be by decoration of one kind or another. It may be by a deliberate determination to abstain from decoration; but what I say is a scandal is this, that this unfinished state of things has been allowed to go on for over forty years, ever since the time that the works of the House were suddenly interrupted.
  When you have to deal with large blank wall-spaces there are three ways in which you may treat them. They may be dealt with architecturally; that is to say, with masonry, arcading, or panelling. They may be dealt with pictorially, or they may be left in bare and blank nakedness. It would be for the Committee to suggest what was to be done. When this House was first designed the intention was that the blank wall-spaces should be covered with architectural ornament, that its long galleries should be arcaded and panelled. Then that was, under the influence of the Fine Arts Commission, altered, and it was resolved that paintings and mosaics should form the principal adornment of these wall-spaces. Consequently all the walls were turned into gigantic stone picture frames. Some of these have had pictures put into them; most of them are filled with green paper. Familiarity and custom have made us blind to what is perfectly perceptible to any stranger who comes here—namely, the incompleteness of things. I will give you only one illustration. Your Lordships are in the habit of going to and fro from this apartment to the Library. As you go down the passage, you see before you a stone archway. Over that stone archway are Tudor roses and coats-of-arms and mottoes in sculpture and colour; but as you come back from the Library, if you look at the corresponding stone arch on this side, you will see, not similar ornamentation, but a deep and unsightly hole with nothing in it—a hole where the plaster has been removed in order to make space for the filling in of sculpture or mosaic, but which has never been filled in
  1074
  When the completion of the rooms, passages, corridors, and galleries of the House was interrupted, circumstances were much against the resumption of the work. First of all, there was the death of the late Prince Consort, who had always been the foremost in urging it on; secondly, there was, what was an open secret at the time—and is, I suppose, no secret now—the fact that Her late Majesty the Queen was most averse to having any of her subjects placed in the position which the Prince Consort had occupied, whilst at that time His present Majesty had not shown that marvellous tact and ability in managing Commissions and Boards which he subsequently displayed as Prince of Wales; and, thirdly, there was in office a most economical Chancellor of the Exchequer. All honour to Chancellors of the Exchequer who are economical, but I wish they were not always economical in tiny matters of art. Anyone who knows what trouble there was to get from Mr. Gladstone power to buy a picture for the National Gallery for a book for the British Museum will bear me out in this. It was extremely difficult to get from him money for the decoration of this House. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, to which I understand His Majesty's Government propose to give a favourable reception.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House, and their approaches."—(Lord Stanmore,)
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, as I had the honour of supporting the noble Lord's Motion on a former occasion, I rise merely to say with what pleasure I heard from him that His Majesty's Government are likely to meet him in this matter. I do think when we consider what other nations do for art, that it is almost a scandal that in this great Palace of the nation, with so many opportunities, we should not give that encouragement to painting and sculpture which at a comparatively small cost might be given. I do not altogether agree with what my noble friend said as to Mr. Gladstone. I recollect very well

  1075
  myself being in a Cabinet where he did agree to, I think, £75,000 for one picture, and £20,000 for another.
  LORD STANMORE: I did not say Mr. Gladstone always refused money.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, it has been a matter of very great regret to me that on former occasions when the noble Lord has brought this question before the House I have only been able to express sympathy with the object he has had in view. I am glad, therefore, that I am able to say on this occasion that His Majesty's Government do not desire to oppose the inquiry which he asks for. I think it was the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, who last year suggested that the inquiry ought to take the form of a Joint Committee of both Houses, as it deals with the decoration of Westminster Palace, which is a matter that concerns both Houses of Parliament. All that I can say now is that the Government agree to an inquiry, but I must ask the noble Lord to give me time for consideration as to the exact form that inquiry should take.
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

  INDIA (ARMY ADMINISTRATION).
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONrose to call attention to two Papers recently presented on the subject of Indian Army Administration, and to move for further Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to a question of very great importance, because it relates to nothing less than proposals calculated fundamentally to alter the present administrative arrangements of the Government of India, and, indeed, as it seems to me, the constitution of that Government itself. Perhaps, before I proceed to discuss the Papers to which I am anxious to draw your Lordships' attention, it would be better that I should very briefly explain the nature of the Government of India at the present time, at least in respect to the matters to which these Papers refer
  1076
  The Government of India at the present moment consists of the Viceroy in Council, and his Council consists now of six ordinary members after the Act of last year was passed, who are placed in charge, to use the technical term, of various Departments of the Government. One of those members is a military man, who is in charge of the Military Department of the Government of India; that is to say, all business which relates to Army administration as distinct from Army command. The Commander-in-Chief is also, if the Secretary of State thinks well to appoint him, an extraordinary member of the Council, but the law leaves it entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether he chooses to appoint any particular Commander-in-Chief to that position or not. There are two other extraordinary members of Council who under certain circumstances are entitled to take their places on the Council. They are the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and when the Council meets within the limits of their respective Presidencies they are, under the law, entitled to serve upon it as extraordinary members.
  These proposals relate to a fundamental alteration in the distribution of business in that Council. The Papers themselves evidently have been preceded by some other communications, official or unofficial, and they rather enter into the matter in medias res. I make no complaint of that. The first despatch asks for the opinion of the Government of India as regards the present arrangements for the military administration, and it points out that objection has been taken to those arrangements, and that demands have been made, especially by the present Commander-in-Chief, Lord Kitchener, for an alteration of those arrangements. To that despatch the Government of India replied in a despatch which was signed by the Viceroy and by every other member of that Government except the Commander-in-Chief, in which they expressed their desire that the existing arrangements should not be altered, but should remain as they are at the present time. To that despatch Lord Kitchener appended a long and full expression of his own opinion, and his opinion was that

  1077
  the present arrangements should be changed, that he (the Commander-in-Chief) should be put in charge of the whole work of the Military Department, that there should be no Military Member, but that the Commander-in-Chief should take over, in addition to the executive duties, the whole of the administrative duties connected with the Army. Mr. Brodrick considered those Papers and came to that half and half sort of thing which is generally called a compromise; he made certain proposals not entirely in accordance with either the wishes of the Viceroy or of the Commander-in-Chief.
  In considering those proposals I should like, in the first place, to remind your Lordships that this is not a new question at all. It is a very old question. It is a question which has been discussed in India and in this country officially for many a long year. It has been considered by successive Secretaries of State at home, whose consideration has always up to the present time ended by maintaining the existing arrangements. I will not take your Lordships back to the famous quarrel between Lord Dalhousie and Sir Charles Napier, which ended in the resignation of the latter; but in order to show you how old this question is, and what great authorities there are against an alteration of the existing arrangements, I will ask you to allow me to refer to the views of the late Lord Lawrence as contained in a private letter addressed by him to Sir Charles Wood, and published in Mr. Bosworth Smith's excellent "Life of Lord Lawrence." It appears that at that time there was a great deal of friction, as the wording goes, between the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief—between Sir John Lawrence and Sir Hugh Rose; and one of the modes of escape from this friction appears to have been suggestions of the same kind as those which are being made at the present time. This is what Sir John Lawrence gave as his opinion upon the proposal to abolish the Military Member and to leave the Commander-in-Chief as the only military officer on the Governor-General's Council. Sir John Lawrence wrote thus—
  "By the combination of the two powers"—the Military. Member and the Commander-in-
  1078
  Chief—"the authority of the military element would overshadow and paralyse that of the civil power. As Commander-in-Chief the War Minister would have the same staff to enable him to carry on the struggle with the Governor-General whenever his views were not admitted. My remedy for the present state of things is that in the first place the Commander-in-Chief should not have a seat in Council, He should be a high executive officer distinctly subordinate to the Governor-General in Council. His views and arguments would then all, as circumstances dictated, be put on record and would go home bearing the authority and influence which they deserved. In the meantime he would be required to obey the orders he might receive. I see no other change which will prove beneficial."
  We all know the great authority of any opinion of Sir John Lawrence on Indian affairs, but I have referred to that mainly for the purpose of showing you how old are these supposed difficulties, and how often this friction, which we hear so much about, has been found to arise.
  These difficulties were in reality personal difficulties between the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief. Lord Lawrence felt great difficulty in his communications with Sir Hugh Rose. Those of your Lordships who have looked at the interesting volumes containing the life of Sir Henry Durand will have seen that when Sir Hugh Rose was succeeded by the late Lord Sandhurst those difficulties passed away and comparative facility of communication was restored. You will perhaps ask me, as I have had the honour to occupy the position of Viceroy of India, what was my personal experience in the matter. My Lords, it is my duty to give it to you, and it is this. I never knew, during the four and a-half years I was Viceroy of India, any differences of opinion which deserved the name of friction either between the Commander in-Chief and the Military Member or between the Commander-in-Chief and the Viceroy. Differences of opinion there always will be. I have even heard of differences of opinion in Cabinets, and have sometimes been told that friction occurs in those distinguished assemblies; but I venture to say that practically no friction existed on military matters in the Government of India at the time I had the honour to be at its head. There were differences of opinion, but nothing

  1079
  in the nature of friction or serious difficulty.
  I admit that my evidence on this point is perhaps not the most complete, because I was singularly fortunate in the man whom I had for Commander-in-Chief during the greater part of my time. Anybody who knew the late Sir Donald Stewart would know that if there are to be two parties to a quarrel nobody could quarrel with Sir Donald Stewart. He was a man of such admirable temper, with great experience both of civil and military matters connected with India, that it was not likely that any substantial friction could arise with him. But that was the case not because we were not dealing at that time with important matters. That Government had to deal with the proposals of Sir Ashley Eden's Commission for the entire reorganisation of the Indian Army; that Government met from time to time to discuss these questions, and discussed them without difficulty and without friction; and, again, we had to despatch the Indian portion of the expedition which went to Egypt at the time of the campaign of Tel-el-Kebir, and in the preparation of that expedition Sir Donald Stewart performed an amount of labour and displayed an amount of ability for which I think he never had adequate credit. It is a profound mistake if anybody supposes that a reasonable Viceroy does not constantly communicate with the Commander-in-Chief. I never dreamt of taking any important step relating to military matters in any way without consulting the Commander-in-Chief, without the most free and frequent communications between us, and that resulted, as I have said, in the most perfect harmony during the whole time I had the honour to be Viceroy.
  The truth of the matter is that this is much more a question of persons than of things. It is much more a question of personal feelings than it is a question of administrative principles. These Papers from the first to the last are full of personal idiosyncrasies and individual character, and it is not, in my judgment, wise to deal with a great question of this description, not upon the broad general principles of what is the best form of administration, but in regard to the
  1080
  accidental circumstances of a particular time. I have read the Papers with the greatest care. I am bound to say that the published arguments for this great change appear to be very weak. Lord Kitchener adduces in his Minute certain instances in which he is not satisfied with the reception which his proposals have met with from the Military Department. Sir Edmund Elles, in his Minute, replies upon those questions. When I read Sir Edmund Elles's Minute I thought his reply was very good. To me it seemed complete, but then I said I must wait to see what Lord Kitchener has to say on the other side. But when I turned to Lord Kitchener's Minute I found no reply at all. I found nothing but a lofty declaration that he would not reply, and that he knew he was quite right. In a controversy of this description I am always a little inclined to think that a person who takes that line and refuses to reply in that tone does so because he cannot reply, because he has no answer to what his opponent has said
  You will see that so far as I am personally concerned I agree—I have no hesitation in saying so—with the views expressed on this subject by the Government of India. Lord Curzon's Minute is a very able Minute. He argues the case very well, and in my judgment his arguments are very conclusive. I see that the Secretary of State in his despatch seems to think that there are some expressions in Lord Curzon's Minute which bear an exaggerated tone, but when I remember the language which was used by Lord Lawrence in the extract I have just read, when I recollect and refer to the language which is to be found in these Papers from Lord Dufferin, I think it cannot be said that Lord Curzon has used language which is not borne out by many of those who preceded him. For on page 53 of the Bluebook, towards the bottom of the page, I find it said that Lord Dufferin expressed this opinion—
  "The Viceroy would be" (if the Military Member were taken away) "without any adviser save the representative of the Army, who would be more specially interested in pressing proposals involving expenditure or changes in organisation. The revenues of the country would be at the mercy of the Commander-in-Chief."

  1081
  If there is any exaggeration in the language which has been used on this subject I think it will be found there. I do not profess to say that I believe that the revenues of India would be at the mercy of the Commander-in-Chief, but I do believe that the proposed alteration would greatly increase the influence of the military element in the Viceroy's Council, and to that I, for one, entertain a most serious objection.
  There are two main branches of this subject. The one relates to the proposal for making the Commander-in-Chief the Member in charge of the Military Department, and the other relates to the results which would follow from that in so far as it would tend to deprive the Viceroy of a second military adviser; and, my Lords, with regard to the first of those proposals, I wish to point out to your Lordships, though I shall have to allude to it again, that this is a proposal which ought not to be, which I venture to say cannot be, forced upon the Viceroy of India. The distribution of business in the Viceroy's Council is placed by statute unfettered in the Viceroy's hands, and I do not believe that any Secretary of State ought, with due consideration to the interests of India, to compel the Viceroy by the only means which he can compel him—because his privilege in this matter is statutory—to adopt a distribution of business of which he does not approve. But, my Lords, beyond that it seems to me that to put upon the Commander-in-Chief not only his own proper business, that which he has to perform at the present time, but a vast amount of other business of great detail which would follow from his being placed in charge of the whole military administration, would be to throw upon him far too great a burden. The Commander-in-Chief has great and important duties to perform, duties which take him away, and which must take him away, for a considerable length of time from the seat of the Viceroy's Council. Those duties have of late years been increased by the abolition of the Commander-in-Chiefships at Madras and Bombay—a step of which I highly approve. You have thrown upon him an extra degree of responsibility for the Army
  1082
  in those two Presidencies. Your Lordships will find, on page 44 of this Paper, an opinion of the late Lord Sandhurst on that subject. Lord Sandhurst said—
  "I conceive that the evil of divesting the head of the Government of India of its chief and responsible military adviser can hardly be exaggerated; yet if that responsible military adviser is to be at the same time an executive Commander-in-Chief, who is ever engaged in traversing the country on tours of inspection in times of peace, or at the head of the active Army in time of war, it is utterly impossible for him to be in his place at the side of the Governor-General, except at rare intervals of time. Military feeling is so strong, and the prizes of war are so great, that no Commander-in-Chief in India can resist the temptation of putting himself at the head of an army in the field, if he has an opportunity. In like manner, for the maintenance, of discipline, to gain a knowledge of the Army, of the manner in which it is housed, cared for, and handled, it is absolutely necessary that a Commander-in-Chief should be ever on the move in peaceful times. Therefore, as said before, the constant presence of the Commander-in-Chief in India in his place as a member of the Supreme Government, and the recognised responsible adviser of the Governor-General in Council, is an impossibility under the present system."
  That was the opinion of Sir William Mansford, afterwards Lord Sandhurst, a man of great distinction and great authority, a man who knew well the whole working of the Government of India, because he took great interest, not merely in the military side, but in many subjects connected with civil administration. He had a thorough grasp of the questions on both sides, and that was his deliberate opinion delivered at the time the duties of the Commander-in Chief were less extensive than they are to-day.
  Even Mr. Brodrick in one of these Papers admits the importance of the inspectional duties of the Commander-in-Chief. There are two dangers. One danger is that the Commander-in-Chief will be very frequently absent, and that he will not be there to control, by his personal presence, the detailed administration of the Military Department. The other danger is the opposite one, that he will neglect the inspectional duty, that he will neglect those duties of his executive functions which ought to take him away from the seat of Government, and will devote himself mainly to the duties attaching to his

  1083
  position in charge of this Department. Either of those would be a very great evil. Lord Kitchener admits that objections of that sort did weigh with him. He said he had thought them serious, but then he says "Oh, but there are telegraphs" My Lords, telegraphic communication is a very good method of transmitting commands. I have had some experience of administration at the end a telegraph, and I do not think that it is a very good way of conducting an argument, or of convincing a person whom you want to bring round to your opinions. Therefore, I do not believe that in the absence of the Commander-in-Chief, let us say at the extremity of Madras, communication by telegraph upon important matters would be found a good means of administering the Army Department. What will happen? There will be a Secretary in the Military Department. I shall have something to say upon his position in a minute or two. He would be the person to represent the Commander-in-Chief. He would be the person to bring up the papers and lay them before the Viceroy. I do not think that in practice that would be found a satisfactory method of proceeding in the absence of the Commander-in-Chief, and lam fully convinced that you would only exchange one occasion of friction for another. You would get rid of the Military Member, of a high officer of military reputation, but you would place in a position of yet more friction the secretary of the Military Department.
  Take the case of war. I observe that the Secretary of State very wisely takes no notice of the suggestions of Lord Kitchener on military organisation in case of war. Those suggestions are impracticable. I do not believe they could be legally carried out. They could not be carried out in practice. At the same time, you ought to have faced that difficulty. You ought to have considered what would be your arrangements if war broke out. You ought to have been ready to say what would be done in such a contingency. I am quite sure of this, that Lord Kitchener is the last man who, if war broke out, would consent to remain at Simla and send somebody else in command
  1084
  in the field. That I take to be certain. That is the position in which the late Lord Lytton desired to place the Commander-in-Chief. I do not think it is a position in which he ought to be placed. I think if he wishes to take command, he is entitled to do so, and I think that if he does take command all the arrangements which you are now setting up will immediately break to pieces. I have read the language that was used by Lord Dufferin as to the increase of military influence and military authority. I hope that my noble and gallant friend on the cross benches (Earl Roberts) will not quarrel with me when I say that I hold that it is of supreme importance to maintain the full authority of the Civil Government in India, and I do believe that a change of this kind, placing such enormous power in the hands 01 the Commander-in-Chief, would raise him into a position which would not be consistent with the absolute supremacy of the Viceroy in Council.
  But then, my Lords, we are told that the present position is anomalous. Well, I am one of those people who are not very much afraid of anomalies, There are plenty of anomalies in our Constitution, there are plenty of anomalies in our daily practice, yet we are most of us not anxious to sweep them away. But if you want to get rid of this anomaly there are two ways of doing it. You may get rid of the Military Member, or you may remove the Commander-in-Chief from Council. The latter proposal has high authority in its favour. It has the authority, as we have seen, of Lord Lawrence and of Sir Ashley Eden's Commission; and it has last, but by no means least, the authority of Sir Donald Stewart. I will not take upon myself the responsibility of recommending that change. I do not know how it would be taken by the Army. It is a very great change, and one which I am not here for the purpose of enforcing. I prefer to maintain the anomaly and to leave the Commander-in-Chief in his present position. But you must recollect that the law, by giving a special discretion to the Secretary of State as to whether he will place a given Commander-in-Chief in Council or not, distinctly shows that it does not consider

  1085
  the presence of the Commander-in-Chief to be an essential element; and it is a change which, if it should ever be desired to be made, could be made on a fitting occasion without any alteration in the law. But I do not recommend it. I do not think that it would be a safe or an advisable change to make at the present time. All that I ask is that things should be left as they have been during the last half century.
  The so-called compromise, the arrangement which has been offered to Lord Curzon, and which he has with some modifications accepted, does not touch this question of the alteration in the position of the Commander-in-Chief. What it does deal with is the question of how a second military opinion is to be given to the Viceroy. To that Lord Curzon attaches the very highest importance, and I quite agree with him. It is not from any distrust in the great men who have filled the office of Commander-in-Chief, but it is because there are peculiar circumstances in India which make it an absolute necessity that the Viceroy, who, after all, is the head of the Government and responsible for military as well as for civil matters, should have the fullest and most complete advice on the many difficult questions of military administration and military organisation. It is impossible to contend that it is not of the first importance that that sort of information should be readily at the disposal of the Viceroy. My noble friend opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to these particular questions that I am alluding to, questions particularly relating to the Indian Army, did not so greatly need other expert advice because he had my noble and gallant friend on the cross benches as his Commander-in-Chief, and no man was more qualified to advise on all questions relating to the native Army than Lord Roberts.
  But you may have again, as you have to-day, a Commander-in-Chief who, however distinguished and however able, has little practical knowledge of the native Army or of its prejudices and its fears; and it is absolutely necessary, if you are to avoid the tremendous difficulties that may arise from a mistake on questions of that kind, that you should have
  1086
  someone to give the Viceroy responsible advice. There are questions which relate to the prejudices of the native Army; there are questions which relate to the policy which was deliberately adopted in regard to military matters after the Mutiny. You will find in these Papers one instance in regard to the employment of native troops upon certain works. I do not say that that would have raised any difficulty. I have not the information to enable me to say so; but it is exactly the question which might raise a difficulty. It is exactly the question which might affect prejudices, perhaps caste prejudices and others, and on which the advice of a man who had been trained in the native Army, who had been a regimental officer of an native regiment, is absolutely required to enable the Viceroy to properly judge of the questions which come before him. Therefore, I have the most entire sympathy with Lord Curzon in his demand that he should not be deprived of the opportunity of referring to some person who has this kind of military experience. I mention questions springing out of the memories of that terrible catastrophe of nearly fifty years ago. There were principles of policy laid down then relating to such matters as the question of native field artillery, the composition of corps d'armée or divisions of brigades, as to the proportion of European and native troops to be maintained in the Army at large and in each of its component parts. There were questions of policy then laid down which it would be dangerous to overthrow, and which ought to be taken into the fullest consideration by the Viceroy in any questions that he may have to determine, and, therefore, I say that there could not be a more dangerous thing than to deprive the Viceroy of the means of having the best possible second advice in regard to all these matters.
  The Secretary of State speaks rather slightingly of those who have filled the office of Military Member; he speaks of them as men of less standing and reputation than Commanders-in-Chief. These Military Members have been men of quite as high standing and reputation as many Commanders-in-Chief. They have been men like Sir Henry Norman, like Sir Donald Stewart, like Lord Napier of

  1087
  Magdala, and they were men who would have given the wisest possible advice to the Viceroy on matters of this kind. Lord Napier of Magdala and Sir Donald Stewart became Commanders-in-Chief themselves. They were exactly of the same calibre as Commanders-in-Chief. There may have been Military Members not of such standing as these. I hope it is not disrespectful to say that there have been Commanders-in-Chief of not such high military standing as my noble and gallant friend on the cross benches and Lord Kitchener; but the endeavour has always been to obtain those who were able to give the best military advice to the Viceroy. Under the old system it was the duty of the Military Member to make himself acquainted with all military proposals, and to bring before the Viceroy anything which he thought required special consideration by him. That will not be so now.
  I understand that the Supply Member is to be free to give advice if called upon to do so, but he is not to see the papers on their way to the Viceroy, and whether he is consulted or not will depend on whether the Viceroy thinks it necessary that he should consult him. That will work, I daresay, very fairly with Lord Curzon, because Lord Curzon is a Viceroy of unusual experience. He has been in India a longer time than any recent Viceroy, and he does know a great deal about all these questions. But take a new Viceroy going out for the first time, having little or no acquaintance with Indian matters, an English statesman sent out there without any special knowledge. I think my noble and gallant friend will not contradict me when I say that there may very well be questions coming before him which look very small and of little importance, but which, after all, may contain the germs of very serious matters, and upon which a Viceroy, not well understanding questions of that kind, might not think it necessary to consult the Supply Member. I also am not quite sure, when you have taken away from the Supply Member all the really military portion of the administration, when you have left to him nothing but what would be just as well administered by a civilian of good business habits—I am not quite sure
  1088
  whether, when that is his daily work, when that is to be his special official purpose, you will get men of the same calibre, men of the same military position to take up that office as you have happily been able to get for the position of Military Member in the past. There is a cryptic sentence in Mr. Brodrick's despatch, to be found on page 63, in which he says—
  "Until recent years it was the practice of the head of the Department to sink his military status on all occasions, and to adopt the civil role which appertains to the powers which he wields."
  If that means, as I suppose it docs, that of late years Military Members have been taking too much upon themselves, if I may be pardoned for the expression, if it means that there has been any encroachment upon the proper duties of the Commander-in-Chief, then I say let it be amended. There have been circumstances in India during the last few years in reference to the chief command in that country which make it possible that such encroachments may have grown up. I do not know whether they have or not. I have been told, for instance, that the Military Member is now in the habit of attending Council in uniform. It may seem a very small matter to your Lordships, but it is a matter of importance. It is a symbol of assuming a position which he ought not to assume. It is a proceeding to which I could quite understand the Commander-in-Chief objecting; but that is a thing which could be stopped in a moment you need not root up the whole of your military arrangements for the purpose of stopping things of that kind. All that you have got to do is to say that it is to be stopped, and stopped, of course, it will be. If there have been any such encroachments, let them be brought to an end.
  These Papers show that my noble and gallant friend on the cross benches had some causes of complaint at times during the Viceroyalty of my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, for on page 60 I find this statement—
  "Changes in procedure were, in consequence, authorised by Lord Lansdowne which satisfied Lord Roberts and secured a more effective working of the system during the remainder of his period of office."

  1089
  Why cannot you do that now? Why is it necessary to make a complete and fundamental change in the constitution of the Government of India for the purpose of arranging disputes of the description which were settled so easily by my noble friend opposite and my noble and gallant friend on the cross benches. Of course, there are men and men. I do not dispute that. But the public service is not framed for the convenience of particular individuals, but is framed for the purpose of conducting the general business of the country in the best and most satisfactory manner.
  Now I come to the question of what J is called the Supply Member; that is to say, to the compromise which has been accepted by Lord Curzon. I am bound to say that in my opinion Lord Curzon, in accepting that compromise with very slight alterations, acted with very great moderation. I cannot join in any of the denunciations which have been poured out upon Lord Curzon's head. Perhaps I have a little sympathy with Lord Curzon. I have been in his office, and I know what it is; but, it I may be permitted to say so, I do not think that that compromise can be taken as altogether a satisfactory settlement of the question, because it is an unreal settlement. You are going to appoint a Supply Member, who, I understand and hope, is always to be a military man, but that is not quite clear from anything in these Papers, or anything that has been yet said in Parliament, and I hope His Majesty's Government will tell us distinctly that that Supply Member is to be as regularly a military man as the Military Member has hitherto been. If that is not the case, then the compromise is worth nothing, and nothing has been done to satisfy the demand of the Viceroy for second military advice; and it is only by making that perfectly clear that you can make the compromise of any value at all. What will be the position of the Supply Member? He is to look after a set of duties which, as I have said, might be just as well discharged by a civilian so far as those particular duties are themselves concerned and he is to be allowed to be referred to by the Viceroy. He is to have no original right, as I understand it, to go
  1090
  to the Viceroy upon military matters; he is not to report; he is to do nothing until he is called for; or until the question comes before the Council, when, of course, you cannot prevent him from giving his opinion. I do not think that will be a satisfactory solution of the question. I do not believe it will be a solution which will hold. I do not believe that it will be a solution which can finally be maintained.
  I want also to know something about the Secretary to the Military Department. The Secretaries to the Government of India in various Departments are appointed by the Viceroy. Is the Secretary to the Military Department going still to be appointed by the Viceroy? He has been given the local and temporary rank of major-general if his Army rank is below that. I see that Lord Kitchener puts him down as the last name in the staff of his own Department. Is he to be appointed by the Commander-in-Chief or by the Viceroy? As my noble friend knows very well, the Secretary of a Department of the Government of India has a peculiar position. He is entitled to go to the Viceroy if he differs in opinion from the member in charge of the Department, and to claim the privilege of stating his difference to the Head of the Government. Is that to be the case still? Is that to be the position of the Secretary to the Military Department; and, if it is, what about the friction? The Secretary to the Military Department is the Secretary working under the Commander-in-Chief. Is he to go from the Commander-in-Chief, under whom he works, in order to tell the Viceroy his opinion in contradiction to the advice given by the Commander-in-Chief? That seems to me one of the most curious ways of getting rid of friction that I have ever heard of.
  I am sorry to say I am compelled to express my great regret at the tone of Mr. Brodrick's despatch. That the Secretary of State should rule in all matters in India which are not settled by law, that he should rule in the final judgment is, of course, necessary in all foreign affairs and in all questions of principle. He should give his opinions and ought to be unhesitatingly obeyed. But if there is one point on which the Secretary of State

  1091
  ought to be very cautious about interfering with the Viceroy it is in the management of the business of the Viceroy's own Council. The final despatch of Mr. Brodrick says—"This has been decided, and that has been decided, and you are to carry it out, and are to have all your arrangements made by October 1st." I venture respectfully to say that that is not the tone in which the Viceroy of India ought to be addressed. I do not believe, my Lords, that since the days of Lord Ellenborough's famous despatch to Lord Canning about the affairs of Oudh, any Government of India has received such a rebuff in the face of India and in the face of the world. Recollect this, that the order issued to Lord Curzon in regard to the distribution of business in his Council deprives him of a discretion which has been given to him by Act of Parliament; and I think that even if that can be justified, which I greatly doubt, it ought at least to have been indicated in gentler terms and in more civil phrases, and that the document in which it was sent to the Viceroy ought not to have been published. Many a Viceroy would have given a very short shrift to a proceeding of that description.
  I now come to the last point to which I shall draw your attention, but it is one of very grave nature. The Government, of India is founded on statute. It has always been the policy of the past to base that great Government, the Government of the greatest dependency of the Crown—I might almost say the Government of the greatest dependency of any country in the world—to base that Government upon statute. There is the statute of 1861, which, though it has been altered in some respects, remains the solid foundation of the Government of India, and now you are proposing to alter the practice established by that Act in some important particulars, and you have not condescended in any form whatever to consult Parliament. I know something of the Act of 1861. It fell to my lot to pass it through this House, and, therefore, I am well aware of its provisions. I am well aware of the reasons which actuated the Government that brought it in and passed it. I will ask your
  1092
  Lordships' attention to the 8th section of the Indian Councils Act of 1861. That section is to the following effect—
  "It shall be lawful for the Governor-General from time to time to make Rules and Orders for the more convenient transaction of business in the said Council, and any Order made, or act done, in accordance with such Rules and Orders, except as hereafter provided respecting laws and regulations, shall be deemed to be the Order or act of the Governor-General in Council."
  It is under that clause that the distribution of business by the Viceroy in Council is carried out. That clause was introduced for the purpose of enabling the Viceroy to carry out the arrangements in Council which now prevail. Before that was passed every paper came into Council and was read there, and no decision was legally binding except it had been actually passed in Council; and you will observe one peculiar thing about the phraseology of that clause. Your Lordships know that nearly always in Acts relating to India the words run "The Governor-General in Council," but the person to whom the power is given to make regulations for the business of the Council is not the Governor-General in Council, but the Governor-General by himself. That is unusual, and it was done for the purpose of placing in the hands of the Viceroy of India the power of making his own regulations for the conduct of business in his Council.
  That clause did not attract, as far as I can gather from reference to Hansard. attention in the other House of Parliament, where not unnaturally they were mainly concerned with the powers of the Legislative Council, but when the Bill came up to this House it was very fully considered and discussed. We had then in this House so eminent a man as the late Lord Ellenborough, who had been Governor-General of India. We had in this House Lord Lyveden, who had been President of the Board of Control. We had in this House other men, all of whom took part in this discussion and showed the deepest interest in the clause. Objections were taken to it. Lord Ellenborough preferred that things should be left as they were, but it was explained to him that Lord Dalhousie and Lord Canning had both found that

  1093
  the business had increased so enormously that unless some means of this kind of meeting it were provided it would be difficult to transact it as it ought to be transacted. But the assurance which was given by the Government of that day was that the discretion as to how this business was to be distributed in the Council of the Governor-General was to be left entirely to the Governor-General himself. This is what was said on that occasion by the late Duke of Argyll, who was then a member of the Cabinet—
  "The clause now proposed would authorise the Governor-General from time to time to make such regulations as he thought necessary for the more convenient transaction of business, and if the division of work which he made was found inconvenient, or if his successor disapproved of it, the regulation might be altered or remodelled in a moment according to the views of the Governor-General for the time being."
  That, my Lords, is the interpretation which was given to that clause by the Government which proposed the Bill; that was the understanding on which the clause was accepted in this House; and I say that language of that kind is wholly inconsistent with forcing the Governor-General to make a distribution of his business which he does not himself desire.
  That is a very clear case, to my mind; but I think also that it is contrary to the spirit, at all events, of the statute that you should put the Commander-in-Chief in charge of any Department of Government at all. Those who have hitherto been in charge of those Departments have been ordinary Members of the Governor-General's Council. The Commander-in-Chief is not an ordinary Member, but an extraordinary Member. He may be there, or he may not be there, according to the discretion of the Secretary of State; and I contend that if you, as you do, practically turn him from his position as an extraordinary Member into an ordinary Member, he cannot, under the statute, being an ordinary Member, exercise any military command. About that there can be lib doubt, because the clause says—
  "If a person so appointed shall be in the military service of the Crown, he shall not, during his continuance in office as a Member
  1094
  of Council, hold any military command or be employed in any military duties."
  That is clear. Of course, it may be said that that does not really preclude the employment upon these duties of an extraordinary Member. That is a very nice legal point which I will not argue. But what I want to point out is this. Mr. Brodrick may write any number of despatches he likes, but he cannot deprive the Secretary of State of the power of putting the Commander-in-Chief on the Council or not at his discretion.
  I want to know, supposing a Secretary of State were to omit to appoint the Commander-in-Chief to be an extraordinary Member of the Council, what becomes of your arrangement? It comes toppling down on your heads. He is not in Council and cannot undertake the duties, and it is obvious that the intention of those who framed the statute was that the Commander-in-Chief, being an extraordinary Member and of specially high rank, was not to be put in charge of any Department on that kind. I venture to say that in all the discussions that went on the Bill of 1861 in this House, that idea never entered the head of any man. Do you suppose for a moment that the late Lord Ellenborough would have approved on such a proceeding, that he would not have cried out upon it at once? Why, he told us on that occasion, to our great astonishment I admit, that he himself had written with his own hand every important letter which went from the Military Department. He would not do that if he was alive now, but it shows what was his feeling as to the respective positions of the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief in respect to these matters.
  I think we have great ground to complain that in this matter you have not thought fit to consult Parliament. You have, on the contrary, done everything that you could to prevent Parliament from expressing its opinion on this subject. The Papers were laid on the Table of the other House of Parliament forty-eight hours after the debate on the Budget, and there is at the present moment on the Papers of that House

  1095
  a blocking Notice which absolutely precludes the other House of Parliament from considering this question at all. That, my Lords, I hope will be my justification for having detained you so long. I do believe that a more important question in respect to the Government of India has not been raised since the year 1861, and that it is absolutely essential that some notice at least should be taken of this matter in Parliament. I must enter my protest against the course which has been pursued by the Secretary of State. I protest against it, first, because I believe that it will mischievously disorganise the military administration of India and diminish the effective control of the Viceroy in Council over that administration. I protest against it, secondly, because it tends to deprive the Viceroy of that unfettered discretion in regard to the distribution of the business of his Council which has been conferred upon him by Act of Parliament; and I protest against it lastly because it has been adopted without the knowledge or the advice of Parliament, and is altogether inconsistent with the manifest intention of the Government which proposed, and of the Parliament which passed, the statute of 1861.
  Moved, "That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Minute of Sir Donald Stewart in June, 1898, on the subject of Indian Army Administration, recorded in the India Office."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  EARL ROBERTS: I venture to say a few words on the important subject which the noble Lord has brought forward, because I have had considerable personal experience of Indian Army administration. I was at Army headquarters from time to time during the Viceroyships of Lord Canning, Lord Elgin, Lord Lawrence, Lord Mayo, Lord Northbrook, Lord Lytton, Lord Dufterin, and Lord Lansdowne; and for seven and a-half years I was Commander-in-Chief in India, the greater part of which time the last-named nobleman was Viceroy. I think, therefore, my Lords, I can claim to speak with some authority on a question which has given rise to a good deal of correspondence during the last two
  1096
  years, and regarding which there still is very considerable feeling in India. I mean whether the Commander-in-Chief should be the sole military representative on the Council of the Viceroy, or whether there should be two military advisers—one the Commander-in-Chief, the other an official in charge of what I may call the spending departments of the Army.
  I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, it is essential to the security of India that the Viceroy should not be dependent on the advice of a single soldier, however eminent and distinguished he may be. Even if he were an Indian officer and his experience had been entirely Indian, as was the case with myself, I consider it would be advantageous for the Viceroy to have at his side a second adviser not directly connected with the Army. But when the Commander-in-Chief is, as in the present instance, a complete stranger to India, I consider it would be a positive danger to our hold over that country that he should be the only one to advise the Viceroy on military matters; for, with the sole exception of Lord Lawrence, every Viceroy has also been a stranger to India since the days of Lord Clive.
  I would remind you, my Lords, that the Indian Army has its political as well as its financial and military aspect. It is, besides, scattered over a vast area, and no one man is capable of making himself thoroughly acquainted with the military side and at the same time exercising general control over the civil departments of the Army. The one requires him to be frequently absent from headquarters; the other necessitates his whole attention being given to office work. I cannot believe that any man would venture to under take the arduous position of Viceroy of India under such conditions. The argument that the Commander-in-Chief would always have on his staff a certain proportion of officers of Indian experience, whose intimate acquaintance with the Indian Army would prevent his making any serious mistakes with regard to that Army, does not, in my opinion, carry much weight. These officers would be directly subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief, and could not express opinions to the Viceroy in opposition to those

  1097
  held by their immediate chief. To do so would be subversive of all military discipline. It is essential that the Viceroy should have on his Council an officer—he need not be a great soldier—intimately acquainted with India, especially with the native Army, its feelings, and idiosyncrasies.
  If I regarded this question solely from the soldier's point of view, I should certainly advocate the Commander-in-Chief's position being made as powerful as possible, but I have been too long in India and have had too much experience of the difficulties which beset the Government of that country not to appreciate those difficulties at their full value. The native Army is by far the most difficult and delicate part of the problem with which the Government has to deal, and, unless this is constantly borne in mind, I foresee that troubles will assuredly rise in the future as they have done in the past. I do not deny, my Lords, that differences of opinion have from time to I time arisen between the Commander-in-Chief and the Military Member of Council. It would be strange indeed if this did not occur between men of strong opinions; but this is the Viceroy's safety, in that he can have different views laid before him on any military subject. I can quite understand that, for reasons into which I need not enter, more power has fallen into the hands of the Military Member than is desirable or customary, and it is this, I cannot help thinking, that has, in a great measure, given rise to the friction which we all deplore. But it only proves that it was the procedure, and not the system, which was at fault; and I hope that the great soldier at present at the head of the Army in India, to whose hearty co-operation during the war in South Africa I myself was so deeply indebted, will now recognise that this was the case, and that in accepting the decision of the Government he will feel that the right course has been adopted.
  I suppose it was unavoidable, when the question at issue reached such a pitch, that it had to be submitted to the Government at home for decision; but I cannot say how much I regret that the action of the Viceroy and his colleagues should have been the subject of criticism in this country—a criticism in many cases
  1098
  made by people who have little or no knowledge of India or of the peculiar nature of its government. The Viceroy of India is a great personage in the eyes of the natives of that country. He is to them not only the Governor-General of India, but His Majesty the King's representative; and it is most undesirable that anything should be said or done here which could possibly tend to lessen. the Viceroy's dignity or power, or lower him in the estimation of the natives of India.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Marquess of BATH): I venture at the outset of my remarks to assure the noble Marquess that I fully recognise not only his right to bring this subject before your Lordships' attention, but I also recognise the propriety of his doing so. I should like to add, if I may, that I appreciate that the motive of the noble Marquess in so doing has been entirely for the public good. I recognise the authority of his experience both in India and at home, and although he has alluded with some warmth to certain portions of the policy which has actuated the despatch, and to the despatch itself, I venture to thank him for the manner in which he has brought this subject before the notice of your Lordships. I remember also that there is a noble Lord, who has his place upon the benches opposite, who has served in the office of Viceroy with the highest distinction. Your Lordships have, moreover, been addressed by the noble and gallant Earl on the Cross Benches, to whom not only the Indian Army, but the British Army, owes so much for the glory of their achievements. I have further to remember that there sits behind me my noble friend the Leader of the House, whose years of office as Viceroy of India are gratefully remembered as amongst the most valuable and valued in the annals of the Indian Empire. The House will appreciate that in approaching the subject which is now before us I am over weighted by the reflection that my critics—if they my critics—are certainly not lacking in personal knowledge or experience of the matters under review.
  The noble Marquess who brought this subject forward did full justice to its

  1099
  antiquity, and he reminded us that this controversy is not only not of recent growth, but is of very long standing. And, my Lords, he was able to speak with the authority of his experience on the question as it presented itself even before the Report of the Ashley Eden Commission, which sat over a quarter of a century ago. I would remind the House that really ever since that time this question has from time to time been more or less acute in its eruptions. But, my Lords, when at length two eminent public servants in India—the Governor-General and his Commander-in-Chief—entered the lists to take part in this controversy they naturally became the protagonists in the fray. They are both masterful men—they are masterful in mind, they are masterful in action—and they both possess a masterful vocabulary; and thus it came to pass that matters reached a crisis when in the interests of the Army in India, in the interests of the Government of India, aye, and in the interests of the Empire at large, it became necessary for the Government at home to seek some means to solve this vexed problem, the put an end to this dispute, and to remove the causes of friction and of combustion, and if possible to settle what has been so long unsettled and to decide what has been so long uncertain.
  I do not think that I should be doing either of the great controversialists any injustice, or be minimising the importance of this subject, if I venture to sum up the question as it presents itself to my mind. The Commander-in-Chief threw down the gauntlet by saying "Everything is wrong," and the Viceroy promptly replied "All's well." Well, my Lords, between these two wholly antagonistic assertions and contentions it was necessary to find out the exact facts. Both of these statements could not be correct; was either of them absolutely correct? So far from the home Government having started the question, this controversy was forced upon them because someone had to decide. The noble Marquess opposite appeared to me to deal principally in his speech with the supposition that the result of the decision of the Secretary of State would be that
  1100
  Lord Kitchener's proposals as contained in his Minute had been accepted.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Yes, as regards the Army Department.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I am speaking not only as regards the Army, hut also as regards the position of his colleague.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I said it would be so as regarded the Army Department.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The noble Marquess, I think, also threw some scorn upon what he called the compromise. I shall venture to allude to that question again in a few moments, but I ask the House to remember that Lord Kitchener based the proposals in his Minute upon Imperial as well as upon Indian grounds, and I suggest, without at this moment expressing any opinion, upon it, that those proposals could not be thrust aside without examination or by a mere negation. The noble Marquess has drawn a picture of what would occur supposing the Commander-in-Chief was absent conducting military operations at the front, and therefore unable to be by the side of the Governor-General and his Council. But surely the answer to that supposition and to that contention is that the Commander-in-Chief is not allowed to leave the country, and, in fact, I do not think I am stating it at all too strongly when I say that he is not allowed to take command of active operations in war, without the leave of the Secretary of State. I cannot help feeling that that portion of the argument which deals with the fear, and perhaps the natural fear, expressed by the Government of India scarcely took that prohibition into account. It is perfectly true that the Commander-in-Chief will have to perform inspection duties. I speak, of course, with great hesitation on a matter of this nature, but what I venture to suggest is that his inspections should be those of great importance and not too frequent, and that the inspection of the minor units should be left to his subordinate officers. I venture to suggest that the place, and the proper place,

  1101
  for the Commander-in-Chief at inspection time is at the great camps of exercise, and at the very large military centres. Therefore, I again venture to suggest that the fear that has been held out of the Commander-in-Chief being very I frequently away from the centre of Government will not prove that bar to the efficient conduct of the business which it is proposed to place more fully in his hands.
  I do also think, if I may venture to say so with all respect, that the conditions have considerably changed since the days when those eminent authorities expressed the strong opinions they did, and which the noble Marquess quoted, with regard to the inadvisability of the Commander-in-Chief being away from the central Government. After all, telegraphs have, in spite of what the noble Marquess says, largely improved since those days. It should also be borne in mind that the conditions of travel and of communication, even by other means than telegraphs, have vastly improved, and I do think that the inconveniences arising from the absence of the Commander-in-Chief will not prove nearly so serious now as they did in the days to which the noble Marquess has referred.
  The noble Marquess dealt with the second military adviser who, he said, was being taken away from the Governor-General in Council—and I cannot help feeling that the whole of his speech was strongly influenced by that apprehension—and he also alluded to the native and political questions that would arise, and which were constantly arising; and he made a point of the fact that by the scheme, as decided upon by the Secretary of State, the Viceroy would be entirely deprived of a second military opinion. Surely, the noble Marquess has forgotten that in the scheme as decided upon by my right hon. friend express provision is made for dealing with these native and political questions by means of the Mobilisation Committee, which is a Committee upon which both the Commander-in-Chief and the Military Supply Member will have their seats. So far as the second military adviser is concerned, I would venture to remind him
  1102
  that it is not proposed to withdraw him from his seat on the Council.
  The noble Marquess seemed to become somewhat indignant in regard to a passage in the despatch of the Secretary of State, in which he alluded to the fact that the Military Member,—or may I use what is perhaps a more correct expression, the Member in Charge of the Military Department—
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: It is certainly longer.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: Yes, it is longer, but think that the short title has tended to produce serious misconceptions in the general consideration of the matter—the noble Marquess appeared I say, to be indignant because the Secretary of State alluded to this official as being in an inferior position to the Commander-in-Chief. I think the correct words are "Another expert of less standing and reputation than himself." But surely the very instances which the noble Marquess quoted show conclusively that this Military Member must necessarily be of less standing and reputation than the Commander-in-Chief. You must surely compare things with the present, and you must compare each Military Member with his contemporary Commander-in-Chief It is not for me, my Lords, to pass any comment or to express any views upon the distinguished officers who have held posts of Commander - in - Chief and Military Member. It is quite possible that some Military Members have been of far superior attainments to some of the Commanders-in-Chief, but I do submit—and especially in the instances which the noble Marquess gave us of the two distinguished officers who eventually became Commander-in-Chief—that the officer, whoever he may be, who holds the office of Military Member must necessarily be of less standing and reputation than the then existing Commander-in-Chief.
  One other point to which the noble Marquess referred was the fact that the Military Member—I use the short title in spite of what I said—would be debarred from going to the Viceroe on his own account. Surely the nobly Marquess is mistaken, because it is still

  1103
  competent for any Member of the Viceroy's Council to go and consult the Viceroy on his own initiative.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I hate to interrupt, and I am sorry to say that to interrupt is a growing habit in both Houses of Parliament. I must, however, state that what I did say was that the Military Member would not see by the papers passing under his eyes what was going on, and that unless the Viceroy sent for him he would not be able to know what was going on in the other branch of the military administration. I did not say anything more than that.
  THE MARQUESS OP BATH: I was going on to the point that he would not have access to the papers. Of course I speak under a disadvantage in discussing this matter with the noble Marquess, but I believe the Members of the Council can call for papers.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: If they want them.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: Yes, if they want them. But, after all, may I venture to remind the noble Lord that I think the general impression left on one's mind by those Papers which have been presented to Parliament is that both Sir Edmund Elles and the Viceroy in his Minute and despatch were afraid that the questions affecting the Indian Army, and political matters, would not receive the consideration which their importance deserved. But, my Lords, those questions will all go before the Mobilisation Committee, they will be discussed from their proper aspect by the two branches of the Army administration, and those questions are all necessarily bound to come up before the Viceroy, who will have the whole of this expert advice to fall back upon. The noble Marquess asked the Government one Question with regard to the appointment of that new official, the Secretary. My impression is that he will be appointed like the other officers, and that is by the Viceroy.
  Perhaps I may be permitted to say one word on a matter upon which the noble Marquess laid some stress, and I approach it with a good deal of diffidence,
  1104
  because I have not had that legal training which enables one to deal with such a subject with rapidity and with accuracy, but I may tell the noble Marquess that we are advised, and it is a strong opinion held by the India Office and the Secretary of State, that the provisions of the Act of 1861 have not been contravened in any respect. I beg to remind your Lordships that the Act of 1861 is also governed by the Act of 1833, and in that Act it is distinctly land down—
  "That the said Board shall have and be invested with full power and authority to superintend, direct, and control all acts, operations, and concerns of the said company which in any wise relate to or concern the government or revenues of the said territories, or the property hereby Vested in the said company in trust as aforesaid, and all grants of salaries, gratuities, and allowances, and all other payments and charges whatever, out of or upon the said revenues and property respectively, except as hereinafter is mentioned."
  I submit that that section governs the provisions of the Act of 1861. I do not deny that the Governor-General, by Section 8, can lawfully make his own rules and regulations for the more convenient transaction of business. It has been the custom, and it has happened that the Home Government have issued their decisions—because they are decisions, and I think the noble Marquess will acknowledge that—to the Governor-General, and have left him to frame the rules and to carry them out.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Yes, in regard to the arrangements in his own Council.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I think I can give the noble Marquess an instance which comes to my mind. In the year 1888 it became necessary in the opinion of the Home Government to reorganise the duties of the Finance Member. The matter was discussed between the Government of India and the India Office, and it was my noble friend Lord Cross, who was in the House at the beginning of this debate, who himself sent that decision out to Lord Dufferin, who was then Governor-General, leaving it to hint to make any modifications in the existing rules for the conduct of business which might be required to give effect to those instructions.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Yes, he left it to him.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: Yes, the rules were made by Lord Dufferin, and it fell to the lot of my noble friend behind me (Lord Lansdowne) when he went out to India to refer those rules home to the Secretary of State for his knowledge and approval. There is nothing, so far as I know, in any Act of Parliament to prevent the Governor-General—it may be at the suggestion of the Secretary of State—from allocating any duties to the extraordinary Member of the Council that he chooses just in the same way as he allocates duties for the convenience of the conduct of business in India to the ordinary Members of his Council. The noble Marquess drew another picture of a future Secretary of State declining to place a future Commander-in-Chief on this Board as an extraordinary Member. I will only say in regard to that contention that if the present decisions have successful results, and if it turns out that the working of the military side of the Indian Government is freed from those difficulties which it has experienced in the past, then I do not think that we need fear that any future Secretary of State will be bold enough to upset an arrangement which we hope and believe we have placed upon a satisfactory basis.
  The only other matter to which I have to refer arising out of the speech of the noble Marquess is that he criticised with some severity the Secretary of State's despatch, and he criticised it especially because it conveyed the orders and the decisions of the Secretary of State in a rather unnecessarily harsh manner. I believe, my Lords, that it is an open secret that, while this question as a whole is of very long standing, this particular phase, this acute phase, has been going on also for a comparatively long time. Even when Lord Curzon was over here last summer it was then in progress, and the home authorities were able to consult with his Excellency and to settle the manner in which the question should be brought up. It was brought up by the despatch of the Secretary of State, and it was therefore, I venture to suggest, clear that both the despatch and the decision of the Government could not have been so un-
  1106
  expected as I think the noble Marquess tried to make out.
  The Papers which were laid upon the Table were laid, I know, forty-eight hours after the debate which took place in another place, but as a matter of fact I wish to assure the noble Marquess that their presentation was hurried on owing to that debate. They were hurried on in order to make Members of this House and Members of Parliament generally acquainted with these matters before that particular debate came on. There was every desire on the part of the Secretary of State to meet the convenience of Parliament, and there has been no desire on his part to keep anything back.
  As I said before, it is a fact that these papers were presented certainly several days in advance of the time at which they naturally would have been presented, and this was done in order to endeavour to place them on the Table, if possible, in time for the debate in another place.
  Now I desire to say a few words upon another matter to which the noble Marquess opposite did not refer, and, may I say, to his honour he did not refer. Standing here as I do, and defending, as I hope I am doing, the decision of the Government with regard to this vexed question, I cannot allow the suggestions which have been made in very many quarters with regard to the action of the Secretary of State to pass unchallenged. It has been suggested that the Secretary of State has taken in this matter the side of Lord Kitchener, and that he has against him the Governor-General and the whole of his Council. Against that suggestion I beg to temind your Lordships that for the last twenty-five years at least—whatever may have been the numerous and various recommendations which have been made to solve the difficulty, and which show to my mind the extent of the difficulty—I shall not be exaggerating when I say that every one of the distinguished officers who has held the post of Commander-in-Chief has chafed with varying degrees of irritation against the ever-growing assumptions of the Military Department of control over the Commander-in-Chief. This irritation assumed the form of an open sore when Lord Kitchener appeared upon the scene. I do not deny it. Does the

  1107
  Secretary of State stand alone? His decision, long and carefully considered, was arrived at not as his own autocratic judgment, but as the matured conclusion of the Cabinet. He was supported, and his decision was approved, by those distinguished Members of the Indian Council who have themselves had the widest experience, both civil and military, in India before they took their seats upon the Council Board at home. The facts and the history of events were submitted for advice to distinguished officers who have held the positions both of Commander-in-Chief and Military Member in India, and thus fortified, thus instructed, and thus supported, the Secretary of State came to his decision. The Secretary of State has not taken sides either for or against any individual. He is not biassed, but, if I may say so with all respect, he has with great industry, with absolute honesty, and with a single-minded determination sought out the truth, searched for the facts, and aimed at a decision which, no matter whom it pleased or displeased, should secure the safety and the well-being of the Indian Army and the Empire as a whole.
  The noble Marquess said that if it was merely a question of the assumption of power in the Military Department it could be settled in a moment. The Secretary of State came to the conclusion that the existing condition of affairs could not go on with safety to the State, and every military authority he consulted was and is of that opinion. Between the antagonistic assertions of the Viceroy on the one hand and the Governor-General on the other, the Secretary of State sought, it is true, a via media. I stand here and claim that the Secretary of State has found that via media. The Governor-General on July 6th made certain representations as to modifications in the Secretary of State's despatch of May 31st, and he appended to that communication the satisfactory and significant statement—"the Commander-in-Chief entirely concurs in these proposals." Thereupon the Secretary of State practically adopts these proposals in detail. There, I venture to suggest, the controversy might
  1108
  have closed. Stripped of personal jealousies, stripped of masterful rhetoric, free from the heat engendered. by past friction, surely it is fair to say that this problem has been solved in the interests of the State, and not for the exaltation or humiliation of any particular individual. What the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief have agreed upon, and what the Secretary of State and the Home Government have accepted, ought at least to be given a fair trial before it is condemned, and it ought at least to be put to the test before the controversy begins again. I suggest to your Lordships that there can be no end to any dispute if the disputants are to be free to begin their fight all over again before the ink on the paper on which the settlement is written is dry.
  I have refrained purposely from commenting upon the language of the Minutes of Lord Curzon, Lord Kitchener, and Sir Edmund Elles, because I do not think any commentary of that kind would serve any useful purpose. The Government and this House are not concerned with dialectical triumphs; what we are concerned with is the safety of the State, with the fortunes of the Empire, and with the efficiency of the Army. In recent years, as I think the noble Marquess himself suggested, the position of the Member in charge of the Military Department has, owing to an exceptional state of affairs, tended to pass from being that of a civil administrator to that of a purely expert military adviser. This position has been condemned by high military authority and also by eminent Indian administrators. I think it is only fair to say that Lord Kitchener, however strong and extreme some of his proposals may have been, has insisted all along on the retention of the military supremacy of the Governor-General.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Of course he has.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: He has all along repudiated any idea of establishing a military autocracy. At all events he is entitled to the credit of meaning what he says; but lest the result

  1109
  of these changes which we have proposed should by any chance have that tendency, the Governor-General submitted certain proposals which the Commander-in-Chief accepted, and of which the Secretary of State and the Home Government approved. My Lords, I suggest that both loyalty and common sense demand that this decision should be respected.
  It is clear, I think, that the dispute and the real point at issue between the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief was that, on the one hand, the Governor-General was afraid lest the Commander-in-Chief's intention was to establish a military autocracy and to subvert the authority of the Governor-General, as it has existed ever since the Government of India has been under this country; and, on the other hand, the Commander-in-Chief was afraid that the Military Member, had assumed, and was assuming, a position which gave him a control over the military conduct of purely military affairs which he was never intended to possess, and which would be fatal to the successful conduct of military matters, for which, I suggest, the Commander-in-Chief could and should alone be responsible to the Governor-General. On the one hand, the Secretary of State laid down that the military supremacy of the Governor-General should remain, and that that eminent public servant should retain all the powers he had hitherto possessed in that direction. He laid down that the power of veto should rest exclusively with the Governor-General in Council. So much for the fear of the subversion of the military supremacy of the Viceroy. In the second place he decided that, whilst the second military adviser should not be withdrawn from the Council, that Member should be relegated to the position which he was originally intended to occupy, and that he should no longer possess that power of veto, without reference to the Governor-General in Council which he had hitherto exercised, and that his functions should be more those of a civil administrator with military knowledge and experience, in accordance with the original intention. If, as I trust, I have made this point clear, I have at all events
  1110
  fulfilled the object for which I rose in reply to the speech of the noble Marques opposite.
  LORD SANDHURST: I so seldom intervene in discussions in your Lordships' House that possibly I may be excused on this occasion for asking your indulgence, because I happen to have had the honour of administering the Government of one of the Presidencies of India, and therefore this question is one of absorbing interest to me. At the same time, those who are conversant with our complex system of government in India may very well suggest that it is out of place for me, having been a Presidency Governor, to interfere in this discussion because these matters have to do principally, if not wholly, with the Government of India. At the same time I think that while it is natural to suppose that a man should give what he may consider his best energies to the duties that fall upon him within his own Presidency, it is natural also, I think, that he should extend his purview somewhat, and observe and form opinions upon matters which, although they are beyond his personal ken as an administrator, no doubt have to do with the development, and therefore with the happiness, of the people of India. The noble Marquess below me, and the noble and gallant Lord on the cross benches, have gone with great detail, owing to the wealth and knowledge of their experience, into the various subjects connected with this question. I do not propose to follow them in that detail. I may say that I agree with the noble Marquess below me, and I should like to add this particular remark to what he said. Of course I know that no matter which side one speaks from it is very difficult indeed to entirely dissociate from the minds of some people that there must be a political bias in the action that one may take in criticising the action of the Government of the day. But I can assure your Lordships that no such feeling as that actuates me in the slightest degree whatever, and I should deem it a very great misfortune if any large section of the public in India, or the public officers in India, thought they could appeal with success from one great political Party m England to the other.

  1111
  I listened with great pleasure to the statement of the noble Marquess who has just addressed us, and I could not help regretting that it had not been the duty of the noble Marquess either to draft or supervise the despatch of May 31st, especially when I listened to the conciliatory sentences in which he addressed your Lordships. I shall say more about that despatch before I Sit down. In the course of his speech the noble Marquess certainly drew an interesting picture of what a happy family the officials at the India Office must be when they hear all about these strong controversies and rhetoric and so forth. But surely this is not quite a sufficient reason for changing the whole principle upon which the Government of India was founded so many years ago. As regards the Commander-in-Chief and his power of inspection, it seems that we are dangerously approaching the position that if we do not take care we shall have neither a Military Member of Council nor a Commander-in-Chief, because when that great functionary should be at the side of the Viceroy he will be going about the country inspecting, and when he ought to be inspecting he will be required by the side of the Viceroy. I heard the noble Marquess say that the inspection of the Commander-in-Chief should be confined, for example, say, to such great camps as Delhi and elsewhere. Now I have had some acquaintance with the Commander-in-Chief, and I must say that being a Commander-in-Chief and a Member of the Council his inspection duties took him continually away from the seat of Government wherever that might happen to be.
  I do not propose to call before your Lordships the names of those two great functionaries between whom this controversy has taken place, and who have been the very centre of it. With all submission, I say that it does not seem to me to be a question either of Lord Curzon on the one hand or Lord Kitchener on the other. The service of the Viceroy in India is nearly concluded, and the Commander-in-Chief has, I believe, completed about half his term; therefore it appears to me that this question goes far beyond the individual controversies of two or three or half-a-dozen individuals,
  1112
  however high their functions may be. It is, on the one hand, the case of a great soldier in charge of a service who by the time he reaches the end of his service in that exalted position will have spent the best years and very nearly the whole of his responsible life in the service of his country. Of course from the very nature of the case he has immediately under his eye the Army and the interests of that Army, and it would be very strange if it were otherwise. On the other hand, the great statesman who is sent out from this country as Viceroy must naturally be anxious to do his be got to meet the demands of his military advisers, and meet as far as he can the military needs, but at the same time he must also keep his eye upon, and fulfil the requirements, of the various civil services which are under his control and supervision. I must say that upon that point I agree with the noble Marquess who brought in this Motion.
  When I, like other students, take the Blue-book in my hands, I feel bound to say without any hesitation whatever, that not only is the weight of evidence, but also the weight of argument, in my opinion, in favour of the system as it existed a short time ago in preference to the system which has now been brought about. Some of this strong language which has been flying about is very much like what we are accustomed to call in India semiofficial letters, and though it may be extremely spicy reading, at the same time I feel bound to say that the despatch of the Government of India signed by the whole of the Government and the Minutes signed by the Viceroy himself are Papers of dignity and moderation. I was pleased to hear the noble Marquess remark that he had behind him the whole of the Indian Council. He says he has the Viceroy and the whole of his Council behind him, and I do not for one moment doubt that assertion. I may say, however, that I have searched about to find men of experience who have passed a great many years both in military and civilian life is India—I do not mean merely arm-chair politicians and so forth, but men who think a great deal and have the interests of India at heart—and I have never been able to find one person who agrees

  1113
  with the view taken by the Government. The noble Marquess says the Secretary of State's Council is in favour of it, and of course there is an end of that matter as regards them.
  There was, however, another point I should like to refer to which was touched upon by the noble Marquess. It has been pointed out how heavy the duties of the Commander-in-Chief are, and I think that remark applies to every official, whether military or civilian, throughout the whole Dependency of India. No doubt these proposals will increase his work, and that work will have to be carried on when he is travelling about or upon his tours of inspection. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House, the noble Marquess upon this side, and others who have had to do with Indian administration, know what a very serious matter it is when your papers and boxes have to catch you up, and that after the active work you may be pursuing, either as a soldier or as one engaged upon famine relief works, at the end of the day when you. come in you have had quite enough to do without finding the whole of your boxes waiting for you and without being obliged to sit down and tackle them at once. That is a very serious matter to the Commander-in-Chief, however strong and willing he may be, to undertake at the end of a long day's inspection. It was pointed out by the noble Marquess opposite that you have the telegraph. So you have, and I agree with the noble Marquess that the telegraph is an admirable thing if you want to say "Yes" or "No" or issue an order, and have it promptly carried out. But, after all, the telegraph renders people liable to many mistakes and misapprehensions if you have to carry on important business by telegram.
  Then, again, we cannot get away from the fact that important as it is the Army is only one of the services of India. There are a great many other services which the Viceroy and various other high officials have to control. They are, of course, not of the same enormous importance as the Army, but they nevertheless have their place in the government of the country. Take irrigation, education, the
  1114
  railways, and so forth, and other matters many of which are necessary for the preservation of life and for the development of the resources of India. I look upon these proposals and these arrangements which have been carried out with mistrust for this reason. I have had only a slight acquaintance with Lord Kitchener, and he may be a man who takes a broad view of the government of India, and is willing to agree that certain proportions of the funds and so forth must be set aside for other purposes. But supposing that you import into the Commander-in-Chief ship in India first of all an inexperienced officer as regards India; I will not further dilate upon that point, because it was so clearly put by the noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches. Supposing he obtains a preponderating influence with the Viceroy, what becomes of the other services? It is perfectly true that in the last few years Lord Curzon has been so fortunate as to have at his command surpluses from which he has been able to ladle out money with both hands to the Military Department and also to the other services of the State. But when I had the honour to be in India for five years I can assure your Lordships that for four out of those five years money was extremely scarce, and those who have had to do with India know perfectly well how hard it is to carry on administration for the development of any Indian province, or to improve your administration, when you I have no funds whatever to do it with, and that is where I am afraid the danger may come in with the Military Department, who might get an undue proportion of the funds at the disposal of the Viceroy.
  Suppose for a moment that you have a determined Viceroy and a determined Commander-in-Chief. Things may be at a deadlock, and then we come back to the telegraph of which we have heard so much and we find that the unfortunate Secretary of State has to spend a great deal of time telegraphing to smooth over both these high officials and remove the friction between them. Instead of removing obstacles, we shall be creating fresh difficulties by this course. One of the points raised in one of Lord Kitchener's Minutes was that the system was so slow.

  1115
  I do not wish in any way to defend dilatoriness or slowness, but those of us who have had to work in the East know that in India of all places everything, from the very nature of the country must be slow. There is no getting out of that fact. I believe that one of the reasons of our success in governing India is that there has been slow and sure and careful administration, and this has ensured efficiency, and has produced a just administration.
  I regret that in the Minute the organisation of the Army of India was somewhat belittled, if not in words certainly by insinuation, by the Commander-in-Chief, and I hope recruiting for the native Army will not suffer in consequence. After all is said and done, we have observed how quickly troops have been sent from India, in one instance to Natal, which by some authorities are said to have saved Natal at the outbreak of the South African War. We also know how Indian troops were sent to China, and we have had recent experience of the value of Indian troops in the Tirah Campaign. We know that officers in our Army are by no means slow to criticise arrangements which they consider to be faulty, but, so far as my own experience goes, I never heard anything but praise of the way the Tirah Expedition was carried out from start to finish.
  I must say a word or two in regard to the despatch of the 31st May, although my noble friend has already alluded to it. I concur with him in the deprecatory terms in which he spoke of that despatch. It almost seems to me that when the Secretary of State penned or agreed to that despatch that he almost forgot to whom he was writing, and, if he did not forget it, he failed to appreciate and realise the position that that high functionary holds in the native mind, not only as the Viceroy of India, but as the direct representative of the Sovereign. I am certain that if the noble Marquess the Under-Secretary of State for India had been entrusted with the supervision of that despatch it would have reached India, if it had been intended for publication, in a very different form than the terms in which it has now been issued. Nobody knows better than the noble Marquess below me, and the noble Marquess
  1116
  opposite, that the Viceroy of India has beyond all laws and regulations a great power, a great moral power for good and for social development, and I very much fear that the natives of India, who are very quick to perceive anything, will think that a slight has been put upon the Viceroy and the whole of his Council by the terms of that despatch.
  I will say one word about Lord Curzon. I have had the honour of serving with and under Lord Curzon for some little time. I do not, however, hold any brief for him, and I have never heard from him on this ject at all, indeed I do not correspond with him because experience teaches me that Viceroys have other things to do than to peruse the academic effusions of their friends. But we have had a great many Viceroys extending over an enormous period of years, including the two Marquesses sitting on either side of the Table, who have given the best years of their lives to the service of their country in India and to the service of the people of India. I do not, however, think it is an exaggeration to say that there is not one of the many Viceroys who have served India who has brought greater singleness of mind to bear upon the great office that he holds and on the subjects with which he has to deal and who in spite of delicate health involving much pain, has devoted greater energy to the office which he adorns, or has brought greater capacity to the various subjects which have to come before him, and to whom the Government paid the unique compliment—certainly unique in modern days—of prolonging his tenure of office for a year or two. Then, at the eleventh hour, he is made the public recipient of this despatch, which contains the slight to which I have referred.
  I desire, my Lords, in conclusion, to associate myself with the noble Marquess below me in his view as to the contents of this Blue-book. I am certainly persuaded that these proposals have not been attended by any present advantage, and I look at them with some little apprehension as regards the future, because they embody a system which, so far as I have been able to observe, is opposed by the whole of the public opinion of India, and stands almost condemned by the greater part

  1117
  of the men at home who have had experience in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have listened with pleasure to the warm eulogy which the noble Lord who has just sat down passed on the brilliant services of Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India. That these services are appreciated by His Majesty's Government could not be proved in a more signal manner than by the fact that they have asked him to extend his term in India to a period exceeding in length the term of any of his predecessors, and it is super-fluous for me to assure your Lordships that nothing has been further from our thoughts than by anything we have said or written either to give him personal offence or to derogate from the high position he has held in the face of the people of India.
  Even those of us who do not entirely agree with the arguments of the noble Marquess opposite must have noticed with admiration the energy and vigour with which he treated the proposals which have been made by His Majesty's Government and now accepted by the Indian Government. But as the noble Marquess's blows fell fast and furious, I could not help feeling that we might, perhaps, complain of him a little for what I cannot help calling his ingratitude to us in a very essential particular. The noble Marquess found fault with the settlement which has been arrived at, but throughout the whole of his speech I did not catch a single word of acknowledgement of that which, after all, must be regarded by the noble Marquess as no small admission of the principle for which he contends—I mean our absolute refusal to listen to Lord Kitchener's proposal to put an end to the existence of the Military Member of Council. We found ourselves in the position of having to decide between the demand of Lord Kitchener that the office of Military Member should be absolutely put an end to, and the view of the Government of India that it should be preserved, and that he should remain very much in the position which he has always occupied, and we decided against Lord Kitchener.
  1118
  Let me say at once that I am one of those who are firmly convinced that it is essential that we should have two high officials in those positions, and that their duties should not be concentrated in the person of a single official, however distinguished. In the first place, I do not know of any human shoulders broad enough to bear the double load at present borne by these two men; and I may add to that that, in my belief, the duties of the two offices are really distinct. It may be difficult to define them with scientific precision, but they fall under the two heads which the noble Marquess specified—the duties of Army administration and those of Army command—I may add also to that that, in my belief, it would be unfortunate, if among the ordinary Members of the Council there were not to be always one with some knowledge of military affairs, and able when necessary to give the Viceroy the benefits of his advice. I believe that, for the reason which was given by the noble and gallant Lord who spoke from the cross benches, without such an arrangement you will always be liable to find that particularly in periods of transition between the terms of one Commander-in-Chief and another the Viceroy in Council is deficient in that entire knowledge of the affairs and requirements of the Indian Native Army which is so essential to the Government of India.
  We hear our Army in this country spoken of as a delicate organism with which it is hazardous to tamper, but the Indian Army is a much more delicate organism, and I, for one, should deeply regret to see any change which would diminish by one jot the security we now possess that the interests of the Indian Army will be thoroughly understood and thoroughly respected. I may add further that in my belief the system under which the Viceroy has had the advantage of the advice both of the Commander-in-Chief and of a Member of Council with military knowledge and experience has, on the whole, worked well. There have been periods of friction, and such periods of friction have not been entirely unknown to us in this country; but, taking the arrangement as a whole, I believe it is one which is for the interest of the Government of India.

  1119
  Although, however, we may hold those views, that does not seem to me a reason why we should be precluded from reconsidering and, if necessary, revising the distribution of work as between the Commander-in-Chief and the Military Member of Council. I listened with some surprise to that part of the noble Marquess's argument in which he endeavoured to convince the House that such a redistribution of duties was a breach of the Constitution of India. The noble Marquess relied, if I remember rightly, on the terms of the Act of 1861, and he pointed out that under the eighth clause of that Act it was laid down that it should be lawful for the Governor-General from time to time to make rules and orders for the transaction of business in the Council; and the noble Marquess argued that because this function was given, not to the Governor-General in Council, but to the Governor-General himself, therefore the Governor-General was unfettered in his discretion to deal with these rules and regulations. My Lords, I must say that that is an argument which seems to me to be far-fetched. As I have understood the matter, the Government of India works in subordination to the Secretary of State in Council, and if, as is the case, the Secretary of State has the power of disallowing even the laws and Orders in Council which are made by the Government of India, surely it may be argued a fortiori that he has the right of modifying or challenging the rules and orders made by the Governor-General for the mere transaction of business; and my noble friend the noble Marquess near me was able to point out that, as a matter of fact, the Secretary of State has on various occasions claimed and exercised such a right of supervision over the conduct of the Governor-General in dealing with these rules and orders.
  The noble Marquess advanced another argument which also seemed to me extremely far-fetched. He suggested that because the Commander-in-Chief was not an ordinary, but an extraordinary, Member of Council there was some irregularity in giving him the assistance of a secretariat and in other respects placing him somewhat more upon the
  1120
  footing of the ordinary Members of Council. The noble Marquess did not press that argument very strongly; but if he is able to show us in any of the statutes provisions which render it unconstitutional to do what we have done, that is, to assign certain extra duties to the Commander-in-Chief and to give him that clerical and secretarial assistance which he requires in order to perform them adequately, I shall be very grateful to the noble Marquess if he will indicate to me where such provisions are to be found.
  The noble Marquess ridiculed what he called the half-and-half arrangement which we had arrived at, which he said was in the nature of a weak compromise. The noble Marquess must have forgotten that this was not by any means the first occasion upon which there has been a redistribution of the duties of the Commander-in-Chief and the Military Member. Within my own experience I remember such a readjustment of duties soon after I arrived in India. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Roberts, was then Commander-in-Chief, and he represented that the procedure which we were then in the habit of following was one which made it impossible for him adequately to perform his duties, and thereupon the rules were revised and a fresh distribution of duties took place which I believe gave satisfaction to those concerned. More lately still, with the consent of Lord Curzon and his Government, there has been a readjustment of work under which the great department of supply and transport was handed over from the Military Member's department to the department of the Commander-in-Chief. I cannot but think that the Papers on the Table of the House contain sufficient evidence to show that upon the present occasion some revision of the old arrangements was absolutely necessary.
  The root of the difficulty is not very far to seek. I think it arises from the fact that there is, and necessarily must be, a somewhat ill-defined frontier lit e between those duties which may be described as purely military and those duties which belong more to the department of administration. There are few really important military questions into

  1121
  which financial considerations do not enter, and in India there are few, I would almost say no important military questions into which political considerations do not enter. Take one or two cases which at first sight look as if they were purely military cases—the question of the part of the country in which a fort or cantonment might be placed. That at first sight looks like a purely military question, but the noble Marquess knows as well as I do that political considerations would have to be taken into account. The same is true of matters concerning the recruitment of the native Army, and the manner in which regiments or battalions are constituted from different races. Again, take such a question as schemes of mobilisation—apparently a purely military question. A scheme of mobilisation, admirable on purely military grounds, may have the effect of denuding a particular part of the country entirely of troops, regardless of the condition of that part of the country, regardless of the state of the civil population, and of the dangers to which you might be exposed in the event of the sudden disappearance of the force which has been habitually quartered in its midst. It seems to me that the moral of these things is that we should endeavour to make between these two sets of duties the best division possible in the circumstances, that we should endeavour to bring the two departments as closely as possible together, to induce them if we can to regard themselves as allies rather than as competitors, and that we should provide for them some ready means of composing their differences, should any differences unhappily present themselves. In India the means are ready to hand, because it is always easy either for the Commander-in-Chief or for the Military Member to have recourse either to the Governor-General individually or the Governor-General in Council (which meets once a week throughout the greater part of the year) when a difficult case requires to be discussed and adjusted.
  The noble Marquess was somewhat merciless to our proposals. I hope In will allow me to remind him that those proposals were the result of long and anxious consultation of the best Indian authorities, military and civilian,
  1122
  accessible in this country, authorities who included the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Roberts, and other officers of high military experience. The object of those proposals was to arrive at a better and more satisfactory definition of the duties to be assigned to the Commander-in-Chief on the one hand and to the Military Member of Council on the other; in the next place to recognise the undoubted preponderance of the Commander-in-Chief in all those questions which can be described as purely or mainly of a military character. We have; with this object, given the Commander-in-Chief direct access to the Viceroy, we have given him a secretariat of his own, and concurrently with that we have endeavoured to divest the Military Department of that somewhat over-military complexion which it has tended to assume in recent years.
  One word only with regard to the despatch of May 31st of which so much has been said. The noble Marquess and the noble Lord on the back bench both took strong exception to the tone and style of that despatch. I do not think either of them singled out any passage, any word containing anything disrespectful or wanting in consideration for the Viceroy, but they pointed out that instead of the Government of India being consulted, the despatch intimated a decision already arrived at. My Lords, the moment had come when a decision was urgently called for. This controversy had been, I will not say raging, but had been going on for many months. The question had been a good deal discussed when Lord Curzon was staying in this country last year, and it was clear from the tone of the Minute recorded in this Blue-book that it was necessary for some one to come with a concrete and definite decision and to put an end to this prolonged controversy.
  The despatch conveying the decision of the Secretary of State did not preclude the Viceroy from making any observations which these proposals might seem to him to call for, and, in fact, Lord Curzon made many observations upon them, and suggested modifications in some important particulars, and those modifications have been accepted. Lord Curzon,

  1123
  I believe, regarded them as involving material concessions and important departures from the original scheme. The Secretary of State believed, on the contrary, that most of those modifications were the natural result of his own proposal and that they could be given readily and without any misgiving. Surely it is not our business to determine who has triumphed in this case, or to decide whether there has been a victory on one side or a surrender upon the other. Is it not rather for us to bear in mind that we were a short time ago face to face with apparently irreconcilable divergences of opinion between these two great and distinguished Indian statesmen, and that these divergences have been reconciled. Though this arrangement may possibly not be perfect, though there is no finality in these things, and a moment may come when it may be necessary to reconsider some of these details, ought we not to congratulate ourselves that this period of tension and difficulty has been put an end to, and that it has been put an end to by a settlement which both sides have accepted, to which both sides are ready to give a fair, full, and loyal trial, and which we, at any rate, hope may be successful in putting an end to some of the inconvenience which has been experienced during the last few years?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, the speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down has left me in some doubt as to what are the real proposals of His Majesty's Government in respect of the distribution of work between the Commander-in-Chief and the new Supply Member. Judging by Mr. Brodrick's despatch, I think it is clear that, speaking broadly, all the military duties connected with the present Military Department of the Government of India are in future to be placed in charge of the Commander-in-Chief, and that there is to be left to the Supply Member a certain number of duties connected with supply, the manufacturing departments, and other matters of that kind, which are hardly of a military character and might just as well be discharged, if they were his only duties, by a competent civilian. I have some hope, however, that, though it seems to be so from the despatch, that
  1124
  may not be the real intention of the Government, and that there is contemplated some other distribution of work which will give the Military Member for the future something more to do than appears to be indicated by the despatch.
  Perhaps the noble Marquess the Under-Secretary of State will excuse me if I venture to offer him my congratulations upon the able speech which he made tonight, a speech full of promise, and showing that he will be able to take a vigorous and valuable part in the administration of public affairs and in the discussions in this House. I asked the noble Marquess— it doubtless escaped his memory— to state clearly, because at present I do not fully understand, whether it was intended that the new Supply Member should be always a military person, or whether it was contemplated that under certain circumstances he might be a civilian. The despatch is not clear on that point. Some of the language used by the Secretary of State in another place in the debate on the Indian Budget pointed very much to the possibility of a civilian being appointed to fill the office. If a civilian were appointed there would be no second military advice for the Governor-General, and there would be a recurrence of the position to which I understand Lord Curzon particularly to object. I do not say that there is any obligation upon the Government to make the Military Member always a soldier, but that has been the invariable practice and it is only a reasonable practice. I hope the noble Marquess will be good enough to tell me exactly what is intended in that respect in the future.
  Then the noble Marquess took exception to a view which I expressed with regard to Section 8 of the Act of 1861, and he referred me to the Act of 1833. It was the intention of the Government in 1861 to alter the practice which had existed before that time. The practice had been found inconvenient by the Governor-General, and an alteration of it was particularly desired at the time by Lord Canning, in order that it might be placed upon another and a new footing. I can scarcely suppose that, after the efforts that were made in that direction, the position remained exactly the same as it stood under the Act of 1833. That,

  1125
  after all, is a legal point upon which I am not competent to express an opinion, but I do know what was the intention of the Government. I was not a member of the Cabinet; I was an Under-Secretary; but, as I had charge of the Bill, I do know what was the intention of the Government at the time. I have quoted an extract from a speech of the Duke of Argyll showing what was the intention of the Government then, and I distinctly say that the view I have put forward was the intention of Parliament and of the Government when that Act was passed.
  I understand the noble Marquess also to say that some arrangement had been made with respect to the distribution of work in the Finance Department. My noble friend who has just sat down also referred to it. I think it was quoted as an instance of an alteration in the distribution of work in the separate departments having been ordered from home. But that is not the question. The question is not of the work in each separate department. The question raised by this clause is as to "the rules and orders for the more convenient transaction of business in the said Council," and I repeat, as the Duke of Argyll said, that it was intended to leave entirely to the discretion of the Viceroy himself the question of the distribution of work in the Viceroy's Council. I do not for a moment mean that the Secretary of State might not make any suggestions he pleased to the Viceroy on the subject, but I do say that it is inconsistent with the plain intentions of the Government at that time that the Secretary of State should force or order the Viceroy in regard to the distribution of the work within his own Council. I say nothing about departmental arrangements, because the clause does not apply to them; it applies simply and solely to the distribution of work within the Viceroy's Council, and, speaking from my own experience, I cannot conceive how the Viceroy could get on unless he had that complete control given to him personally, and not merely as Viceroy in Council, over the management and transaction of business within his own Council. That is the view I have taken. I have refreshed my memory by reading the debates which took place in this House
  1126
  at the time, and I can say from my own knowledge with the most absolute certainty that that was the intention which we had when the Bill was passing through Parliament, though whether or not we succeeded in carrying it out in the provisions of the Bill is a matter for lawyers to determine.
  My noble friend who has just sat down spoke of the various people of great authority who had been consulted by the Secretary of State. I wish we had before us the opinions given by those distinguished persons; they would be very useful for our guidance. I daresay there were consulted by the Secretary of State many people whose opinions would be of the highest value, but they are not before us. I should be glad if the noble Marquess would give us those opinions, but, judging by the expression on his face, I do not think he is likely to do so. But seeing that we know neither who the persons were who gave the opinions nor what the opinions are, I do not think it is quite fair to refer to those opinions and tell us that we ought to yield our own judgment.
  I am told by the Under-Secretary of State that the Mobilisation Committee is to be resuscitated and is to deal with all questions relating to the native Army. I am bound to say that I doubt whether any Committee can take the place of the personal advice which can be given by a competent military man on questions of that kind. I do not think that consideration by a Committee can really take the place of personal intercourse between a competent adviser and the Viceroy.
  Then I am glad to learn, if I did not mistake what fell from my noble friend, that it is intended that the Viceroy should have the most perfect opportunity of consulting the Supply Member, if that is to be his name, upon any question connected with military administration.
  I should like also to refer to an expression which fell from my noble friend who has just sat down which I am sure he did not really mean. He said that the arrangement for the future was to be that the Commander-in-Chief should have the freest access to the Viceroy.

  1127
  The Commander-in-Chief has the freest access to the Viceroy at the present moment. Did not my noble friend and the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the cross benches constantly confer upon military questions? I know they did. So did I with the Commanders-in-Chief that I had. Therefore, do not let it be supposed that the present system is one by which the Commander-in-Chief is held at arm's length from the Viceroy. On the contrary, the communication has been constant. While I was in India every military question of any importance was discussed by me with the Commander-in-Chief; I took his oprinion upon such questions for my own instuction and security.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Perhaps I expressed myself rather elliptically. I meant that he would have direct access instead of through the Military Department.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I understand. I was quite sure that my noble friend would not object to my calling attention to that remark, because it might be misunderstood coming from one of his great authority.
  I do not know that I have any other comments to make upon what has fallen from noble Lords opposite. I am afraid I cannot change my opinions. I still think that the new arrangements will add to the burden of work of the Commander-in-Chief, and that to place him in charge of any portion of the present business of the Military Department is a mistake. I cannot help thinking that he will not have the time or the means of discharging his proper duties as Commander-in-Chief if you cast these further duties upon him. I am bound to say that, attaching as I do the highest importance to the competent discharge of his duties as Commander-in-Chief, I should be very sorry if he was tempted to neglect those duties for the sake of carrying out his duties as Member in charge of a department of the Council. I believe that he would much better discharge his duties as Commander-in-Chief if they alone belonged to him.
  I am very glad we have had this discussion. There was one phrase
  1128
  which fell from my noble friend the Under-Secretary which seemed to indicate that he rather thought it was not a subject which ought to be brought forward after a settlement had been arrived at between the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: Oh, no.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I cannot agree with that view. I think this discussion has been most valuable. Before-the debate ends I should like an assurance from the Government that, as regards advice to the Viceroy, the Supply Member is to be a real Military Member, giving advice to the Viceroy, and defending his own opinion in Council against the Commander-in-Chief if he happens to differ from him. That, I think, is an undoubted improvement upon the arrangement proposed by Lord Kitchener. But I must continue to hold that the distribution and the management of the business of the Viceroy's Council is a matter which ought to be left to the discretion of the Viceroy alone, and that anything that is calculated to-depress the civil side of the Government of India and to elevate the military side is a great political mistake.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: With your Lordships' indulgence I will reply to the Questions put by the noble-Marquess. Perhaps I may say that, with, regard to Section 8, my contention was this. I understand that under that section the Governor-General allocates the business to the different Members of the Council, for the purpose of conducting the business of the Council, and I instanced a case under Lord Dufferin and Lord Cross, in 1888, as showing that there had been an interference with the absolute discretion of the Governor-General with regard to the principles according to which he allocated his business.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Give me the Papers, and then we shall see.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: With regard to the position of the Military Member, I can only refer the noble Marquess to the supplementary Paper which was issued and to the answer of the Secretary of

  1129
  State there given that we should not be prepared to propose alterations of the law, and that the discretion to appoint a soldier or a civilian to the Governor-General's Council will therefore remain as it is—
  "Paragraph 23 of the despatch clearly indicates that the Member in charge of the Military Supply Department should usually be a soldier, and it is my intention, on the occurrence of an impending vacancy, to advise His Majesty to appoint a soldier."
  Further than that we must leave it to the Secretary of State at the time to make the next appointment. Then the noble Marquess also asked me a Question with regard to the consultation that the Governor-General might have with the Military Supply Member. That is dealt with in the next paragraph of the same telegram—
  "The Governor-General has a constitutional right to consult any Member of his Council officially or unofficially on any subject, and there is nothing to the contrary in the despatch. The Members in charge of the Army and the Military Supply Departments, like other Members, must advise your Excellency if invited to do so, and the right of every member as established b y law to discuss matters in Council will of course remain unaffected."
  I have only one other word to say. The noble Marquess has called for the expression of opinion by Sir Donald Stewart which is quoted in the despatch. We shall, of course, present that.
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
  House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Earl Waldegrave.

  MEMORIAL TO THE LATE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.
  LORD HAWKESBURY,in moving "That this House, whilst anxious that a suitable site should be found in West-minster Abbey for the National Memorial to the late Marquess of Salisbury, desires to express its opinion that the monument to Captain James Cornewall (the first monument erected by vote of Parliament to a naval officer, who, when in command of H.M.S. "Marlborough" in the action off Toulon in February, 1743–44, lost both his legs, but remained on the quarter-deck and fought his ship till
  1130
  he died), ought not to be removed without due notice being given to Parliament," said: My Lords, I feel that some apology is due from me to your Lordships for pressing this Motion at such a late hour of the evening, and I know that I shall stand in need of all the kindness and indulgence that you can afford in asking you to bear with me for a few moments while I deal with the question. I am well aware that this question of moving monuments is a somewhat delicate one, but I feel most strongly that it is a very important one for both Houses of Parliament. The question is whether, when monuments of a national character have been erected by the vote of the two Houses of Parliament, it should be possible for them to be removed, and, as the proposal stands in this case, to be mutilated and only small portions of them retained, and these placed in a position where they cannot be seen and will be soon forgotten. Surely when Parliament decides to perpetuate the memory of a great Englishman we do not look forward to the time when the monument erected with that object shall be placed in such a position that it cannot be seen.
  I am well aware of the difficulties of the case. Westminster Abbey, as we know, is very crowded, and probably at some time, sooner or later, it will be necessary to carry out one or other of the schemes for enlarging the space, which from time to time have been put forward. With regard to the removal of monuments, my noble friend Lord Camperdown, some six years ago, introduced a Bill, as your Lordships will remember, dealing with the subject. That Bill received the assent of your Lordships' House and the support of the late Archbishop of Canterbury; I think it passed this House without any Amendment of any moment, but owing to the pressure of business in another place it failed to pass into law. Another attempt was made to deal with the subject elsewhere three years later, but that attempt likewise failed to reach a successful issue from the same cause.
  I hope that it is unnecessary for me to say that in common with all your Lordships I felt the very greatest respect and regard for the late Lord Salisbury, and I am sure that in common with every

  1131
  Member of this House I feel the same great reverence for his memory. Of this I am certain, that we here at this day are as unanimous in our wish and desire that the late Lord Salisbury should have the best monument that can be erected to his memory, and, further than that, that he should have the best site available in Westminster Abbey, as were our predecessors more than a century and a-half ago when they voted a monument to the gallant Captain Cornewall. But that being so, I trust it may be possible to carry out that desire in the best and most satisfactory manner without desecrating—if I may use the term—the monument to this naval hero. As to an alternative site, I will not now enter into that question further than to mention that it has been suggested that a place might be found for the monument of Lord Salisbury in the Eastern part of the Abbey, the position of honour, and where a recumbent effigy would be more in keeping with the surroundings.
  As I understand the proposal of the Dean, it is intended to move some five monuments in Westminster Abbey, namely, the one in question, that to Captain Cornewall; one which stands back to back with it, that to Mr. Secretary Craggs; two on the opposite side of the Abbey, one being that to Lord Howe, and the other that to Charles James Fox; and I think the fifth is the one known as the Massachusetts memorial. But of these five monuments the one to Captain Cornewall is the only one which it is proposed to take to pieces and to retain only a portion. I believe that the portion to be retained includes the panel bearing the inscription, which is now about eight feet from the floor of the nave, and which it is proposed to place on the sill of the west window of the South West tower of the Abbey, some eighteen or twenty feet above the floor; another panel having on it in relief the naval battle; and a medallion with the head of Captain Cornewall on it; these three fragments being there framed in new stone work. When it is placed in position on the sill of the window which I have described it will be impossible with the light in one's eyes and at that height to
  1132
  read the inscription or to see the carved representation of the ships that fought in the engagement. As a matter of fact it will be out of sight and out of mind, although it was voted to perpetuate the memory of this great Englishman, who deserved so well of his country—for he, with Hawke, who were the heroes of that action, were the beginners of that long series of naval captains who deserved so well of their country, and who brought the Navy to the perfection which it attained at the time of Trafalgar.
  It seems rather a curious coincidence that this year, when in two months time we are to celebrate the centenary of Trafalgar, should be chosen to put forward this proposal, which I trust may not take effect. However that may be, I feel bound to protest against it, and I trust that your Lordships will join with me in protesting against the mutilation of this monument. I know from communications I have received, that there is a strong feeling on this matter, not only in this House and in the House of Commons, but also in the service to which I have the honour to belong, and of which Captain Cornewall was so gallant and distinguished an officer. It was the first monument erected by Parliament to a naval officer, and the other monument which we are hoping to see erected shortly is the last which Parliament has voted, and it is not a pleasant thing to think that as time goes on, as we perhaps now think that the monument which was considered a splendid and suitable one 150 years ago is not in the best of taste in a Gothic church, so tastes may again change, and the time may come when the monument we are about to erect to a statesman, whose name we revere and whose memory we desire to preserve as a pattern and object of reverence to his countrymen, should in its turn be swept away by those who may take a different view from ours of that monument. At this late hour I will not say more; I will conclude by moving the Resolution which stands in my name.
  Moved to resolve, "That this House, whilst anxious that a suitable site should be found in Westminster Abbey for the national memorial to the late Marquess of Salisbury, desires to express its opinion

  1133
  that the monument to Captain James Cornewall (the first monument erected by vote of Parliament to a naval officer who, when in command of H.M.S. 'Marlborough' in the action off Toulon in February, 1743–44, lost both his legs, but remained on the quarter-deck and fought his ship till he died) ought not to be removed without due notice being given to Parliament."—(Lord Hawkesbury.)
  EARL SPENCER: I think it would be better that I should say the few words that I intend to address to your Lordships on this subject before the noble Lord who represents the Government replies to my noble friend. This is a matter that ought to be very carefully considered. It is a very grave question, as has been shown by my noble friend behind me. Here is a monument—the first naval monument ever voted by the nation—placed in Westminster Abbey, and it is now proposed that it should be moved and placed in a position where I am afraid it will not be seen. I think that Parliament which voted the money for the great monument which we hope to see erected to the late Lord Salisbury, whom we all revere and to whose memory we wish the best monument possible to be placed in Westminster Abbey, has some right to express its own opinion on this matter, and to express it pretty clearly.
  I should like to refer to the history of the monument which it is proposed to remove. It has been stated somewhere that the monument has been touched already by one of the most distinguished Deans, and one who had more reverence for history than almost any of his predecessors, namely, Dean Stanley. It is true, according to a very moderate and able letter from the present Dean, which appeared a little time ago in The Times, that Dean Stanley did touch this monument, but I venture to say that that is no reason why it should be touched again. It is rather an argument why it should remain where it is, because Dean Stanley altered it as much as he could, and he evidently did not consider that he ought to go any further. On another argument, the Dean in his letter says that there was at one time a great desire
  1134
  to erect a monument to Ruskin, but there was very great difficulty in finding a place for it. He suggested to Dean Bradley the possibility of a recumbent effigy in the very place on which it is now proposed to place a recumbent figure of the late Lord Salisbury. But what was the answer of the Dean? He would not undertake to do it, because he thought that public opinion would be too strong for him. I think that these facts ought to be remembered when we are dealing with this subject.
  Then I should like to say a few words on another point. There are two schools in regard to this matter. There is the school that loves architectural beauty, and desires that the architectural beauty of the time when the splendid cathedrals or abbeys were erected should be preserved and restored to what it was intended to be by the great architects who planned the buildings. I quite admit that there is a great deal to be said for that point of view. Then there is another school which desires that nothing whatever should be done to any monument. I have thought a great deal about this question since it was first brought forward, and I have some sympathy with those who wish to preserve, and if possible restore, the greatest architectural beauty; but I do not think that any alteration should be made merely to secure architectural beauty, or even to find room for another monument, unless you can secure an equally good or nearly equally good position for the monument which was raised 100 or 150 years ago. I have visited the Abbey and seen this monument to Captain Cornewall, but unfortunately I did not see the position in which it is proposed it should be placed, but I gather, from what my noble friend has said and from what others have told me, that it is to be placed in a position where it will not be seen, and where, therefore, it will lose all the importance which it has had for so many years in the place where it now stands.
  I will not say more now, but I would urge upon His Majesty's Government that they should do their utmost to preserve this monument. I have a strong hope that, if they succeed in that, a fine site will nevertheless be found for the recumbent monument to the late Lord Salisbury.

  1135
  This is a matter which stirs very much the feelings of the service which for some time I had the honour to represent in this House, namely, the Navy, and from representations which have been made to me I know that they have a very deep feeling with regard to the removal of this, the first naval monument ever voted by the country, and erected to a most gallant man whose last action was one of almost unexampled bravery and valour. I cannot help thinking that the country at large will support this view, and I sincerely trust that His Majesty's Government will be able to bring their influence to bear in the proper quarters, and prevent the alteration of this monument.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I wish to add my protest to that which has already been made by the noble Lords who have spoken. I do not wish to enter into this individual case, nor am I at this hour of the evening going to raise any questions with regard to taste. What I want to do is to protest against the principle involved in this proposed alteration of a monument. Surely when the nation has voted a sum of money for the erection of a public monument to a naval hero, and when the Dean of the day must have given his consent to the placing of that monument in the Abbey, it is not right that, without giving notice to Parliament or obtaining the consent of the family—because of course in this case the family would object as much as it possibly could to any movement or alteration of the monument—it is not right that the Dean should remove the monument as is now proposed. As the noble Lord who introduced this Motion stated, some years ago there was another case in which a somewhat similar proposal was made, and on that occasion I took the opportunity of bringing in a Bill dealing with the matter. That measure passed through this House, and received the approval of the then Archbishop of Canterbury. I think the principle that was embodied in that Bill would commend itself to the public and to Parliament, and in the strongest way that I can I wish to protest against the action which now proposed
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, several naval officers have spoken to me on this subject requesting me to use whatever influence I may have here or elsewhere to prevent this monument from being removed and treated in the manner proposed. Whenever I enter Westminster Abbey my artistic feelings are entirely submerged by my historical recollections. Though I greatly prefer modern monuments to those of the 18th century, I think it probable that the people of the 22nd century will have very similar views about our taste to those which we entertain regarding the taste of our predecessors. Perhaps they will look at the marbles of ancient and modern days as quite obsolete, and insist on having monuments made of some compound of radium or argon or of some substance at present utterly unknown. I think it is a pity to destroy historical continuity by defacing or destroying monuments which are not in accordance with the ideas of the present day.
  The battle that was fought off Toulon when Captain Cornewall lost his life was one of the most discreditable engagements ever fought by the British Navy. The admiral was dismissed the service, five captains were cashiered, one was found guilty of failing in his duty, one was dismissed his ship, one went away to avoid Court-martial, and one died before he could be tried. Luckily there were better men than those in the British Navy. There were Hawke and Captain Cornewall. Hawke rose to the rank of admiral and afterwards commanded the Fleet in two successful actions, but Cornewall lost his life, forty-two of his men were killed, 120 wounded, and the main and mizzen masts of the ship were shot away. The country wished to mark its sense of Cornewall's conduct as compared with that of the captains who had so misbehaved, and a large sum of money was voted for the erection of this monument, which has remained as a record of how some few men were heroic at a time when others failed in their duty. That is why I think it would be a pity to and to Parliament, and in the strongest remove such a monument, or to put it in a way that I can I wish to protest against place were it would be lost sight of, simply because a certain number of people in

  1137
  this country have not sufficiently studied naval history.
  As regards the late Lord Salisbury, for many years I looked upon him as my political leader. I have the greatest possible respect for him, and I hope the monument which is to be erected to his memory will remain, wherever it is placed, undisturbed, and I think that there will be a greater chance of its remaining undisturbed, if those who in the future may wish to move it, are unable to adduce the argument that when it was placed in its position, it displaced another.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not quite sure that even if this Motion were carried we should greatly advance the cause my noble friend has at heart. The Motion asks that the monument should not be removed "without due notice being given to Parliament." I d not know exactly what is intended by "due notice," but both Houses have in fact had due notice of the intention of the Dean and Chapter. But I will not argue the question on technical grounds. I am sure I am expressing the general feeling of the House when I say that our universal desire is that owing to our great respect for the memory of Lord Salisbury there should not be any unseemly controversy as to the site of his monument. Nor will your Lordships desire that anything should be done that would give offence to the present representatives of the distinguished officer whose monument is the subject of discussion. I would go further and say that most of us would object, even in the interest of the beauty of the Abbey, to anything approaching to a ruthless or inconsiderate disturbance of monuments which, if they do not adorn, add to the historical interest of the building.
  The noble Lord who spoke just now added an epigram to our debates when he said that when he entered the Abbey his artistic sense was submerged by his historical recollections. That is a feeling which many of us share. But I venture to think that any one who has read the Dean of Westminster's letter to The
  1138
  Times of July 15th will admit that the time has come when some rearrangement of the monuments is necessary, unless the Abbey is to be closed to further memorials. I am inclined to say that there is a case either for moving the place of the Cornewall monument or making some alteration in its form. On the other hand, I am bound to say that my impression derived from a visit to the spot and an inspection of the sketch of the proposed alteration is that the Cornewall monument will be over-severely dealt with. As I understand it, the alteration will involve a complete disturbance of the constituent parts of the monument. The medallion containing Cornewall's head, the tablet on which the battle is portrayed, and the tablet containing the inscription are to be removed from their positions and re-erected at a height where it will be very difficult for anyone to decipher the inscription.
  The position in which we find ourselves, however, is a rather difficult and singular one. I understand that the Dean and Chapter who control the fabric of the Abbey have accepted the proposed alteration, and that the matter has been before the House of Commons, who have to pay for the monument, and I have to-day learned that Sir G. Cornewall, the present head of the house, having been to see the place, has expressed himself as fully approving the proposed change. These are somewhat formidable considerations, and the only course I can suggest is not to pass this Resolution, which will not greatly advance the matter, but that there should be some further discussion between those interested and the Dean and Chapter as to the manner in which the Cornewall monument should be dealt with. The Dean has assured me that he would not only not resent any such discussion, but that he would cordially welcome any proposal which might be made by those interested in the question. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not take a division, but will accept the suggestion of a conference in which the noble Lord, my noble friend

  1139
  Lord Windsor, the Dean, and if possible, some member of the Cornewall family might perhaps take part and assist in coming to a wise conclusion.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, may I say one word on this subject. It will be within the recollection of some of your Lordships that it was proposed to remove a naval monument in St. Paul's erected by Parliament to make room for a monument to the late Lord Leighton, but the proposal was stopped through the intervention of Admiral Keppel, who induced a very high personage to bring his influence to bear. I wish to remind your Lordships that Westminster Abbey is a Royal peculiar, and, though the Dean and Chapter claim very great privileges in an ordinary cathedral, the Crown is the Visitor of Westminster Abbey, and I am quite sure that it would be competent for those who advise the Crown to secure that a word should be spoken which would be imperative in preventing the movement of this monument. When such a monument has been put up by the nation to commemorate a national service, I think it has passed out of the jurisdiction of the persons commemorated and of those connected with them. The monument is the expression of the feeling of the nation, and it seems to me that the nation is the only party to be consulted as to the removal or mutilation of the monument.
  Motion, by leave of the House, with drawn.

  PARLIAMENTARY AGENCY.
  Rules respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 160.)

  NEW ZEALAND APPEALS.
  Return respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 161.)
  House adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.