Sitting of 13 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time to-morrow.
London United Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Friday.
Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill,
Consideration, as amended, deferred till to-morrow.
Highland Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Consideration deferred till to-morrow.
Montrose Water, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered to-morrow.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill,
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to—
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Wemyss Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
London Electric Railway Amalgamation Bill [Lords],
Saint Mary, Stockport, Rectory Bill [Lords],
South Lincolnshire Water Bill [Lords],
Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PORT OF LONDON (REGISTRATION OF CRAFT) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A. Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow (Thursday).
POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy ordered "of Statement of the amount expended by Boards of Guardians for Poor Relief during the half-year ended Lady-day, 1910; and similar Statement for the half-year ended Michaelmas, 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 287, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China Station (Torpedo Destroyers).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in what years the destroyers serving on the China station were launched?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The destroyers serving on the China station were launched, one of them in 1896, and the others in 1895.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it intended to place more modern destroyers on that station?
  Mr. McKENNA: Not at the present time, but there are some building which may go there.

  German and British Torpedo Destroyer Construction.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a period of eighteen months is to be allowed for the construction of the destroyers of the current programme, as was the case last year; and whether he can communicate to the House any information enabling this to be compared with the rate of destroyer construction in Germany, more particularly as regards the programmes for 1907–8, 1908–9, and 1909–10?
  Mr. McKENNA: The contract periods and dates for the twenty destroyers of this year's programme, for which provisional contracts have been made, are as follows:—

  For delivery in 15 months

  …

  9

  For delivery in 18 months

  …

  11

  We have no information regarding the time taken by Germany for building destroyers, as it is not known when she lays them down, or when they are finally completed, but the following are the average times elapsing between the commencement of the financial year and when the vessels are temporarily commissioned for trials:—

  1907–8

  14½ months

  1908–9

  17 months

  1909–10

  Programme not yet completed.

  Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand then that approximately the rate of construction of destroyers in Germany and in England is about the same?
  Mr. McKENNA: In the years 1908 and 1909 the German rate of construction was quicker. In the present year it appears to be approximately the same as our rate.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any of these destroyers will be ready before or after those of the temporary German programme?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say with regard to the temporary German programme at what time the destroyers were begun or when they will be completed. So far as last year's are concerned judging by the rate our destroyers will be built quite as fast as the German.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many German destroyers of the 1909–10 programme were completed by 1st May, 1910; how many completed destroyers will Germany possess on 1st May, 1912, assuming that the rapidity of construction does not diminish, and that the programme for next year will not be increased above that provided for in the Navy Law and its amendments, namely, twelve destroyers; and how many completed destroyers Great Britain will possess at the same date, eliminating in each case destroyers launched before 1899?
  Mr. McKENNA: Two German destroyers of the 1909–10 programme were commissioned for trials by 1st May, 1910. The reply to the second part of the question is 110. With regard to the last part of the question, if destroyers launched
  344
  before 1899 are eliminated the total number of British destroyers which it is anticipated will be completed on 1st May, 1912, including those of the current year's programme, is 124; this figure does not include the six destroyers now being built for the Dominions, three of the 1909–10 programme and three of the 1910–11 programme.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that too small a superiority over German destroyers to be satisfactory?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has taken an arbitrary date and confines the destroyers to those built within an arbitrary period. But with the total number of torpedo carrying craft in the British Navy the Admiralty is satisfied.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Have the Admiralty fixed any definite period as the life of a destroyer?
  Mr. McKENNA: As we are still using destroyers fifteen years of age and find them thoroughly suitable for the purposes for which they are employed, the Admiralty must not be understood to have fixed a period of less than that time.
  Mr. LEE: Has the Admiralty considered their fitness for the purposes of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: We keep no vessels except those which could be used in the event of war.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOON: Is not the German period twelve years?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is impossible to say whether, when the German destroyers have reached the age of twelve years, that country will be able to keep them beyond that period.

  Mediterranean Fleet (Torpedo Destroyers)
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that of the eleven destroyers on the Mediterranean station four have been launched sixteen years, four others fourteen or fifteen years, and the remainder from ten to fifteen years; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of River class destroyers now serving in the fully-commissioned flotillas of the Home Fleet will shortly be relieved by the vessels of the "Beagle" class, he will consider the advisability of sending some of the River class boats to the Mediterranean instead of transferring them to the reserve flotillas at home?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the age of the destroyers in the Mediterranean. It is not proposed to make any change at present.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is that satisfactory, seeing that these old ships may have to meet modern craft?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not called upon to answer a question of that nature.

  Devonport Dockyard (Admiralty Inspection).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked when the Board of Admiralty will visit Devonport to carry out the inspection of the dockyard and establishments?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the days proposed are Thursday, the 21st, and Friday, the 22nd July.

  Sea-going Battleships Completed.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what is the number of completed sea-going battleships in the British Navy, and by how many does this figure exceed the number required, according to official calculations, to maintain a 10 per cent. superiority over the completed sea-going battleships in the German and in the United States navies?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman will find the information he desires in the Return ordered on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  Mr. DILLON: Do the Government accept the implication in the question that England has to build against Germany and the United States?
  Mr. McKENNA: In the case of questions of this kind that is an implication I endeavour to avoid.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be gracious enough to really answer my question, so that the ordinary Member can understand what are the relative numbers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope the hon. Member will excuse me, but he very frequently asks me to answer questions which would involve the reading out of pages of a Return which is available. That Return is published for the information of Members of this House and the public, and I do not think I ought to take up the time of Parliament by reading it.

  Armoured Ships under Construction.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many armoured ships were under construction for the British and German fleets, respectively, at the date of the compilation of the Dilke Return of Fleets of 1899; and how many armoured ships were under construction or on order for the same fleets on the 1st July, 1910?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is:—

  United Kingdom

  32

  Germany

  9

  and to the second part of the question—United Kingdom (exclusive of the two armoured cruisers building for Dominions)

  10

  Germany

  15

  Dry Docks (East Coast).
  Mr. FELLasked if it has been decided where the floating dock in course of construction for the East Coast is to be placed; when it is likely to be completed; and if the necessary preparation are being made by dredging and preparing the mooring station for its reception?
  Mr. McKENNA: The present intention is to place the dock in the Medway. The contract date for completion is the 30th September, 1911. All necessary preparations will be made before the delivery of the dock.
  Mr. FELL: It will, I believe, take time to get a suitable site. Has the right hon. Gentleman made preparations for that?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty are fully informed as to all the preparations that will have to be made, and that point is covered by the latter part of my answer.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Stephenson Dock on the Tyne is able to accommodate a ship of the "Dreadnought" class having on board a normal supply of stores and coal and at ordinary high water; and, if not, what will be the situation at the end of 1911 of the two docks on the East Coast which will be capable of accommodating a ship of the "Dreadnought" class?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Stephenson Dock will not accommodate a ship of the "Dreadnought" type with more than the amount of coal and stores carried on trial. The other dock referred to—namely, one of the floating docks now under construction—will, according to present intentions, be in the Medway.
  Mr. LEE: Do we understand that the Stephenson Dock would not be available for a ship under normal conditions in time of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman knows the term "normal" is a technical one, meaning the stores carried at normal draft. Therefore it would be available. When I used the term "normal" it was in the ordinary technical sense—with a normal amount of stores. I understand the hon. Member to mean by the question, the amount of stores usually carried when the ship is full. She would have to be unloaded of part of her complement of stores before she came into the Stephenson Dock.
  Mr. LEE: Would not that imply that the dock is not available when a ship is coaled in time of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be available in the circumstances which I have described, as it would be easy to unload the stores.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is it true that the depth of the Hebburn dock is twenty-nine feet at spring tide?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is giving me information now, not asking for it.
  Mr. RICHARDS: Is it not true that all ships unload before they go into dry dock?

  Gold Coast (Northern Territories).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House some explanation with regard to the fall in the revenue of the northern territories of the Gold Coast from £10,938 12s. 9d. in 1908 to £1,689 10s. 1d. in 1909, and as to the increased expenditure of £52,056 19s. 11d. compared with £50,261 17s. 10d. for the same periods?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The decrease in revenue to which the hon. Member refers was caused by the abolition of tolls on caravans entering the Northern Territories. The reason for the abolition was that the tolls tended to restrict trade and even to divert it from the Northern Territories. The loss to the Gold Coast revenue, in which the revenue of the Northern Territories is merged, was met by an increase in Customs dues.
  348
  The increase in expenditure is mainly due to the cost of extending the telegraph line from the headquarters of the Northern Territories to Gambaga, a station in the extreme north-east.

  Ceylon (Legislative Council).
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the basis on which the franchise for election to the Legislative Council of Ceylon will be accorded to the different communities concerned; and whether the franchise will be given to other Eurasians besides those to whom the term burgher was formerly applicable?
  Colonel SEELY: The general principles have been agreed upon, and the draft Ordinance settling the details is now receiving the consideration of the Secretary of State. The definition of the word burgher, which was recommended by the local Commission, has been accepted, and a number of persons of mixed blood, to whom the term burgher is not applicable in the strict historical sense, will therefore be entitled to vote for the burgher Member of Council. Other Eurasians not included in this category will be entitled to be entered on the register of voters for the Ceylonese member if they possess the necessary educational qualification.
  Sir W. COLLINS: Will the Secretary of State, before coming to a final decision, be prepared to consider a representation on behalf of the Eurasian community?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, we should be very glad to receive any representations, but the matter has been discussed for some time, and I hope the representation will come soon. The decision I have announced is favourable to that class of persons as compared with others.

  Death of King Edward (Special Ambassadors).
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, considering the present facilities of communication, special ambassadors will be sent to Foreign Courts to announce the death of the late King and the Accession of His present Majesty; and, if the ordinary means of communicating news are not considered sufficiently trustworthy, if our Ambassadors already accredited to Foreign Courts could communicate the news at less expense and with due decorum?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): It has been the practice of European countries for some years past to announce the deaths and Accessions of their Sovereigns by means of special missions, and it was not considered advisable for Great Britain to depart from such usage on the present occasion.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: From what fund or what Vote will the cost of these special Ambassadors be defrayed? Will there be a special Vote, or will it come in the ordinary Votes?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: May I ask if this would not be a good occasion to make some efforts towards economy?

  Soudan (Supply of Cotton).
  Mr. HARWOODasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will consult with the chief authorities of Egypt as to the advisability of a large organised attempt being made to develop the Soudan as one of the likeliest portions of the world to furnish that supply of cotton for lack of which one of the greatest trades in this country is now suffering loss and is also threatened with decline?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no reason to doubt that the Soudan authorities are fully alive to the desirability of developing cotton growing in that country so far as their means allow. I can add nothing further to the reply to my hon. Friend's question of 7th July.

  Summoning Jurors (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland if he will say in what order or rotation jurors are supposed to be summoned to serve at assizes in Ireland; who in practice certifies in each case that the jurors have been summoned impartially and that the regular system has not been departed from for the purpose of packing a jury in a particular case; whether it is by his direction, and, if not, by whose, and on what authority, jurors of a particular type are in certain cases summoned, not according to alphabetical, consecutive, or any other order, but arbitrarily; by whom are the ballot papers put into the box in such a case; why are they not shuffled in open court;
  350
  and whether a party against whom a jury has been packed by these two methods can compel a disclosure of the order in which the jurors were summoned and the order in which the ballot papers were arranged in the box?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, jurors are summoned according to the rotation provided for by the Juries (Ireland) Act, 1871, Sections 18 and 19, and I am not aware of any instance of departure from the statutory requirements. The other queries of the hon. Member appear to me to convey imputations for which, to my knowledge, there is no foundation.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of the last assizes in West Meath is in accordance with the statement in this question?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am certainly not aware of it, and I should be very slow to believe it.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a portion of the right hon. Gentleman's business to know it?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: If any incidents supporting the imputations of the hon. and learned Gentleman arose my attention would be called to them.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain whether these allegations are true or not?

  District Councils (Employment of Members).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a member of the Thornbury (Gloucestershire) District Council has lately been employed by the council to do certain work at Tytherington; whether the council has paid such member £10 for such work; whether he will address any communication to the council on this matter; and what, if any, results follow from such breach of the law?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am afraid I can only refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1894. Subject to the exceptions specified in that section, a person is disqualified for being a member of a district council who is concerned in any

  351
  bargain or contract entered into with the council, or participates in the profit of any such bargain or contract, or of any work done under the authority of the council. As any question arising under this section can only be determined in a court of law the Board have found it necessary to make a rule not to intervene in such matters.

  Solicitors' Certificates (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the Solicitor of Inland Revenue in Scotland has in any cases prosecuted solicitors for practising during 1909 without having in force duly stamped certificates to practise; whether the decrees obtained were put in execution; and what were the financial results of such prosecutions?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): In only one case did the Board of Inland Revenue deem it necessary to order proceedings to be taken. Decree was obtained and put in execution for a mitigated penalty of £16.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the solicitor on that occasion was present?

  Working of Children Act (Scotland).
  Captain WARINGasked the Lord Advocate whether there have been any prosecutions in Scotland under Section 118 of The Children Act, 1908; and whether, since the passage of that Act, the number of children of wandering tinkers attending school regularly in Scotland has increased?
  Mr. URE: The answer to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative. No statistics are yet available on the second point, but such information as is available points to the usefulness of the Section referred to by my hon. Friend.

  County Courts (Fees).
  Mr. RICHARDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will delete Clause 12 of the Treasury Order of 30th May, 1907, regulating fees in county courts, and relieve the recipients of compensation of the charges made upon investments by the registrars?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The investment fee is a very reasonable one for the work involved, and I am not prepared to abolish it.

  Damage to Hides (Ox Warble Fly).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the board has information showing that there is a considerable increase in the number of hides of cattle damaged by the larvæ of the ox warble fly in Great Britain; whether, in the opinion of the Board, the frequently expressed estimate of butchers and tanners that such damage amounts to £4,000,000 a year is justified by the facts; and whether the Board proposes to take any steps other than the issue of a leaflet to check the further increase of this pest amongst British herds of cattle?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board have no information that the warble fly has become more prevalent, and doubt the loss caused is anything like the amount suggested. The Board would be glad to consider proposals on the subject which would seem to be of advantage.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board's attention has been drawn to the experiments which have been conducted by the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for the last six years at their experimental station at Ballyhaise, county Cavan, and elsewhere, in reference to the life history of the ox warble fly; whether, in the opinion of the Board, the results of such experiments indicate that the hitherto generally accepted theories as to the mode of puncture of a warbled hide and as to the best method of its prevention are erroneous; whether the leaflet on the subject published by the Board in May, 1903, has been since revised; and, if not, whether, in the light of more recent investigations, the Board will issue a fresh leaflet on this subject at an early date?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board are aware of the experiments to which the hon. Member refers. Their veterinary advisers consider the generally accepted theory as to the mode of infection is probably correct, but they are endeavouring to obtain further experimental evidence on the subject. The revised leaflet on the subject which the Board issued in 1903 was again revised in 1905. No further alteration could with advantage be made at the present time.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the revised leaflet to which the hon. Baronet referred, issued in 1905, represent the results of modern investigations on this subject?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As far as they have gone, certainly.

  Contagious Abortion (Cattle).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Board of Agriculture has official information showing that contagious abortion in cattle is seriously on the increase; and, if so, what steps are the Board taking to check its further development?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have no official information as to the prevalence of this disease. As the hon. Member is aware, it has been the subject of inquiry by a Departmental Committee, and their Report has been presented to the House. The Board will give very full consideration to the recommendations of the Committee.

  Anthrax Order.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can give the details of the proposed new Order for anthrax; and when it is proposed to issue the Order?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The new Anthrax Order is still under consideration. I am not at present in a position to give any details respecting it.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Baronet aware that yesterday a unanimous Resolution was passed by the Chambers of Agriculture in favour of a Departmental Committee being set up to inquire into the prevalence of this disease, and is he prepared to accede to the request which will be made to him on the subject?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: When the request comes to me, of course I shall naturally consider it.

  Merchant Shipping (Channel Islands).
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Legislatures of Guernsey and Jersey have yet passed into law the Bills for assimilating the law in regard to merchant shipping in the Channel Islands to that of the United Kingdom, in reference to which conferences and negotiations have been proceeding for several years between representatives of the Board and the insular authorities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): There is still one important point as to which the Board of Trade are in communication with the Bailiff of Jersey, and which must be settled before the legislation to which my hon. Friend refers can be enacted. I hope this will be settled very shortly.

  Law Car and General Insurance Company.
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that the Law Car and General Insurance Company, on 26th February, 1910, issued a public prospectus in which the statement was made that one of the objects of the company in raising additional capital was for the purpose of carrying on assurance business and finding the deposit of £20,000 required under the Assurance Act; and whether, seeing that the company obtained money from the public for this purpose and have nevertheless made no deposit, he will say if he proposes, under the Companies Act, to order an inquiry into the affairs of this company?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have referred to the file at Somerset House of the company named in the question, and the facts appear to be as there stated. I am in communication with the company on the subject, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

  Returning Officers' Expenses.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes in this Budget to make any provision for the payment of returning officers' expenses at Parliamentary elections?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not propose to make such provision.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to cheapen election expenses?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know that that arises out of the question.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LAWSONasked whether recipients of old age pensions now in receipt of Poor Law relief will after 1st January, 1911, receive books of cheques at the post offices throughout the country; and when boards of guardians will be required to pay into the Exchequer the sums of money now paid in Poor Law relief in the case of such persons?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Arrangements will be made for the examination of claims with a view to the grant of pensions as from 1st January, 1911. As regards the second part of the question, the contribution from boards of guardians will be required to be paid in by the close of the financial year.

  Income Tax (Definition of "Income").
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government that in the whole of the 245 Income Tax Acts there is no definition of "income," can he say whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have adopted any definition of that word, and especially of the signification in which they use it when requiring a statement of income or a statement of income from all sources; and will he direct the Commissioners either to abstain from using a word which has no statutory meaning or to afford to the taxpayers a full explanation of the meaning which they attach to it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Liability to Income Tax is imposed not on income, but on profits. In making returns for Super-tax or claims to exemption, abatement, or relief from ordinary Income Tax, individuals are required to furnish the total amount of their income from all sources, estimated according to the several rules and directions of the Income Tax Acts; and in this connection I may refer my hon. Friend to Section 164 and to No. XVII. of Schedule G, Section 190, of the Income Tax Act, 1842.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a plain answer to a plain question? Can he or the Income Tax Commissioners say what "income" is, and, if they can, will they tell the taxpayers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should have thought the answer was very plain.

  Assize Arrangements.
  Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to consult local authorities prior to deciding upon alterations in connection with the place of holding assize courts; and whether he will give this House an opportunity of expressing its views on the subject?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The, matter is not in my Department, but I may refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Solicitor-General made in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs on 27th June and three days later to the hon. Member for the Western Division of Denbighshire.

  Factory Case (Belfast).
  Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a prosecution was brought by His Majesty's inspector of factories at Belfast against a firm of manufacturers for not having provided a special cloak-room for all their employés; that the magistrates at the local courts, after hearing all the evidence, dismissed the case; and that the same case was carried by the inspector to the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, where Mr. Justice Gibson confirmed the magistrates' decision; and will he consider the advisability of issuing instructions with the view of preventing contributors to the national revenue being exposed to unnecessary litigation in future?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in regard to this case on the 5th inst. in reply to a question of the hon. Member for West Belfast. The proceedings, in my opinion, were properly taken.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.

    TRANSFER OF STOCKS AND SDARES (REVENUE FROM STAMPS).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount received during the last financial year in respect of stamps upon transfers of stocks and shares?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: £1,783,399.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, as a matter of administration, it is proposed to levy Undeveloped Land Duty on any land which, in the opinion of the Commissioners or of a Treasury official having knowledge of the locality, is quite incapable of development for building purposes in the early future; and further whether, when a landowner has at his own expense recently laid out and constructed a road or roads on such side of a town or village as has hitherto been generally regarded as best suited for building develop-

    357
    ment and the sites so provided and offered for sale at a reasonable price have hitherto been unbuilt upon or only partially built upon, it is proposed to levy Undeveloped Land Tax upon land belonging to the same owner and fronting upon a road upon some other side of the same town or village where there has hitherto been no demand for building sites?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question whether any land will or will not be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty will have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to which I may refer the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend thinks it would be most undesirable that he should express an opinion on questions which might eventually have to be decided in the courts.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that without some precise information on this point, landowners and tenants are seriously prejudiced in the development of their land for purposes other than building purposes?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of it.

    MOTOR CARS (PETROL DUTY).
    Mr. PETOasked whether duty on petrol used for cars owned by hotel-keepers and used exclusively for hire is charged at 3d. per gallon; and, if so, why a distinction is drawn between such cars and motor omnibuses and taxi-cabs; whether the flys and cabs owned by hotel-keepers and used exclusively for hire are exempt from carriage licence; and, if so, why petrol consumed in motor cars purchased and used to replace these vehicles is required to pay duty at 3d. per gallon, and is not allowed the rebate of 1½d. per gallon allowed by the Finance Act on petrol consumed for commercial purposes?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Flys and cabs owned by hotel-keepers and used exclusively for hire are not exempt from Carriage Licence Duty. The duty on the petrol used for motor cars owned by hotelkeepers, and used exclusively for hire, depends upon whether the cars stand or ply for hire. If they stand or ply for hire, the duty charged is at the half-rate, and no distinction is drawn between these motor cars and motor omnibuses, and taxi-cabs, but, if the motor cars do not stand or ply for hire, the duty at 3d. per gallon is chargeable.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any definition of "standing for hire" Does it apply exclusively to public carriages in the street or would it apply in the case of motor cars which are kept in the most convenient place in a hotel yard or other proper place?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I imagine a motor car in a hotel yard is neither standing nor plying for hire.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: If a motor car is in a hotel yard and open to hire for the public, is it not standing and plying for hire?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I imagine not, because a hotel yard is not a public place.
    Mr. PETO: Was not the remission of 1½d. per gallon on petrol used for commercial purposes granted in the case of all petrol used for exclusively commercial purposes and in pursuance of a legitimate trade?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think that is a question which ought to be put on the Paper.

    STAMP DUTY (INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT).
    Mr. HARWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there is inequality of treatment as to Stamp Duty in respect of transactions under £500 value falling under Clauses 73 and 75 of the Finance Act; and if he proposes to do anything in the matter?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to this matter, and he agrees with my hon. Friend that there is an inequality of treatment in regard to transactions not exceeding £500 in value which fall under Section 73 and Section 75 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, respectively. He proposes, in the Finance Bill of the present year, to amend Section 75 so as to exempt from the increased Stamp Duty chargeable on leases any transactions where the total consideration does not exceed £500, under conditions similar to those laid down in the proviso to Section 73.

    SUPER-TAX (ASSISSMENT FORMS).
    Mr. SANDERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the form for assessment of Super-tax is being sent to many persons who are not liable to that tax; whether the Commissioners are authorised to demand from such persons a return giving full particulars of

    359
    their income from all sources; and whether a statutory declaration from such persons that they have not incomes exceeding £4,000 a year is sufficient answer to the Commissioners?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I explained in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn on the 6th instant, the service of notices for Super-tax returns is governed by considerations of presumed or possible liability. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative under the provisions of Section 72, Sub-section (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; but in those cases in which the figures inserted on page 3 of the form of return do not primâ facie disclose liability the question of requiring statements in detail is decided according to the circumstances of each case. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. LAWSON: What official presumes the liability to Income Tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Special Commissioners.
    Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these notices have been sent out wholesale to people who notoriously do not come within thousands of the Super-tax limit, and whether in cases of that kind a simple denial and a statement of the actual income will be accepted?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am certainly not aware that the form has been sent out to persons whose incomes do not by thousands reach the limit. On the contrary, I think the Special Commissioners and the Inland Revenue authorities usually have been as careful as they could in difficult circumstances only to send it to those people who they have good reason to think come within the taxable limit.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the grounds upon which the Commissioners think a person is liable?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should probably find it as difficult to define the thoughts of the Income Tax authorities as I should those of my bon. Friend.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Is it not really the fact that the information about these persons is supplied to the Special Commissioners by the local assessors, who have fair cognisance of the matter?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so very largely, and I have said so already in answer to a question.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Are the returns of persons who are not liable made use of by the Inland Revenue authorities for any purpose other than that of Super-tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a simple denial of the fact that a person's income is above the Super-tax limit and a statement of the amount of Income Tax be accepted by the Inland Revenue?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; in answer to a question two or three days ago my right hon. Friend said he would not be so satisfied.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Income Tax officials are still sending out misleading notices with respect to the relief allowed in the case of earned incomes, notwithstanding that attention has already been called to the same; and whether, seeing the Finance Bill provides that when the income from all sources does not exceed £3,000 a claim for relief is allowed on the earned income, he will say why his Department continues to issue notices directly contrary to the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The forms of return for the year 1910–11 were necessarily printed, and in a large number of cases issued to the public prior to the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. In all cases where a taxpayer appears to be entitled to claim the further "earned income" relief afforded by that Act, a supplementary form has been or will be issued to him before 30th September.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inaccurate notices were sent out by the Treasury only last week?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I was not aware of that.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Well, I will send you one.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of checking the inaccuracies and extravagances of these unbridled Excisemen?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can assure my hon. Friend that they are not unbridled.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have repaid the money that has been paid to the Treasury through these misleading notices?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. I do not think that any money has been paid through misleading notices. These notices were under the power contained in Section 3 of the Consolidated Customs Act (1890), and there was no illegality at all.
    Captain COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no misleading notices are sent out before the Finance Bill is passed this year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that these notices were misleading.

    STAMP DUTY (CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked in what Continental countries, if any, the system of charging the ad valorem duty payable upon transfers of stocks and shares upon the contracts of purchase instead of upon the deeds of transfer prevails?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.

    FINANCIAL AID TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the method by which it is proposed to distribute, in the case of Scotland, the relief promised to local authorities to make up the deficiency in the whisky money; and, further, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the proportion of the relief promised to local authorities in Scotland in respect of the deficiency in the whisky money will not be more than sufficient to meet the deficiency in the Education Fund; and whether it is intended that Scotland's proportion of the Land Value Duties should be applied as a further contribution towards the cost of police pay and clothing?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As my right hon. Friend stated in his Budget speech on the 30th ultimo, he proposes to allocate a certain sum to make good the deficiency in the yield of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Duties) due to the drop in the
    362
    consumption of spirits. The Scottish share of this sum will be paid over the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account. My right hon. Friend proposes to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland whether this additional Grant should be utilised entirely for education or in part allocated to other local services. As regards the last part of the question, I may refer my hon. Friend to the Budget speech, in which my right hon. Friend explained that as a temporary measure, owing to the delay in the passage of the Finance Act, he proposes in the present year to substitute the fixed Grant, to which I have already referred, for the moiety of the Land Value Duties assigned under that Act to local authorities.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (INCOME TAX ON RENTS).
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether the county councils have based the rents payable to them on small holdings at such sums as will only provide the annual payments to the Public Works Loan Board and the expenses of management; and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will therefore give direction for the demands for Income Tax on the rents received to be withdrawn?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no information as to the action of the county councils referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, the answer is in the negative; but at the same time I may explain that exemption is authorised in respect of such part of the rent as is payable to the Public Works Loan Fund for interest.
    Major WILLOUGHBYasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sanctioned the issue of demand notes to county councils requiring payment of Income Tax on rent received from tenants of small holdings purchased by councils under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, which, if paid, would necessitate such councils raising the rents of their tenants to provide for the payment of such Income Tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Assessments to Income Tax, Schedule A, are made by, and demands for payment of duty are issued under the authority of, the District Commissioners of Taxes in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts; and my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere with their responsibility.
    Major WILLOUGHBY: May I ask whether Income Tax will have to be paid out of the rates?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have never heard of such a proposition.

    LAND VALUATION RETURNS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in view of the fact that the professional class, including solicitors and estate agents, on whom the public must rely for assistance in filling up correctly the valuation forms to be issued on 1st August, usually take their annual holiday in the months of August and September, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to extending the date on which such forms must, under penalty, be returned from 30th August to 31st October?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be prepared to consider favourably any case in which it is shown that undue hardship would be caused by insisting on the forms being returned within thirty days, and instructions to this effect have already been issued to the officers who will be employed in the distribution and collection of the returns.
    Mr. NEWMAN: What will be the last day for sending in returns?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think it would be possible at present to lay down any day. The conditions under which the returns have to be prepared may vary in different cases, and I am sure the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will give leave for some additional time where necessary.

    LICENCE DUTIES, 1910–11.
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what concessions, if any, he proposes to make in respect of the Licence Duties in the Budget for 1910–11?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.
    Mr. LONSDALE: May I ask whether the proposed reduction of 25 per cent. on licensing taxes on houses on revaluation over £50 per annum taxable value is to be reduced to 5 per cent.?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the funds to be available for the contributory pensions he proposes should be contributed by the State, by the employer, and by the workman, respectively; and if it is proposed that the scheme should in the main follow the lines of the German contributory pensions?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It would he premature for my right hon. Friend to make a statement on this subject.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if we will have this information before we adjourn? The subject is already being discussed in different quarters.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it is very undesirable to anticipate any statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may desire to make at the proper time.

    LAND TAXES (VALUATIONS).
    Mr. FELLasked if the tax on undeveloped land for the past year for an unascertained amount is now due, but will not be collected until the valuation of all the land in the country has been completed; and, if so, will the tax be then collected from the date when the particular piece of land is valued, or from the date of the completion of the whole valuation, or from what date?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Undeveloped Land Duty is now leviable in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. As far as possible priority will be given to the valuation of undeveloped land, and it will not be necessary to defer the assessment and collection of the duty until the valuation of all the land in the United Kingdom has been completed.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask whether it is proposed to select certain properties and have these valued and to omit other properties?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it will be clear that with the view to the collection of the revenue from these taxes certain selected properties will have to be valued before others.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the tax be retrospective or not?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That will depend on the date of the passing of the Act.

    MOTOR CAR TAXES.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will say why his Department issue notices relating to the taxes payable for motor cars, omitting all references to the allowances which are allowed by Statute in respect to water and petrol used for propelling such vehicles; and if he will direct his Department to fully state on all tax demand notes the allowances allowed by Statute?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Until the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the duties payable upon licences for motor cars were charged partly by reference to the number of wheels and partly by reference to weight unladen, and it was provided that, in calculating the weight unladen, the weight of any water, fuel, or accumulators, used for the purpose of propulsion should not be included. By the recent Act the duties on licences for motor cars, except motor cabs, motor omnibuses, and vehicles previously charged as hackney carriages, have been made to depend solely on the unit of horse-power, and accordingly no question of weight is considered or specified in the form of declaration applicable to these motor cars. The Board of Customs and Excise are considering whether there should be an addition to the effect stated in the question when the form of declaration applicable to motor cabs, motor omnibuses, and hackney carriages is reprinted.

    SECONDARY AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION GRANT.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the amount of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Residue Grant, which the local education authorities received in 1908–9 for the purposes of secondary education and technical instruction, was less than in any preceding year since 1894–5; and whether, in view of the ever-increasing demand for higher education and the difficulty of justifying the enormous expenditure upon elementary education, unless such demand can be met, he will reconsider his decision to take the year 1908–9 as a basis for the proposed fixed Grant, and in lieu thereof substitute the average amount available for the above purposes during either the previous five or the previous ten years?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not propose to reconsider his decision in this matter. I may point out
    366
    that in adopting the year 1908–9 as the basis for the proposed fixed Grant, he is giving the local authorities the benefit of the abnormal receipts from the spirit revenue of that year due to the large fore-stalments prior to the introduction of the Budget of 1909.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the attitude of the Exchequer with regard to higher education and the Grants available for higher education is seriously prejudicing the development of secondary and technical instruction in this country?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If that is so, it cannot possibly arise because of the sum given under this Grant, for it is now over £100,000 greater than it was before.

    Navy Estimates (Shipbuilding Vote).
    Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the Debate on Vote 8 [Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.], Navy Estimates, is necessarily restricted to one day; and, if only one day can be given, will he move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, in order that greater opportunities may be given to Members to criticise the naval policy of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am afraid it is impossible to give an extra day at this period of the Session, and I have received no general indication of a desire to extend the period of the Debate.
    Mr. BYLES: If Members on the Front Benches occupy, as they usually do, four hours, only six Back Bench Members can have a look in with half an hour each.
    The PRIME MINISTER: So far as this Front Bench is concerned my hon. Friends will exercise a self-denying ordinance.
    Mr. DILLON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that we will be able to secure a Division.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

    Shops (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. SEDDONasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the date for the Second Reading of Shops (No. 2) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Second Reading will be taken when the House reassembles for the Winter Session.

    Indian Council (Commercial Member).
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether an appointment will be made and announced to the post of Commercial Member of the Viceroy of India's Council before this House rises for the Recess?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I hope to be able to make some announcement during the course of my Budget statement.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Under-Secretary for India whether, in making the appointment to the post of Commercial Member of the Viceroy of India's Council, he will give an assurance that the person appointed shall have resided in India at least for some length of time, and has had some considerable experience in that country of Indian trade?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The only assurance that I can give is that the best man available will be appointed. The hon. Member may rely on the Secretary of State taking into consideration all the matters affecting a right decision.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether it is in accordance with precedent to make as appointment to the office of Commercial Member of the Viceroy of India's Council which will place the official so appointed, either as regards seniority or salary, in a higher position than other officials of the Commercial Department who passed into the service above the official appointed head of the Department?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir. Considerations of seniority are not regarded in making such appointments.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there, in fact, any commercial department other than an office with a staff of competent clerks?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I believe that the hon. Member states the condition existing.

    Indian Medical Service.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received from the Government of India a Report on the medical service of India; whether he is aware of the belief among Indian doctors that the delay is the outcome of the desire and intention of the Indian Government to reserve the higher grades of the medical service to people of this country, without regard to
    368
    efficiency, expenditure, or justice to the people of India; and what steps does he propose to take to bring the highest posts within reasonably easy reach of all medical men without distinction of nationality?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards the second part of the question, the Secretary of State finds it difficult to imagine any such belief exists. The Secretary of State cannot now formulate proposals.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a fact that the doctors who are sent out from home are chiefly Irish—
    Mr. JOYCE: All the better for that.
    Sir J. D. REES: And that the people of India have a very high opinion of their efficiency?

    Mysore and Mangalore Railway.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has considered the several memorials to the Government of India from the United Planters' Association of Southern India and from the inhabitants of the district of South Canara, showing the need for the construction of a railway between the Mysore State and Mangalore; whether the Government of Mysore is willing to pay the expenses of the extension as far as it lies within its borders; and whether, in view of the benefits it will confer on Mysore and South Canara by stimulating their trade and industries, he will advise the Government of India to sanction the scheme?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has not received any memorials on the subject of a line between the Mysore State and Mangalore, nor has the project been submitted for his sanction.

    Evicted Tenants (County Leitrim).
    Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state whether the inspector's Report has yet been sent to the Estates Commissioners concerning the case of James Rorke, Bundara, Aughavas, Carrigallen, county Leitrim, who was evicted from his farm of land on the estate of Lord Harlech about twenty years ago?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners have received their inspector's Report in this case, and have decided to take no action in the matter.
    Mr. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state if Mrs. Kate Casserly, widow of the late Patrick Casserly, will be reinstated on her farm on the Ellis estate, at Carlough, Forfield, county Leitrim, from which she was evicted, and which is at present in the occupation of Michael Maguire; and, as the sale of this property is in the Land Judges Court and an inspector from the Estates Commissioners visited the farm last year, if immediate steps will be taken to have this woman reinstated, as she is in poor circumstances?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners have considered Mrs. Casserly's application for reinstatement in a holding on the Ellis estate containing 4½ acres, which is now in the occupation of another tenant, and have decided to take no action in the matter.
    Mr. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state what steps the Estates Commissioners will take with regard to the case of Miss Mary Murphy, of Aughrimin, Lisduff, Carrick-on-Shannon, county Leitrim, who was evicted some years ago from her farm on the estate of Rev. J. Ireland, and which is in the occupation of another person at the present time; and, in the event of her not being reinstated, if she will be provided with a farm elsewhere?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners have not received the application referred to. They have received an application from Francis Murphy for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him on this estate, but as he did not apply before 1st May, 1907, his application cannot be dealt with under the Evicted Tenants Act.

    Drainage and Afforestation (Congested Districts, Ireland).
    Mr. SMYTHasked if the Congested Districts Board will advance loans to farmers for the purpose of draining their lands, or will loans or grants be available for afforestation purposes?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Congested Districts Board do not make loans for the purpose of draining lands or for afforestation.

    Restoration of Arms (Ireland).
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether the Royal Irish Constabu-
    370
    lary have received instructions to restore to the owners or their legal representatives arms and ammunition retained by them under the Peace Preservation Act; and whether, having regard to the increase in the number of shooting outrages in Ireland within recent months, he will state the reasons which have led the Executive at the present juncture to issue this instruction?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I only heard of this matter two days ago. I have no doubt that there is general agreement throughout Ireland that the last thing it now required is a further distribution of firearms. The fact that the weapons referred to in the question are old and worthless, and only dangerous to the men who try to use them, mitigates but does not remove this objection. The object of the Inspector-General in suggesting the removal of the arms voluntarily surrendered under the Peace Preservation Act from the depot, Phoenix Park, where they are at present stored, is that they occupy three squad-rooms, which are badly wanted for the accommodation of the reserve and recruits in residence, some of whom are now forced to use their dormitories as mess-rooms. It is not proposed to restore arms seized or forfeited, but arms voluntarily surrendered are held in trust by the Constabulary and cannot be got rid of without giving the registered owners an opportunity of claiming them. Such arms will only be restored to owners who can prove their claim and produce an Excise licence authorising them to bear arms. The cost of the licence—about 10s.—is vastly more than most of the weapons are worth. I do not think any further danger attaches to what is proposed, but I will watch it carefully.
    Mr. LONSDALE: If the right hon. Gentleman considers these arms to be obsolete, will the Chief Secretary allow them to be tested practically with himself as a target? Why were the arms retained after the lapse of the Peace Preservation Act?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, these arms were voluntarily surrendered, and the owners are bound to get an opportunity of reclaiming them.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the number of arms that were in the custody of the police and the counties in which these arms were surrendered?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it a fact that many of these weapons have been stored by the Government for twenty-five years, and that they are not worth the cost of storage?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The view is that they are for the most part worthless, and they have been in possession of the constabulary for a great number of years.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of presenting them as a job lot to the Orange lodges of Ulster?

    Adjutants (Territorial and Regular Forces).
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary of State for War for what reason there is a difference in the total annual pay received by adjutants of Territorial units holding commissions in the Regular forces and adjutants of Territorial units holding commissions in the Territorial forces; and whether the total pay and allowances received by permanent staff sergeant-majors exceeds the total annual pay received by adjutants who are Territorial officers?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Mallet): My hon. and gallant Friend is comparing the extra pay given to a Territorial officer who may be willing to perform the duties of adjutant of his unit with the emoluments of Regular officers and non-commissioned officers, which are necessarily based in the main on the conditions of service in the Regular Army. That is not to compare like with like.
    Captain WARING: Are not the duties of the adjutant, whether he is a Territorial or a Regular officer, exactly the same?
    Mr. MALLET: Yes, but the Territorial adjutant is, after all, something of an enthusiast, who is offering valuable public services, and we hope and believe that the Grant of £100 a year, which is not regular pay, is sufficient inducement for him to continue those services.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is not the adjutant in the Regular force also an enthusiast?
    Mr. MALLET: The adjutant in the Regular forces is also an enthusiast, but he has the advantage of being paid.
    Captain WARING: Could the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving effect to the General Pensions Report on this subject?
    Mr. MALLET: I would like to have time to consider that.

    Territorial Force (Boots Supply).
    Mr. LAWSONasked whether the Army Council have considered the various schemes for supplying boots of standard strength and utility adopted by Territorial associations and Territorial units; and, if so, whether they are prepared to recommend any particular plan and to facilitate its adoption?
    Mr. MALLET: This question has been carefully considered by the Army Council and their views have been fully explained to the associations. The latter are prohibited from purchasing boots out of their public funds, but it has been suggested that they might arrange contracts under which individual men could obtain suitable boots at reasonable prices, receiving compensation under the regulations for wear of the boots on military service. I do not think it desirable to interfere further with the discretion of the associations in the matter.
    Viscount VALENTIA: Are we to understand that the associations are precluded from making boot allowances?
    Mr. MALLET: Yes. They are not allowed to use public funds for that purpose. But they are permitted to make some allowance for wear and tear.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he suggests it is not possible for the various units to make arrangements for the purchase of boots?
    Mr. MALLET: We think that this is really a matter which should be left to the regimental officers. If they would interest themselves in it and discuss it with the recruits the young fellows would probably be able to give a good deal of assistance.

    Army Manœuvres.
    Colonel BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the fact that the South Midland Infantry Brigade has been selected to take part in the Army manœuvres in September next, he is aware that the equipment laid down in Table 2, Part III., Equipment Regulations, on which the county associations were directed to provide for the

    373
    Territorial Force, is on a peace scale and not on a war scale; whether it was the intention of the Army Council that the Territorial Force should be so equipped as to be able to take the field on the shortest possible notice; and whether he will consider the provision of webbing equipment, at least on loan, for use on manœuvres so that the Territorial Infantry may undertake their duty properly equipped?
    Mr. MALLET: The accoutrements laid down in the Table 2 mentioned are not on a peace scale. The regulations leave the exact pattern to be procured to the discretion of the county association. It is understood that this brigade possesses bandolier equipment, which was up to last year the authorised equipment of all Infantry, and is still worn by Infantry in India and by all dismounted Regular troops other than Infantry. Web equipment is not available for loan on manœuvres. I am making further inquiries into the matter.

    Small Holdings and Allotments (Roxburgh).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked what progress has been made in the county of Roxburgh in providing small holdings and allotments since the year 1900?
    Mr. URE: I understand that no small holdings or allotments have been provided in Roxburgh since 1900.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we will get the Return which was promised as to allotments and small holdings?
    Mr. URE: At an early date.

    Railway Carriage Doors (Fastenings).
    Mr. ALDENasked whether, in consideration of the loss of life caused through the old method of fastening railway carriage doors, the President of the Board of Trade will arrange for experts in his Department to examine and report on the various automatic fastenings which have been invented, and the advisability of compelling the railway companies to adopt any one of such inventions as are found to be satisfactory?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind in his reference to automatic fastenings, but if he means some method of fastening a carriage door so that it is not possible for a passenger
    374
    to open it, I am advised that the introduction of such a method might create grave risk in cases of emergency.

    Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister if he can state who are the members of the Committee of Imperial Defence; what are the numbers of its permanent officials and the amounts of their salaries; how many meetings are held annually; and what is the total cost of this Committee to the National Exchequer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the members of the Committee, I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer which I gave to a similar question on 27th April, 1909. Since that date the following members nave been added to the Committee:—
    Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, and General Sir Ian Hamilton, when he takes up his appointment as General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean.
    The number of the permanent officials and the amounts of their salaries are shown in the Estimates for the current year. The number of meetings held annually varies, and the greater part of the work of the Committee is carried out by Sub-Committees. At the present time such Sub-Committees are investigating eight separate questions, their Reports on which will be considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence as a whole.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask whether Lord Kitchener is still a member of the Defence Committee, although no longer High Commissioner in the Mediterranean?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is Lord Esher a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

    School Buildings (Loans).
    Mr. RYLAND ADKINSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his statement to the deputation of education authorities in 1909 and the requests from all quarters of the House that the time for repayment of loans for the building of schools should be extended, he is now able to say what longer period is to be substituted for the present usual period of thirty years?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The normal period will be extended to fifty years.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Prime Minister promised to make some statement as to the business for the rest of the Session. May I supplement that general question by asking him whether he intends to yield to the appeal I have made in a Motion on the Paper that he will give us an additional day for Supply above the minimum of twenty days?
The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry, I am afraid I do not see my way to giving an extra day for Supply in the arrangements I am going to propose for public business for the remainder of the Session. I have already informed the House of the business for the remainder of this week.
To-morrow we propose to take the Navy Construction Vote.
On Friday, the Supplementary Estimates, with other Government Orders.
With regard to next week,
On Monday, 18th July, we shall take the Scottish Estimates.
On Tuesday, as it has been represented to me that there is a desire on the part of the Opposition to discuss the supply of ammunition for the Army and Navy, I will put down Army Vote 9 [Armaments and Engineer Stores] and Navy Vote 9 [Naval Armaments] in Committee of Supply on that day. That being the 19th allotted day, the Closure will fall on all outstanding Votes at ten o'clock.
On Wednesday we shall take the Home Office Vote, with all outstanding Votes.
On Thursday the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
On Friday we shall take the concluding stages of the Regency Bill and the Civil List Resolution, and, if time permit, we shall take other small orders.
With respect to the following week I should mention that—
On Monday, 25th July, we shall take the Report of the Budget Resolutions and the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, with possibly, also, the Report on the Civil List Resolution.
On Tuesday, 26th July, the Indian Budget.
The remaining days of the week will be devoted to the Accession Declaration and Civil List Bills, which we hope to send to another place on Friday, the 29th. If
376
our hopes are realised, the House would meet some day early in the following week for the Adjournment Motion and to hear the Royal Assent to various measures.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the Finance Bill not to be introduced?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Finance Bill will be introduced on the Report of the Budget Resolutions. That must be so.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great number of Members who desired to take part in the discussion on the Budget Resolutions, but were excluded on the Committee stage? Does he think it possible, not only to take the Report of those Resolutions, but such other business as he has described, on one day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so. Certainly the discussion on the Report of the Budget Resolutions will not be curtailed. There will be a suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.
Mr. MARKHAM: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to proceed with the Third Reading of the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes.
Mr. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman did not mention it. On what day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer to-morrow.
Mr. LONSDALE: Are we to understand that there is to be no discussion of the Administration of Ireland on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary?
The PRIME MINISTER: There will be an opportunity on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
Mr. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put on the Paper for to-morrow a Motion in relation to the Naval Construction Vote similar to that which is put down in relation to the Education Vote, and to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule?
The PRIME MINISTER: Not as at present advised; but, if I receive any general expression that it is the desire of the House, I will consider it.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: What Votes will be taken on Monday in the Scottish Estimates?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Vote for the Congested Districts Board will be taken.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has yet come to the conclusion whether it is possible to make any statement with regard to the arrangements for the forthcoming Imperial Conference, and affording facilities for their discussion? The right hon. Gentleman said a week or two ago that it was premature to make a statement.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would be desirable to do so at this stage. I will consider it later, and will try and see whether a day can be given.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability as soon as possible of getting rid of one Conference before he adopts any attitude towards another?

BILLS PRESENTED.

  LAND DUTIES BILL.
  "To secure the interests of persons making payments of the Land Duties under Part I. of The Finance (1909–10) Act,
  1910," presented by Mr. DUNDAS WHITE; supported by Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Hemmerde, Mr. Charles Price, and Mr. Wedgwood; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th July.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) (PENALTIES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to the penalties for illegal fishing by trawl vessels," presented by Mr. MILLAR; supported by Sir Archibald Williamson, Captain Waring, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Munro, Mr. Falconer, and Sir John Dewar; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER moved, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 152.

Division No. 91.]

AYES.

[3.52 p.m.

Alden, Percy

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Hancock, J. G.

Allen, Charles P.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Anderson, A.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvll)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cowan, W, H.

Harmswortn, R. L.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harvey, T E. (Leeds, W.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

Harwood, George

Barnes, G. N.

Cullinan, J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Davies, E. William (Elfion)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiganshire)

Hayward, Evan

Barton, W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hazleton, Richard

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Gee.)

Devlin, Joseph

Henry, Charles S.

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Higham, John Sharp

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Hindle, F. G.

Black, Arthur W.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charler

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Boland, John Pius

Dillon, John

Hodge, John

Bowerman, C. W.

Doris, W.

Hogan, Michael

Bowles, T. Gibson

Duffy, William J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Brace, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Brady, P. J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hudson, Walter

Brigg, Sir John

Edwards, Enoch

Hughes, S. L

Brunner, J. F. L.

Elverston, H.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Esslemont, George Birnle

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fenwick, Charles

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

France, G. A.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Furness, Stephen

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Jones, William (Carnarvonshlre)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Gibbins, F. W.

Joyce, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Gibson, James P.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Glanville. H. J.

Lambert, George

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Chancellor, H. G.

Greenwood, G. G.

Leach, Charles

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Guest, Major

Lehmann, R. C.

Clough, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Hackett, J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Lundon, T.

Pointer, Joseph

Sutherland, J. E.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Pollard, Sir George H.

Sutton, John E.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lynch, A. A.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.

Radford, G. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

M'Callum, John M.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Toulmin, George

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mallet, Charles E.

Rea, Walter Russell

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Manfield, Harry

Reddy, M.

Verney, F. W.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

Marks, G. Croydon

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walsh, Stephen

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rees, Sir J. D.

Walters, John Tudor

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Walton, Sir Joseph

Menzies, Sir Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Millar, J. D.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Molloy, Michael

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wardle, George J.

Mond, Sir Alfred

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Waring, Walter

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Robinson, S.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Mooney, J. J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Waterlow, D. S.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Rowntree, Arnold

Watt, Henry A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Muspratt, M.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Neilson, Francis

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wilkie, Alexander

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Seddon, J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nolan, Joseph

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Shackleton, David James

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wing, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

Ogden, Fred

Soamen, Arthur Wellesley

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Palmer, Godfrey

Soares, Ernest J.

Parker, James (Hallfax)

Spicer, Sir Albert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Pearce, William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Summers, James Woolley

NOES.

Adam, Major W. A.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Lewisham, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Falle, B. G.

Llewelyn, Major Venables

Arbuthnot, G. A.

Fell, Arthur

Lloyd, G. A.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fleming, Valentine

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Begot, Captain J.

Forster, Henry William

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Baird, J. L.

Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

Lansdale, John Brownlee

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Gilmour, Captain J

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Glever, Thomas

Mackinder, H. J.

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Goldman, C. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Barnston, H.

Goldsmith, Frank

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Mason, J. F.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Greene, W. R.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Haddock, George Bahr

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Beresford, Lord C.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Mitchell, William Foot

Bird, A.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Morpeth, Viscount

Boyton, J.

Hamersley, A. St George

Mount, William Arthur

Brackenbury, H. L.

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Newdegate, F. A.

Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptenshire, N.)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Newman, John R. P.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy. Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Nield, Herbert

Burgoyne, A. H.

Heath, Col. A. H.

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Campion, W. R.

Helmsley, Viscount

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Cator, John

Hill, Sir Clement

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton}

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hills, J. W.

Perkins, Walter F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Hohler, G. F.

Pete, Basil Edward

Clay, Captain H. Spender

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Pretyman, E. G.

Clynes, J. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rice, Hon. W.

Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Rolleston, Sir John

Dairymple, Viscount

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Dixon, C. H.

Kerry, Earl of

Rothschild, Lionel de

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Royds, Edmund

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Rutherford, Watson

Duke, H. E.

Knott, James

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Duncannon. Viscount

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Sanders, Robert A.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lee, Arthur H.

Sanderson, Lancelot

380

381

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Talbot, Lord E.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Starkey, John R.

Thynne, Lord A.

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

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

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Sykes, Alan John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPH INSTALLA TION (PASSENGER SHIPS).
Sir EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to render installation of wireless telegraphy on passenger ships compulsory.
I feel that there is little necessity to explain the provisions of the Bill, which, I submit, is desirable both on the grounds of humanity and economy.
4.0 p.m.
This invention is marvellous and subtle almost beyond anything that human ingenuity has yet devised. It has thoroughly established its claims to serious consideration by the phenomenal manifestations of its use in so many recent instances where, but for its powerful aid, the world would have had to mourn the loss of many valuable lives. Many of these instances the House will readily recall. I need hardly mention more than three—the "City of Paris," the "St. Louis," and the "Republic." No one, not even the most hide-bound person interested in staving off competition from the cable companies, now seriously denies the effectiveness of this invention. Perhaps I may be allowed to recall the name of that gifted inventor and pioneer, Mr. Marconi. He does credit to the land of his birth, Italy, and to the land of his extraction, Ireland. All ships which are fitted with wireless apparatus have to do is to indicate their latitude and longitude; the message is radiated for hundreds of miles, and if the ship happens to be in a state of danger there is a chance of its being relieved.
But I do not rest my contention mainly upon humanitarian grounds. I feel convinced that the House, the country, and for the matter of that, those shipowners who have hitherto been remiss for some reason or other—probably because they were waiting for the further perfection of the invention—in providing their ships with these necessary instruments, will not grudge the necessary expense or the necessary sacrifice, and I hope to show the House presently that this sacrifice will be very small. The House may say all this is very well, but what about the element of
382
cost. I will refer to that presently, but I beg incidentally and very respectfully to ask the House to observe that Parliament did not weigh in the balances the financial equation when it imposed a far more onerous and exacting liability upon railway companies in the matter of the provision of continuous brakes. With regard to the automatic couplings, if they can be shown to have been effective in protecting the life and limb of those who are engaged in shunting operations, I daresay that the House will not be backward in imposing a further obligation upon railway companies. As for the cost of my proposal, from certain inquiries which I have instituted, I can confidently assure the House that the question of expense will be a neglible quantity. The main item of expense will be the provision of the expert. In the case of ships of limited dimensions that cost may be dispensed with, and these ships need only carry apparatus of a very simple character. The junior engineer will be able easily to learn all that is necessary to manipulate the apparatus. In regard to another point, it will not be necessary to have a special cabin for the apparatus and the operator, because the apparatus cart be placed either in the steering-room or in the engine-room, where it will be under constant and vigilant supervision. With respect to the cost of the apparatus, in view of the huge demand that would arise, assuming that this Bill has the privilege to obtain the consent of Parliament, the provision of the installation will become very cheap. The apparatus will not cost more than £200. Members may therefore dismiss from their minds any hesitation they may have in acceding to this Bill on the score of expense. Besides, I am bound to point out that the cost would be largely compensated by the rates of premium which underwriters are only too ready to offer ships so fitted. The House will probably remember the case of the steamer "Trieste," which for eighteen whole days languished helpless in the trough of the sea. A British steamer stood by, but it was unable to render any effective help for two or three

383
days. Both of these ships, simply because they had not the wireless instruments, remained for practically eighteen days in an immobile condition, and because they had neglected what I call this most elementary precaution. The House will observe that both of these ships were practically on the highway of the Indian Ocean and in the course of ships sailing from Aden to Bombay.
In New Zealand, a model Colony, which has furnished so many valuable arguments to speakers during the last two days, absolute power has been taken to require by Order in Council that every vessel leaving this port shall be fitted with this wireless telegraphic communication. France has power already to require this installation upon all subsidised ships, and is ready now to ask the Chamber of Deputies to invest it with further powers. In the United States, on 4th May last, a Bill passed the Senate very similar to one which I have now the honour to introduce. It is now before the House of Representatives.
I shall very briefly recapitulate my Bill. It contains four clauses. The first Clause requires that after twelve months from the passage of the Bill it shall be unlawful for any ship, British or foreign-owned, carrying pasengers, or fifty persons, including passengers and crew, to leave any British port unless it is fitted with an efficient wireless installation in good working order which shall be capable of receiving and transmitting messages for a distance of a hundred miles by night or by day—provided, of course, that this provision shall not apply to coastwise steamers. The second Clause indicates that the company installing the apparatus shall engage to receive and transmit messages so far as may be physically practicable—this to be determined by the master—messages conveying information in relation to the safety and condition of the ship, and those on board, and any other useful aids to navigation; to convey these messages from the ship to shore stations using other systems of wireless telegraphy. The third Clause imposes a penalty of £1,000 on any vessel infringing this stipulation, and it makes the vessel liable to payment of a fine if it leaves or attempts to leave the port after notice.
The fourth Clause merely asks that the Board of Trade shall frame the necessary Regulations for the due enforcement of the provisions of this Bill. I think I may be
384
excused if I express surprise at the absence of any representative of the Board of Trade from the benches opposite on a matter so seriously vital to the interests of commerce and industry. I had intended to make a humble appeal to the president of the Board of Trade to take this little bantling under his wing, and to extend to it all that protection which a private enterprise requires for its growth and development. At any rate, I may express the hope that there will be no formidable opposition from any quarter of the House to the First Reading. In a matter so capable of insuring the safety and mental tranquillity of His Majesty's subjects I feel sure the House would like to do what is right. I think the House of Commons cannot do better than associate humanity with practical utility, and thus add another bright page to the annals of our history.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I rise to oppose this Bill. It is a well-meant Bill, no doubt, but I think I shall show the House that there is great danger of its doing far more harm than good to those whom it is intended to benefit. The House will observe that it is limited to passenger boats. I do not quite know why. I would point out—
Sir EDWARD SASSOON: I said passengers, or fifty persons passengers and crew.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the Order reads "a passenger vessel." I am not sure the hon. Baronet can extend it.
Sir EDWARD SASSOON: I distinctly said a passenger vessel, or fifty persons including passengers and crew.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not think the hon. Baronet will be allowed to put that into his Bill. Let me first point out that large passenger vessels have already largely provided themselves with wireless telegraphy, and that the others do not need it. Hence the Bill is unnecessary. Then if the hon. Baronet proposes to extend, as I understand he proposes, to the further passenger vessels, it will be a large question for the House as to how far it is prepared to impose upon the shipping of this country the obligation to carry out so expensive an installation as wireless telegraphy. The hon. Baronet thinks nothing of a few hundred pounds. I can assure him that to the ordinary tramp steamer a few hundred pounds is a very important matter. But my real objection

385
to this is other than that. If this Bill were passed, if there were imposed upon every passenger, or other ship, or any ship, the obligation to instal a system of wireless telegraphy, first of all there is the question of the expense of the system, and secondly there is the expense of carrying a man. I think indeed you can hardly do with less than two extra men, for one man could not be on duty day and night.
Sir EDWARD SASSOON: I said the junior engineer could look after the apparatus.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: He has his engines to attend to. Certainly you would want almost two extra men to keep touch with the wireless telegraphy. You cannot take away your engineers from their engine-room duties. I know a case where wireless telegraphy has been fitted, and they have had to have two extra men. That is a great expense. My objection goes further. To apply these requirements to our shipping would place it at a very great disadvantage with foreign shipping, and would mean putting our shipping under further harassing regulations of the Board of Trade, which has never done anything but mischief to the shipping trade. It has ruined many of the ship-owners, and it has in no way improved the shipping of this country. In the interests of shipping all the officials of the Board of Trade should be strangled or marooned on a desert island, so that they might leave shipping alone. They have been a great curse to the shipping trade, and now the hon. Baronet proposes to institute a further set of regulations to be carried out by the same Board of Trade which has already oppressed the shipping of this country as much as it possibly can. He proposes this new set of regulations in connection with wireless telegraphy. I am dead against it. I believe that it will be very bad for the shipping. It would mean more inspectors. Every sort of inspector visits an English ship to measure the crew space and all kinds of things, yet the hon. Baronet wants more.
It is no use to instal wireless telegraphy on board a ship unless you have stations on land to take in the messages. In Europe and between here and New York there are many stations, and they are under the control of the Post Office; but, like everything under the control of a public Department, they are hundreds of years behind the times. They are so bad as to be almost
386
useless, and there is no possible hope of expectation of improvement. If you go to the other hemisphere—to Australia—there is scarcely a station to be found, and your passenger ships would have to go many thousands of miles without being able to use their wireless installation. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Baronet has made out a case. I think his Bill would increase the tyrannical powers of the Board of Trade, and it would largely add to the expenses of owners of passenger ships. It would impose upon them the need for carrying this wireless telegraphy, which itself is only in its early stage. We have put ourselves in regard to it into the hands of one expert, Senor Marconi, while there is another expert, named Balsillie, whom they have not tried. The time is not ripe for this Bill; the Board of Trade is not to be trusted; and I hope this Bill, if leave is given to introduce it, will be allowed to proceed no further than its First Reading.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Sassoon, Lord Charles Beresford, Mr. Walter Guinness, Sir Seymour King, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Gwynne. Presented accordingly, and read the first time.

SUPPLY.— [16th Allotted Day.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.—
  [CLASS 4, VOTE 1.]
  [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley) in the Chair.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,664,677, 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including Grants for the Building of New Public Elementary Schools and sundry Grants in Aid."—[NOTE.—£5,400,000 has been voted on account.]
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): In rising to introduce the Board of Education

  387
  estimates, I ask the leave of the Committee to make a statement on the working of the Board, covering, I fear, a very large area, and I shall require to detain them for some little time, if I am to give even a superficial account of the services performed by the Board and that come under their guidance. Our services now cover not only 20,000 elementary schools and many hundreds of secondary schools, but technical schools, and technical classes, schools of art, museums, cookery centres, rural and agricultural classes, medical inspection, physical training, some sides of university work, training colleges, and many other departments of educational machinery. Some of these services are not always supposed to come within our province. There are others which certainly appear to have a more near relation to the Board of Trade that are still under my Department. I refer to the Geological Survey Committee, and one or two similar services. Let me first refer to the amount of attention which is now being given to the museums which are under the administration of our Board. Since the opening of the new Victoria and Albert Museum, the increase in the number of visitors to it has been most remarkable. During the last twelve months over 1,000,000 visitors passed through its gates. It has enjoyed a degree of public attention far exceeding hat which it ever knew in the old premises, and I am glad to think that not only has it a good reputation in England, but its reputation as a great industrial and art museum has spread all through the Continent. I heard with no little degree of pride some great authorities on art and industrial museums say that the art museum now at South Kensington is the finest in Europe.
  The India Museum has been rearranged during the past few months, and what is known as the Cross Gallery, previously kept for Eastern exhibits, is now being used for a portion of the India collection, which is now set out with greater effect than ever before. It must not, however, be supposed that the whole of our India collection is under one roof; it is scattered under several. The collection brought home by Lord Curzon is at Bethnal Green, and a small portion of the India collection is at Kew, but the main part is at South Kensington. I regret we are not yet in a position to house the whole of that collection in one museum. The Science Museum which, as everyone knows, is more or less
  388
  structurally of a temporary kind, is likely to be rebuilt in the near future. I have had the satisfaction of receiving authority within the last few days to state that the fifty-one Commissioners are now prepared to make a Grant from their funds of £100,000 towards the cost of building the new Museum, the Treasury to provide the rest which is necessary. None of these museums could exist on their present footing were it not for the fact of the generous donations made in the past, and I would not like to allow the present occasion to pass without making public reference to the amazingly valuable bequest of Mr. George Salting, who died last year.
  Mr. Salting has left to us the finest collection in the world, not only concerned with pottery and the allied arts, but covering a large range of artistic objects, a few of which will go to the British Museum, and some to the National Gallery, but the bulk of them will come to us. I think we ought in the most public way possible express our gratitude to Mr. George Salting for the generosity he showed to the Museum for a long time. One of our best friends, Mr. FitzHenry, a great friend of Mr. Salting, still lives, and he never allows a year to pass without adding to the number of his gifts. Anyone who goes to the Architectural Gallery in the Museum will see some of the best sites occupied by some of the great gifts collected by him abroad and now safely housed by us.
  We have a very valuable loan collection, the largest part of which is lent by Mr. Perpont Morgan. I need hardly say that gifts are more appreciated by us than loans, but we are glad even to have the loans of valuable objects of art. Then closely allied to our museums are the technical schools and classes which are conducted in conjunction with the science museums and sometimes in conjunction with our art collection. Very often they are purely technical or even trade classes. During the past year the number of those who have at tended these classes has gone up considerably. During the year 1908–9 there were over 300,000 persons attending these classes between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, and I draw the attention of the Committee to one remarkable fact, and it is that this large number of young persons between the ages of thirteen and seventeen do not and cannot represent the full value that these classes are enabled to assure. Out of the 307,000, only 246,000 attend for the minimum number of times necessary to enable Grants

  389
  to be paid upon them. It must be remembered that this minimum of attendance is very far below the standard of regularity which ought to be obtained in order to secure the educational results.
  It is necessary in order to secure that the funds spent on evening classes and evening schools should be spent to the test advantage that we should insist upon greater regularity on the part of the students. That is one of the reforms we look forward to in the future. The work done in these classes covers a vast range of subjects, and we are not prepared to exclude any subject provided it comes properly within the category of the classes. Any reasonable subject of real educational value may count for the purposes of the Grant. A great deal of the work is of the greatest value. I recently visited a technical class at Burnley, and I not only found there that students were taught to use their hands and eyes to good effect, but I found there some of the best pure science classes in the United Kingdom, and out of seven scholarships granted in the United Kingdom, no less than four were won by that school. The work done in these classes must, however, very largely depend upon the amount of time expended by the student in his daily avocation. It is impossible that a student who commences work at six o'clock in the morning, and with short intervals for breakfast and dinner, only leaves off at 5.30, should have the energy to take full advantage of the evening classes thus provided. Granting that they gave six evening hours a week, which, indeed, is a standing allowance, it is placing a strain on some students far beyond what they can bear. I have recently heard of some young students in Leeds who have broken down under the strain of doing their daily work and of attending evening classes. If they had lived in Middlesbrough, Manchester, Horwich, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, or Swindon, they would have been able to attend these classes during the day by the permission of their employers, and, I would add, by the encouragement of their employers. That is a matter which, I trust, will commend itself, not only to those who control our great railway companies, but also to small as well as large employers throughout the United Kingdom. The improvement required there must of necessity come from the largest employers first. I think a word of credit is due to the Admiralty, because they have led the way in this matter. As early
  390
  even as 1843 they allowed some of their young persons who work in their dockyards and works to attend technical classes during their work hours. Some of the railway companies are also taking up this subject with a degree of enthusiasm which does them every credit. Recently the Great Northern Railway Company, who have a very large number of boys in their employ in London, have been insisting that in every case their boys should attend some classes, and many of these classes during their work hours. That example may well be followed in other parts of the country. Only by following it shall we be able to get into our schools boys between the ages of thirteen and seventeen in such a way as to enable them to take full advantage of the facilities there offered. Scotland, as usual, is leading the way in this matter, and the Act for Scotland passed two years ago, I hope, will be followed by an Act equally applicable to England, providing that attendance at continuation classes shall up to seventeen years of age be compulsory. Of course, it must be on a small scale, and it must be done with moderation and with consideration for local needs and trades, but within those limits it is possible to work just as well in England as in Scotland.
  The adult artisan is taking advantage more and more of these evening classes. What I most find fault with in the evening classes that are provided is that the adult artisan is not given a large range of opportunity of taking general as distinct from vocational instruction. This is one of the greatest needs of adult artisans. Those who have had any experience of the adult schools of the Quakers, now organised for a long period of time with great success, know that the demand in those schools is not for higher education, but for very elementary education, education provided even in the lowest standards of the elementary schools. In the Quaker schools, north and south, you find men of thirty and forty relearning the arithmetic which they ought to know, reading in the most elementary form, and even learning to spell, not for the first time, but for the second time in their lives. It is this gap between the first instruction and the first desire for instruction, which comes much later in life, which has somehow or other to be filled. There is a great demand for this, I believe, among the adult population, and it is to be seen most strongly in the remarkable success of the Workers' Education Association, a success brought about

  391
  by the enthusiasm of an excellent central committee, an excellent secretary, and the generous assistance given by the universities and university men. Their organised three years' course of history and mechanics has been attended by large numbers of artisans all over the United Kingdom. That work is good in its way, but it cannot cover all that is necessary in the way of a general education either for old or for young, and one of the best signs of the time has been in the spread of secondary schools. Last year we heard at some length of many of the changes which have taken place in the number, organisation, and teaching of secondary schools. This year I have to report to the Committee that our secondary school branch now covers the sum of £610,000. There are 950 schools receiving Grants, a rise of 100 schools in the course of the last two years. There are about 10,000 teachers in those secondary schools, and their qualifications are better than they were. There are over 158,000 pupils at present in attendance. Over 50,000 are free-place elementary school pupils, of whom 15,000 have entered under this regulation during the present year. This is a great improvement in range over the state of things four or five years ago.
  One of the most remarkable movements has been in the length of the school life. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir William Anson) last year drew attention to the shortening of school life in one of our great municipalities where the secondary schools were somewhat of the nature of a higher elementary schools, very largely because the pupils did not stay long enough at the schools. He drew special attention to the state of the Bradford schools, and I should like to say equally publicly that Bradford has turned over a new leaf and they are exerting all the influence they can, both on parents and pupils, to increase the length of time pupils spend in their schools. We have had to use very much the same kind of pressure in other instances. We have had to warn thirty-five schools that the length of time the pupils spend in the schools is too short and that we shall have to remove them from the Grant list unless they reach a reasonable standard. Governors all over the country appear to be co-operating with us in that object. Not only are they doing that, but in many schools they are requiring undertakings from the scholars that they will stay out the full time of their secondary school career. Furthermore, they are re-
  392
  modelling their scholarship scheme in such a way as to get pupils earlier into the secondary schools, and they are discouraging the very bad system of what is known as "a year's finishing," which is really throwing away the time that is spent in the secondary school. There has been a great improvement in the elasticity of the curriculum of these schools. The limits must of necessity be generous. They must not be unduly specialised, and they must not be defective in essentials; but within those limits we are prepared to encourage differentiation of type, and we have been doing so as far as we possibly could.
  The Board does encourage experiments, and it is very glad to have any experiments brought to its notice. We are likely to publish very shortly the Reports of two experiments of great value. One is on the new oral method of teaching Latin, and the other is on the method of organising school holidays of town children under conditions of home life, including the study of botany, geology, and the literary and historical associations in country districts. This is not aided by any Grant at the present time, but we are watching the experiment this year, and, if we can, we shall give money to it. There has been an increase in the interchange of teachers from abroad. Twenty-two schools have taken advantage of the arrangements made with the French and Prussian Governments to send over teachers here in exchange for teachers we send over to France and Germany. I believe there will be more next year. All this goes to broaden the interest in these schools. There has been co-operation with specialists, like the English Association, the Mathematical Association, the History Association, and so forth. Last of all the new developments is the associating with the governing bodies of these schools of old boys and girls who have passed through them. That provides not only the governing body with some means of getting into touch with the actual district and scholars, but it strengthens the local interest which ought to obtain in all secondary schools throughout the country. The spread of this system, on the other hand, has not been altogether without danger. There has been too great a desire to have quantity at the expense of quality, and many schools which are elementary have been trying to get into the secondary branch without raising their standard to the secondary level. There has

  393
  been too much jealousy between elementary and secondary teachers who are connected with these schools. Their interests are not antagonistic; they are really not two services, but one.
  There has been in the curriculum a tendency far too much to over-theorise. Every now and again the educational world has some current idol. A few years ago they were all for scientific education; now they talk about nothing but practical education. Nothing would receive our approval in the secondary schools which does not provide a well-balanced curriculum. It very often happens that a well-balanced curriculum merely means teaching a large number of subjects ineffectively. There is undoubtedly great restlessness with regard to the curriculum of these schools. No sooner has a new educational scheme been started than someone wishes to take it up to see how the plant is getting on. Everyone wishes to see our Code and Regulations re-modelled every half-year. If we took a quarter of the advice tendered to us we should have to remodel our Regulations once a year. I am so firmly convinced of the undesirability of such frequent changes that I have not altered the Regulations. The same applies to the elementary schools, and for the first time in the history of education there is no new Code this year. We are going on this year on last year's Code.
  I should like to refer to the position of the headmasters in secondary schools. I fear they are too much under the control of officials. As I have stated publicly elsewhere, if there is one thing in the organisation of education of localities which seems a serious danger, it is the over-control of officials. In secondary schools this is particularly harmful. The head master ought to he properly consulted in the management of his school, and he should have immediate access to the governing body of that school. The appointment of assistants ought never to take place without consultation with him. The governing body on that subject ought only to act after full consultation with the head master. He ought to be the responsible executive officer, through whom and after consultation with whom the responsible authority act. I do not believe for a moment this undermines popular control. I believe it is very much better than bureaucratic control. The governing bodies themselves ought to have control of the secondary schools, and I do invite
  394
  them to get into closer touch with the head masters. In urging this we are really fighting the battle of the teaching profession. If this right of direct access to the governing bodies is not granted, and, indeed, if it is not demanded by the local authorities themselves, it will mean that men of character and education and wide experience will be driven away from the secondary schools. That would be most lamentable, and not to the best advantage of this great service.
  I would like to draw attention to the development of the secondary system in Wales. I will not go over the whole range of the Welsh secondary school system. It is well known in this House, but, as one of the outcomes of the enthusiasm of the Welsh for secondary education, there has been an expression of enthusiasm in the higher branches of education. This year, only some twenty-one years after the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, marks the opening of the new buildings of the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire at Cardiff, the erection of the magnificent pile of buildings for the sister college for North Wales at Bangor, a start made with the erection of permanent buildings for the National Library of Wales at Aberystwith, and the decision to erect two new training colleges at Barry and Caerleon—a very fine achievement for a small Principality in the course of a single year.
  I now turn to the subject of the elementary schools. There are some 20,000 of these. They vary enormously in their quality, the range of subjects they cover, the kind of children they have to educate, and the kind of teachers who man them. All the improvements which have been made during the last few years cannot be catalogued without touching on almost every item in their curriculum. But in drawing, nature study, gardening, handwork, and domestic subjects for girls, cookery, laundry, needlework, and so forth, in practical arithmetic, that is to say, associating arithmetic with the actual things of life, and not merely producing arithmetical conundrums, in original composition, in observation lessons, physical exercises, dramatisation, with the object of vitalising history, and in the general lessening of formal teaching, my inspectors report that there has been improvement all round. That is largely due to the quality of our teaching staff. The proportion of trained to untrained teachers has gone up, and the proportion

  395
  of certificated teachers to uncertificated has steadily risen. Large classes are becoming smaller, and some local authorities have taken to heart the agitation of last year, and have already turned over a new leaf. In Newcastle, for instance, where a year ago they had over 330 classes, with over sixty pupils in each, they now have not one single class of that number. The same is true of many large towns all over the country. Then there has been an improvement in the number of cookery centres. I take the case of the county of Essex. Essex is not usually supposed to be in the vanguard of educational reform—
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I beg your pardon.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as cookery centres are concerned it is. I find that in five years the number of cookery centres has gone up—I am sure this will give satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman—from fifteen to 244. Their handicraft rooms have increased from one to sixty-one. But all this work is not without its defects as well as its good qualities, and from the reports of my inspectors all over the country I find one outstanding defect so far as teaching is concerned, and that is that the teachers far too much lecture children without instructing them. They do not give them a chance to use their brains. There are, of course, many most excellent examples to the contrary, but the golden rule of some teachers is that you should never let a child do for himself what the teacher can do for him. I can only say that where that rule exists the school is not doing its best work. The result is that in many schools the standards have been packed together at the top of the school. I now criticise this purely from the point of view of organisation. If you are going to lay down as your rule that a child can only get the full benefit out of an elementary school provided it is lectured, it is obvious that the organisation of the school will always aim at having as large an audience for the lecturer as possible. And when you get to Standards V., VI., and VII. in a large number of schools all over the country—no part of the country is altogether free from this—V., VI., and VII. are lumped together, because there you must have a larger number of children than each standard contains to make it worth while to have a teacher for them. One outcome
  396
  of that grouping of V., VI., and VII. has been that the last year, and sometimes
  the last two years, of a child's life in that school have been thrown away. The dull ones have not been raised, and it has been a waste of time, and certainly it has bred in many of those children a distaste for education. If a child's mental faculties and initiative are not brought out while it is at school, certainly the teachers at their school have not done their work well. The teachers who have tried the alternative policy quite boldly, intelligently, and systematically have achieved the most surprising results. I should like to commend especially the county of Westmoreland.
  In Westmoreland they have gone about their business with great energy. One of the things they have done there to the advantage of the children in the schools is that they have encouraged them to read. They have not merely regarded a book as a thing for the teacher to use, or to place before the pupil for a certain number of minutes in a day, but they have a box sent round of suitable children's books, which are in the nature of a circulating library, and the inspector for Westmoreland tells me that the reading and composition in Westmoreland are some of the very best in the country. I take another good case, that of a poor Roman Catholic school in Liverpool—St. Peter's. There they have shown how far this can be carried. The children are systematically taught how to study. The inspector reports—
  "Then the teachers give them as much direction and guidance as they consider necessary, and they leave the children to do all that is really essential for themselves. The fact that the children are allowed to energise freely and work out their own salvation, especially in reading, is bringing real happiness into their lives. They love the school and stay at it as long as they can. Their parents are becoming keenly interested in it, while in spite of the fact that the population of the neighbourhood is decreasing, the number on the books has increased by forty during the past year."
  I put that down entirely to the more liberal policy pursued by the teachers of that school. I think it is necessary to encourage the trying of experiments in elementary schools—to encourage them, because in giving freedom to the teacher you give freedom to the pupils. And then in the act of emerging from the beaten track the teacher must of necessity take the pupils with him. Directly the teachers leave the beaten track they find it necessary in some degree to allow the children to order their own going. Where they do that, no doubt the children, without being in the least uncomplimentary to the teachers, do undoubtedly benefit.

  397
  Every experiment of importance has taken the form of emancipating the children, and one of these, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, is in a rural area. Schools which are conducted amid rural surroundings may have a rural development in the school. They may be conducted with a definite rural bias, or they may be specialised rural schools. The ruralising of education is by no means a difficult matter. There is no reason in the world why all the equipment that surrounds a rural school should not be used for the purposes of education. The playground, the fields, a haystack, a cowhouse—all these things may be used as exercises in arithmetic and mensuration. The parish church, or any old buildings in the neighbourhood, can be used for the purpose of illustrating history. The natural environment of the school will enable them to make explorations into nature study. The physiographical environment, roads, railways, woods, heaths, meadows, the industries, the rocks and the soil, can all be used as starting points in geography, and I am sure the lion. Gentlemen opposite would agree that in no way can you start more profitably in teaching geography than by starting in the immediate neighbourhood of the child's own home and school.
  I take one of the best cases which has come under my notice. I hold it up as an example to other parts of the country. I hope the other 19,000 which I do not mention will not be jealous. It is a school in Cheshire, at Leaman's Moss. There are 200 boys on the register. They have five forms. They have a headmaster, three trained certificated teachers, and one uncertificated. The school, as some hon. Members know, lies on the outskirts of Altrincham. Although it is in the county it is so near the town that it can be attended by the town children. What is its scheme? It provides for the ordinary subjects and in addition it has organised beekeeping, wood-work, gardening, and practical nature study. Metal-work and glass-work have just been introduced. Mathematics are conducted on the basis I have just described and wood-work has expanded out of the region of mere play into things of utility. Drawing includes simple sketching out of doors. Elementary science includes mechanics and physics, with experimental work, and they themselves make the material for the experiments. Gardening is correlated with
  398
  arithmetic and with English, for they have to write an account of all they have done, with nature study and with what is known as hand and eye work. Beekeeping is taught to all the boys. They regard it as very great fun and fourteen of them are known as "beekeepers." Seed-testing is also conducted under the same rules. When my inspector first drew my attention to this, he said that he found in the workshop there was a garden frame being made. They were finishing off the garden gate. One scholar had been making a model of a weighbridge out of his own head. A good deal of attention was paid to nature study and drawing, and the school garden was planned by themselves; it contained a number of beehives. There was every kind of experimental work and the boys were co-operating in making a wind-pump from their own design, pumping water out of their own well. This is a really intelligent school, and what is remarkable in it is that in the ordinary dry subjects, the A B C of elementary school work, the children are more efficient than in any of the surrounding schools. I thought the headmaster had done good work there. I thought he had done such good work that I might as well have him on my staff, and I appointed him two months ago. The managers of the school, I believe, disapprove of the appointment, but I am going to use him, as soon as he has learned the ordinary routine of his work, to act as a missionary and to carry out in other parts of the country the results of his own experiment.
  Agricultural and rural work is done not only in the elementary schools—it is done in our secondary schools as well as in technical schools. The agricultural work conducted under the Board in the West Riding has resulted in a great spread of agricultural education in the evening schools. At Bedford they have an excellent farm school. In Wiltshire they have an itinerant instructor, or more than one, in manual farm processes. In Lindsey, one of the greatest of the agricultural areas, they have agricultural scholarships which carry their scholars right up to our universities. In Nottinghamshire they train elementary school teachers in rural subjects. All this is good work, and is the growth of the last few years. But it is impossible that it should go on and be well done unless our instructors are paid good salaries. At present, I am sorry to say, I find the best of the agricultural instructors, trained in the agricultural department at Cambridge, instead of finding

  399
  employment under our own county councils go out to the Colonies. I wish the Colonies well, but I should wish first of all that our own counties should get the benefit of their services. But we cannot retain them in this country unless we are prepared to pay them a living wage. Then there have been agricultural institutes put up here and there. All these are receiving the Board's assistance. In the counties, in respect of which what is called the Block Grant was not paid, the number of schools and classes recognised by the Board in which agricultural subjects were taught was 429 in 1908–9. It is more than that now. That was a rise from 300 only three years previously. In the counties in respect of which the Block Grant was paid the number of centres recognised by the Board in which agricultural subjects were taught rose from little or nothing in 1906 to about 190 in 1910. All this means that there has been a great growth in the desire to reorganise and to use such agricultural educational opportunities as can be offered by the local authorities. One of the most remarkable rises has, however, been in the number of school gardens. In 1904–5 there were only about 500 elementary schools earning the special Grant for gardening. I think there were about 8,000 scholars at that time. At the present moment there are over 1,900 schools earning a Grant for this purpose, and over 28,000 scholars are to be found taking advantage of these gardening classes. The rural courses in secondary schools have also been much improved. I hope sooner or later the disadvantage under which the rural areas have laboured, in not having the education of their districts brought into close relation with the main industry of their districts, will be a fault in our educational system which will have passed away.
  5.0 p.m.
  Let me say a word or two on the subjects of medical inspection of school-children. Medical inspection has not been fully organised in this country for a very long time, but every one of the local authorities has now undertaken that work, and already over 1,500,000 children have been examined. One thousand medical officers have been appointed, of whom seventy are women, and there are now no less than 300 school nurses. It follows of necessity that where you have medical inspection carried out on such a large scale as this, and carried out, I believe, on the whole, efficiently, there must be something in the
  400
  nature of treatment to follow. All cases are, I believe, first of all sent to a private medical practitioner, and the procedure is something like this. The local education authority, being responsible for providing the inspection, appoints a school medical officer. That officer reports his findings to the local education authority. The report is confidential. The local authority communicates these findings, also confidentially to the parents. It is then the duty of the parents to obtain the necessary treatment. That is the normal course, but there are large numbers of parents who are neglectful or unwilling to fulfil their duty, or they may be unable often to provide the necessary treatment. Those cases are met in a variety of ways. Up to the present month I find that some authorities have been paying for nursing assistance out of the education rate, which they are quite entitled to do. Sixty-five authorities have done this; thirty-three of them are paying for spectacles out of the rates; fifteen of them are contributing to hospitals out of the rates, and ten of them have established school clinics. Besides that, I think I ought to add that many private agencies and many hospitals have been lending their aid in this good work. That means not only that the lives of these children will be made happier, but that they will grow up much more efficient human beings, and the work done in the school in respect of them will certainly not be thrown away.
  On another side of their physical condition I have to report that great developments have taken place in the matter of physical exercises. Two years ago some members of my Board embarked on devising a general physical exercise syllabus, largely on the Swedish system. That syllabus has met with great acceptance, and 92,000 copies of it have been sold. It would be impossible to carry on the physical exercise work in all the schools under the local education authorities unless the teachers were prepared to play a part in it, and in the training colleges no less than 4,700 students have passed the examination in physical exercise since Christmas of last year. That means that those teachers who go up from the training colleges will not be specialised physical exercise teachers, but it will be part of their ordinary work. It has been suggested by Lord Curzon and Lord Roberts recently that such physical degeneration of the people as exists might be arrested by universal military service. I am not

  401
  going to embark on that very large subject, except to say that universal service could not meet this great problem. Military service can only benefit selected men. Those who are least physically fit, those who most require physical exercises, would be debarred from the very training and opportunity that would be provided under a military system, and, moreover, military service does not include women and girls and can be in no way a substitute for physical exercise. And it can only include those who are comparatively grown-up. What we want to-day is to get hold of the children as early as possible and enable them not only to develop their muscles when grown up, but to grow up well. The Board look upon this new work as a national service, both from the point of view of discipline as well as of physique. There are two other similar subjects to which I must refer. One is the teaching of what is known in education jargon as "mother-craft"—the care of babies—and the other is the teaching of temperance. Last year I suggested there might be more classes for the former purpose. Some experiments have been successfully made in South Wales, and many authorities in other parts of the country have been making similar experiments. They are being carefully watched by the Board with a view of discovering how the subject can best be dealt with. The temperance syllabus has been largely used by local authorities all over the country: 33,000 copies have been sold already. That is one way of measuring the extent to which it has met with the approval of local authorities. Upwards of 200 education authorities have arranged for the definite teaching of temperance on the lines of the syllabus. I hope that will bear good fruit as time goes on.
  Now I turn to the subject of training colleges. The training colleges in this country have gone up in number during the last few years, and the number of teachers whom they have turned out has also increased. The supply of teachers is a serious problem, which we are watching with great care. Let me point out that the main growth in the provision of training colleges has come from local education authorities themselves. It is true they have been encouraged to provide training colleges, and they have taken up the work with considerable enthusiasm. The universities have also lent a hand, and the modern universities are doing good work in training a large number of our teachers at the present time. I need not revert to
  402
  the religious differences which have been associated with training colleges in the past except to point out that now there is an enormous number of places which are entirely free from tests, and that the number of places now reserved in Church of England, Roman Catholic, and Wesleyan colleges is at the figure of 2,436. Nothing like the number of 50 per cent. has ever entered these colleges, but well over 10 per cent. have done so. It shows that it does relieve the grievance to some extent, and does so without damaging the denominational character of the colleges concerned. The total number of places in denominational colleges is 4,800, and half of them are now free, and they have been made free without having altered the denominational character of the colleges.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of places which are undenominational places?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of undenominational places, apart from the 2,436 in undenominational colleges, is something over 7,000, making altogether something like 10,000 places free from tests. I know how far the religious controversy is likely to interest the House; I shall therefor drop it at once. We have not only had more training colleges, but we have had better colleges. One danger in the past has been of past students becoming tutors in those colleges, with the result that the outlook was narrowed. That has to some extent passed away. Many of the teachers and tutors and lecturers are coming from other spheres—secondary schools and the universities. All that is for good. There are still some defects which I hope will be remedied as time goes on. The new local education authorities are drawing far too much from their own districts. Far be it from me to decry local patriotism. One of the great glories of the towns in the North is that local patriotism has done more good for their institutions than almost any other feeling. But local patriotism can be carried to the point of local conceit. That is one of the dangers of drawing altogether from one district only for a training college. An exchange can be arranged, and I hope will he arranged. Then practising schools ought to be provided all round the training colleges, and those schools ought to have thoroughly able teachers in them. It is not fair to the training college students that they should be asked to practise in schools where second-rate teachers are carrying on teaching. The local authorities would be well-

  403
  advised to have specially able teachers in those practising schools. If there are not good practising schools, it is very much like having engineering colleges without good workshops. More time will have to be devoted in the future in the training colleges to the art of teaching, to specialising. They should not merely exist for the general education of their students, but really in order that the students may be fitted for teaching afterwards. It is a great mistake to believe that anyone can teach without having that art conveyed to them somehow or another. They are likely to fall into grave mistakes unless they have that tuition. There might be, and I hope there will be, in the future more interchange between the rural authorities and the rural schools and the training colleges. I do not know how it is to be done at present, but there ought to be some way of giving training college students a definite rural bias, so that in those particular schools which I described a little earlier, where everything is translated into rural language, the students should be specially fitted for doing that work. Two years ago I offered Grants for an extra year if any students willing to stay on to obtain horticultural, agricultural, or some other like instruction—something closely in touch with the tastes and principles of rural schools and rural teachers. I suggested that that should be done at the Swanley College. I am sorry to say that not one single person has applied for it. We shall have to find out how it is that teachers are carefully avoiding the specialised instruction, or giving a rural bias to their training. If that offer is not availed of in the future. I will not say that I will withdraw it, but I must modify it. It shows how difficult it is for a teacher to devote part of his time to purely rural training. Perhaps it is rather due to a mistaken ambition on the part of many teachers to go as soon as possible into the towns.
  I find that a number of the training college students who are living at home are suffering from the same kind of strain as falls to the lot of the young workman who goes to evening classes. That is also a matter which must come up for our consideration in the near future. Some of them have not only to do their work in the college, but very often have to do home work. I recently had brought to my attention by one of my inspectors cases which are examples of this. The
  404
  first is of a girl whose parents are both dead. The home is kept by an aged grandmother, who is bedridden. There are four brothers. The home is in a depressing street in London. The girl has to do a good deal of the housework. It is certainly impossible for her to get good value out of the training college. The second case is a girl who is an only daughter, and whose father died recently. For weeks before that event her time was chiefly spent in the sickroom. It is quite clear she could not do good work in the training college. This is a matter of urgency, and some steps should be taken to give intending students and their parents some idea of the calls made upon their time and upon their physical and mental energy before they enter on a training course. The question of oversupply is one of the most difficult with which I have had to deal, for the simple reason that no one can prophesy what will be the demand for teachers four or five years hence, how far there may be a leakage out of the profession, or how far the local authorities may he prepared to get rid of the worse equipped of their teachers, and to substitute for them trained certificated teachers. The oversupply at the present moment may be attributed, to a certain extent, to the fact that many of those out of employment have been warned off; they have been told they ought not to accept a certain kind of appointment because it is below their dignity. You cannot blame the Board of Education for that.
  Sir J. H. YOXALL: Warned off by whom?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say by whom, but I do know that the hon. Member himself is responsible for the issue of a Circular warning parents to have nothing to do with the teaching profession, because that profession is already overstocked. I have to find fault with the issue of that Circular. It contained inaccurate and misleading statements, and it may do a great deal of harm to the teaching profession if it is allowed to go uncontradicted.
  Sir J. H. YOXALL: The warnings were against certain schools; not against the profession.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I said they were warned off appointments. They were not prepared to take appointments open to them, and for that you cannot blame the

  405
  Board of Education. Some of them, for instance, will not go away from the immediate district of their homes. The oversupply which is stated to exist at the present time cannot be proved. Furthermore, I have gone the right way, I believe, towards avoiding this over-supply, as last year I provided that more trained certificated teachers should be employed. A very large number of them have already been absorbed. The proper way of keeping down the over-supply of teachers is not to warn young girls and boys out of the profession; it is to prevent the lower grades of the profession being overstocked. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that that is the policy I intend to pursue, and I hope that those with whom he acts will refrain from inaccurate statements on the subject in the future. The proper way of preventing the overstocking of the profession is to put a brake on the supply of untrained teachers. I do not intend to cut down the number of training colleges. They speak of the two years at college as a grievance; the complaint is that after two years in college they cannot get trained teachers' posts, but I would point out that if they had not been given that training in the colleges, they would not have been able to get the posts they now crave for, and that they have got the training at the cost of the State which renders them eligible for them.
  Another very difficult topic is that of the Teachers' Register. I have been catechised over and over again from that side of the House and this on that topic. Long and difficult negotiations have been in progress for several years past. One Committee sat on the subject and failed; they could not say that they had arrived at an agreement with all branches of the teaching profession. Another Committee has been recently sitting to try and solve this knotty problem. I understand that they had their conference, and that they succeeded in coming not to an agreement, but to something approaching an agreement. Unfortunately, after the conference was over, one very large organisation, namely, that of the technical teachers, with whom the hon. Gentleman opposite is not altogether unconnected, said they thought that the representation of their class of teachers was quite inadequate. I presume, therefore, they do not regard the scheme as satisfactory. That is the sort of trouble which has arisen over and over again, and I see no way out
  406
  of the difficulty except that, having arrived at something in the nature of an agreement, not, perhaps, a complete agreement—I should test the basis on which it has been reached—I should ascertain if it is really a complete agreement of all portions of the teaching profession, and that the scheme put to me provides for the various classes of teachers appointing their own representatives. I suggest that they should send to me the names of those whom they care to appoint, and, having done that, if I can find that an agreement has really been reached, I am prepared to recommend the issue of an Order in Council. But I must be satisfied that an agreement has been reached. That I venture to suggest is a perfectly fair offer and one which, I hope, the hon. Gentleman opposite will do his best to put through.
  I want to refer to another question—the connection of the Board with the universities and university colleges. The amount of money now spent by university colleges in receipt of the Treasury Grant conies to considerably over half a million of money—£587,469. Of this large sum no less than 32 per cent. is derived from the fees of students, 14 per cent. from endowments, 15 per cent. from local authorities, and 27 per cent. from the Exchequer. In the case of the Welsh university colleges, the total income is £50,626, of which 32 per cent. comes from the students, 7 per cent. from endowments, 8 per cent. from local authorities, and 39 per cent. from the Exchequer. Of this large sum of money, £121,000 was paid by the Board of Education very largely in respect of services rendered, and also largely for the teaching of technical subjects. University colleges have been doing well in England and Wales for many years past. In reviewing that side of the work, I should like to point out that a large number of the students who enter university colleges, or universities, study one particular technical subject without completing the whole course. That is a great pity; it is a great loss both to the colleges and to the students, and we are considering what steps we can take to discourage this partial and spasmodic attendance. No doubt in some cases students in the technical departments of university institutions suffer from the incompleteness of their previous general education, and that to some extent rather vitiates the work they do in the university college. This is particularly true of the great work now done by the engineering classes. Another side of their

  407
  work will have to be considered during the next year or two, and that is their relation to technical schools and the polytechnics. The relationship between the technical departments of universities and the technical institutions and polytechnics is a matter of supreme importance both to the universities and to the institutions. I hope that sooner or later the large sums of money now being spent on technical education may by these means be expended to the very best advantage.
  I have covered a very large range of subjects, and I have studiously avoided referring to the really interesting side of educational discussion. I can only sum up by saying that the great sums of money now spent on education in this country and the vast range of subjects must be my justification for thus reviewing the work of what I believe to be one of the greatest Departments of the State. In Grants and rates we spend in England and Wales alone—leaving out Ireland and Scotland—about £28,500,000 sterling every year. From other sources, such as endowments and school fees and other expenditure mainly among the more expensive schools in the country, a further £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 is spent. The Estimates on these points vary, but quite certainly in this country something like £37,000,000 sterling is annually spent in England and Wales on education, higher and lower, for our people. There has been a great increase in our Grant, and I may announce for the satisfaction of my hon. Friends who represent necessitous districts that we intend to increase the amount of money placed at the disposal of those districts in the coming year. There has been a great increase in the Grant, because of the normal increase of our child population. There are now 7,000,000 children on the rolls, and something like 3,000,000 of parents are being served in this way. I venture to say that in view of the magnitude of the responsibility undertaken by the authorities and the duties thrust upon the Board of Education there is no nobler service in all our Imperial organisation than that which is to be found in the sphere of education.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: The right hon. Gentleman need make no apology for the length of the very interesting statement he has made. A very great deal of it we can view with unqualified satisfaction. I was particularly glad to hear what he said about technical institutions and the in-
  408
  creasing interest which employers are taking in the work of those whom they employ under these institutions. I am very glad also that the Board have given public recognition to the work of the Workers' Educational Association. I have known something of that work in its relation to my own university at Oxford. We have been very much interested in it, and we are well aware of the energy, enthusiasm, and wisdom with which that work is being carried on I may also express my gratification with the right hon. Gentleman's references to the work of the secondary schools. When I was connected with the Beard I fully recognised the desirability of keeping the secondary schools within a proper compass, and I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman takes a severe view of the elementary school which parades as a secondary school. There used to be a constant difficulty in that matter, partly owing to the inexperience of the local authorities and partly owing to the ambition of the teacher, by some slight addition to or alteration of names, to induce those attending what were practically elementary schools to believe that they were receiving the benefits of secondary education. I am glad to hear that the Board of Education is alive to that risk, and I hope it may not very much longer continue. I was also glad to hear that the Board insists on the freedom and independence of the headmasters of their secondary schools. It used to be a constant difficulty to induce local authorities to believe that, unless they reposed their confidence in their headmasters, unless they appointed such a governing body as would interest itself continuously in the affairs of the school, and unless they gave their headmasters certain liberty of action and free access to that governing body, they would not be well served, but would drive out of the teacher's profession men who would be useful members of it. I am very glad to find that that difficulty is being realised by the local authorities, as it has always been realised by the Board of Education, and I hope it may soon be altogether ended. I regret, as some of my hon. Friends regret, that the teachers' register is still in the future. I cannot help thinking, though I am fully alive to the difficulty which attends the making up of a register, that if the Board of Education had really set itself to bring the various parties together we should have had by

  409
  this time a scheme for the register. I recognise the difficulties, but I do not admit that they are insuperable or that they may not be overcome with the goodwill of the Board of Education.
  With regard to university colleges, I am aware that a large Grant is made both by the Board of Education and the Treasury. I am glad to note that the Treasury work in with the Board of Education. There is always a risk that with independent action there would be overlapping in the use of the two Grants, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) when Chancellor of the Exchequer was always careful to keep himself in communication with the Board of Education before he made his Grant. I hope that practice continues, but really it would be more satisfactory to my mind if the whole matter were placed in the hands of the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman has told us many things which are satisfactory about elementary schools. We heard how rural teaching had developed, and we listened with admiration to the description of the Cheshire school, in which satisfactory education was given, and the children were profiting in all directions by the activity of their teacher. But it must be borne in mind that an immense variety of topics are now being thrust into our elementary education. We have not merely a great variety of curriculum and special subjects, very properly introduced into the teaching of the children, we have also the question of feeding the children, and also that very important question of medical inspection. The Board of Education has been very active, as we were made aware two months ago, in pressing upon local authorities and managers of schools the necessity of the constant survey of their buildings with a view to keeping them regularly up to the mark. I do not wish to recur to the subject, with which he dealt at some length some months ago, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman first of all that he is imposing a very heavy expenditure upon local authorities, and the constant recurrence and the constant addition of expenditure which local authorities feel to be a burden may in the long run have a serious effect upon their energy and their enthusiasm in the cause of education.
  I would ask the Board's attention to the question of administrative work, because I think it is a matter to which the Board should give heed. This administrative work falls very heavily upon the
  410
  head teachers, and there are schools, say of 100 children, in which the head teacher has not only to attend to all the administrative details—the feeding, the medical inspection, the register, and the like—and to organise the proper conduct of the classes, but also to teach a class. I do not wish to urge that additional expense should be incurred unless it is impossible to help it, but it is quite plain that the quality of the teaching in the school must suffer if the head teacher is overborne with administrative work in addition to teaching work. I have seen schools where that took place, and I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it. It is a question which should be taken up by the managers of elementary schools. I should also like to ask if the Board of Education reminds managers from time to time that they are responsible in respect of their schools, that they are under a statutory obligation to meet once every three months, and that they have a great opportunity of assisting the teachers and getting to know the homes from which the children come if they only care to make use of it. With regard to the training colleges, there is a curious contradiction in the Report of the Board of Education and the present facts of the case which I have. I dare say it can be accounted for. The Report speaks of an expected shortage in the teaching profession, but at present the figures which I have, and upon which I think I can rely, point to this, that last July 4,836 trained teachers left colleges. Formerly they were taken up as soon as they left the colleges.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Sometimes before they left.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: Quite so, sometimes before they left; but last year, in 1909, out of that 4,836 who left the colleges at the end of July, in October 1,500 were out of employment A certain number were employed as uncertificated, or as temporary teachers. I believe that 300 are still unemployed, and some have gone into other professions. There are now clearly more teachers than are wanted, and the Board anticipates a further reduction of pupil teachers who will want places in training colleges. Does not that point out that the number of places in training colleges for the supply of teachers is in excess of the demand, in which case the training colleges are turning out too many, and where there is an anticipated shortage

  411
  in the supply of pupil teachers to go into training colleges the colleges will not be able to fill them? Training colleges are being built very rapidly in spite of this excessive supply over demand. The Board assists, by a contribution of 75 per cent. of the cost, local authorities to build training colleges, and £100,000 is allocated this year to such colleges. We have found training colleges are being run up in various local areas into the character of which I think the Board should inquire. We find also that pupil teachers' centres which are no longer required are being turned into day training colleges, and the day training colleges are no longer required to be connected either with the university or the university college, and I should like to ask whether the Board does inquire into the character of the buildings used for these purposes, and also as to whether they are wanted. For instance, at the training colleges recently created at Bolton and Manchester, I believe the buildings are so used.
  I should be glad if the Board would inquire into the matter, because when one recollects that the day training college is no longer required to be connected with the university or the university college, it means that the Board has given up what used to be a very prominent feature of the training college system—some effort to give to the teacher in the course of his training some sense of corporate life. If he went to a residential college he got that without question. If he went to a college connected with a university college or university, he was brought into contact with bodies who might convey that feeling of corporate life; but he simply goes now to a lodging in the town and goes to the training college for instruction. I do not think that is the best way in which young people at that time of life should be prepared for the teaching profession. I should like also to say a word of the effect upon the teachers of this rapid increase of training colleges. Local authorities are justly proud of their own educational appliances, and now what happens? The local education authority first of all sends its children who are going into the teaching profession from their elementary school to their own secondary school, where they are prepared for that profession. They are sent from the local authority's secondary school to the local authority's training college, and then the local authority in appointing to teacherships
  412
  within its area is disposed to give the preference to the teachers from its own training colleges. Therefore, the teacher moves in this narrow circle—from the elementary school to the secondary school from the secondary school to the training college, from the training college back to the elementary school, possibly within the compass of one urban area. One cannot think that that gives to the teacher that variety of experience and breadth of view which we desire the teachers in our elementary schools to possess.
  The various ways in which the local authorities handle this matter bear hardly upon the teachers. There is a serious complaint from the students of the training colleges in London at this moment. The London local education authority, very properly, are, I believe, desirous of drawing their teachers from all quarters, and have announced that they will not take more than a certain number of teachers from out of their own training colleges. They are turning out a very large number of teachers from their training colleges, but a great many of those teachers find that they will get no employment in London, and owing to this extreme patriotism—carried, I think, to an extent disastrous to the interests of education by many local authorities elsewhere—the London student finds that he can get no employment in his own district, and is looked upon askance if he tries to get employment elsewhere. I think this a matter to which the attention of the Board should be turned. It is bad for the teacher to be kept always within a narrow area, and hard upon him if he is excluded by the extreme patriotism of some areas from employment, while his own district cannot find, or is not willing to find, a use for him there. Having regard to the fact that there is an excess of supply over demand, is it necessary, in regard to denominational colleges, to impose severe regulations which might, if they were carried into their full effect, entirely alter the character of the colleges? Is it necessary to continue them when you have this abundance of effort by the local authority in the constitution of training colleges of their own? I ask that, and also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered this possible result of the multiplication of training colleges set up by local authorities—a result which might mean the destruction of the religious teaching in elementary schools? I know that the right hon. Gentleman

  413
  attaches great importance to religious teaching. In a section of his Bill of 1908 a special time was to be set apart by Statute in the school hours of every school which was devoted to religious education. In his training college Regulations of last year he has alluded to the importance of the teacher having learned how to give religious instruction. It is still set forth in the prefatory Memorandum of these Regulations, and it appears in a special chapter of its own among regulations imposing the necessity that every student should be taught to give religious instruction, because, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, not only should religious instruction be given in every school, but every teacher should be taught how to give it. What has happened now? The right hon. Gentleman, I think, was alarmed by some expressions of opinion From the Back Benches behind him, and he withdrew the Regulations. You are driving religious teaching, so far as you can, out of the secondary schools in which the teachers are prepared. You make no provision for the giving of such teaching in the training colleges. You are doing what you can to turn the denominational colleges into undenominational colleges, in which there will be no provision for religious instruction. It seems to me that, although you did desire by Statute to require that this instruction should be given, and although you did desire by your Regulations to necessitate the giving of religious instruction in training colleges, in other directions and by other processes you are doing all you can to secularise our elementary education. I can only say that the inconsistency is somewhat pitiful.
  Next, I wish to say something as to the subjects of study in the higher grades of secondary schools. We all want, as the Board also wants, variety, because we have to meet the very various requirements of the youth of the country. I have read the Report and the introduction thereto, from which it appears that the Board desires to liberalise education by unifying the whole of it; but the Board holds that it is contrary to the spirit of democracy that education should be based on a social class system, and the Board thinks that democracy itself is jealous of anything that seems to suggest special treatment of a privileged class. I do not think that in matters of education the Board should occupy itself with political theories. The plain duty of the Board of
  414
  Education is to try to secure that every boy and girl in the country gets the kind of education which will best fit them for the life he or she has to live. The practical application of these theories about democratic or aristocratic education tends somewhat to narrow the compass of the teaching in our secondary schools. When I was at the Board of Education I pressed with success that there should be introduced into our secondary school regulations a provision that where two languages were taught, Latin should be one, unless good cause was shown to the contrary. At the time I was told that that provision was aristocratic, academic, and reactionary, and that it showed a desire on the part of the Board of Education to keep the children of the working classes out of the secondary schools. In fact, I heard a good deal of very strong language on the subject. But what has been the result? The result is, that not only in the old grammar schools, but in the municipal schools, started and entirely controlled by the municipal authorities, Latin is increasingly taught. I was shown some very remarkable figures from the Board of Education a little time ago, and I confess I felt a certain gratification at the result of what was considered to be my ill-omened attempt to sustain the cause of classical education in the secondary schools.
  I should like to say something in favour of the retention of Greek, where the governing body constituted on the representative system which the secondary school regulations require is anxious that Greek should be retained. There, I think, the Board is somewhat influenced by its own unfortunate political theories as to the nature of the education in our secondary schools. There is, at Abingdon, a sixteenth century school which was founded to take the place of the education given before the Reformation—
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are less than forty Members present. I do so, not with the intention of interrupting the hon. Baronet, but because it is disgraceful that there should be less than forty Members present when this important subject is under discussion.
  [Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—.]
  Sir W. ANSON: The Abingdon people contributed to the endowment of a college at Oxford in order that Abingdon boys

  415
  might have access to the University. Lately the school has had a new scheme. The governing body contains a great majority of representative persons. The governors desired that in that scheme the school should be maintained on the lines which have hitherto obtained; that is, they wanted to secure that the governing body of the school should not, in these days of utilitarianism, exclude the old classical teaching for which the school was originally founded and which secured its ancient connection with the university. The Board replied, "Apart from other considerations"—I do not know what they were—the words are too vague. I should like to know what the considerations were. The Governors, returning to the charge, pointed to their record of 300 years, and asked for some security for the maintenance of their old classical education. But the Board was obdurate. I should like to compare that with the practice which prevails in Scotland. I believe that in every considerable area in Scotland there is a central school in which Greek is taught, and it is not merely taught, but taught as following a very advanced study in Latin. These are secondary schools fed partly from other secondary schools in which the study of the language is not so far advanced. But the theory of the teaching of languages there is that you may learn the languages as a discipline, as teaching you the construction of sentences, thereby so clearing your thought and making you understand the nature of language, or you may carry them on further so as to know something of the history and the literature of the ancient world. I maintain that it is the duty of the Board to see that the population of this country, of whatever class they may be, have in every area access to teaching of this sort. It is idle to say that the teaching of Greek is not democratic. If you want democracy, look at the history of the Republic of Athens. If you want Socialism, study the Republic of Plato. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted an example of a predatory Budget, I would refer him to the fiscal legislation of Solon. I am urging this not against the wishes of a very representative body of Governors, but in support of a body which is as representative as the Board of Education desires to make it.
  I should like to ask about these representative governors. Are they in any way representative of the contributories of the
  416
  school? It appears to me that the Board of Education has imposed requirements upon secondary schools without any relation to the sources from which the money comes for the support of those schools. The schools are supported by endowments, by fees, by rates, and by taxes. The Board of Education requires that the governing body of every school should be largely made up of persons representing the local authorities. Is any inquiry made as to whether those local authorities contribute a single penny in support of the school? If they do not, what business have they on the governing body? The same remark applies to the free-placer. Who, pays for the free-placer? Is he paid for out of the rates? Is he paid for out of the Government Grant? He cannot be, because the existence of the free-placer is a condition precedent to the Government Grant. The policy of the Board of Education, as I understand it, is not to provide scholarships with the money placed at its disposal by the Treasury, but to improve the character of the teaching in the school. Therefore, unless the free-placer is paid for out of the rates, he is paid for either out of the endowments, which were not intended for that purpose, or out of the fees of the other children in the school. I cannot help thinking that the working of this system of free places requires to he very carefully watched. In some places it works exceedingly well; in others it tends to lower the general standard of the school. In any case, I think the Board should be aware of what I am sure does happen, that well-to-do people send their children to elementary schools when they could afford to send them elsewhere in order to obtain free places in secondary schools. Surely it is right that more should be expected of the free-placer than from the fee-paying student. It is not fair to say in the Regulations that no free-placer shall be sent away from a school on any ground which is not a ground for dismissing a fee-paying pupil. The fee-paying pupil pays his way; but the free-placer, like a scholar at a college, is there by favour, and he is bound to live up to the conditions under which he has been appointed.
  There is one other point to which I must refer. The Board in its Report states that nearly all the secondary schools which are receiving State aid have been brought to accept the conditions imposed as to denominational religious teaching—that is to say, that last year 725 out of 802 were undenominational or secular—and in a note

  417
  to the Report it is stated that seventeen more had succumbed to the pressure of the Board of Education. What does that mean? It means a process of successful persecution.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does the hon. Baronet say that these schools have succumbed to the pressure of the Board of Education? In what way?
  Sir W. ANSON: A school which is otherwise doing good work cannot get on without the Government Grant, and the Government Grant is forthcoming only on condition that it foregoes the type of religious teaching which it has been accustomed to give. I call that pressure amounting to persecution.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know the hon. Baronet does not wish to do me an injustice. There is nothing in the Regulation which says they may not have denominational teaching in the school. All it says is that they shall have denominational teaching in the school only if the parents ask for it. That is an entirely different matter.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir W. ANSON: I quite agree. That is, the denominational teaching, which was given as a matter of course to any child who wanted it, is done away with. The Board is not satisfied with the imposition of the Conscience Clause, but denominational teaching has to come in as an exotic, at the special request of the parents, and in such a way as to make the boys or girls who receive it feel that they are placed in a special position—a position in which no boy or girl attending one of our schools likes to be placed. It is pressure to drive out a particular sort of teaching, and only to introduce it under certain circumstances. I should like to point out that it is pressure, used by discrimination, which every local authority is by statute forbidden to exercise, that it is pressure employed by a Government Department by the use of public money provided by the taxpayers of all denominations, that it is used in order to drive out of our schools a particular type of religious teaching which is offensive to the political supporters of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Having said what I have to say about our elementary education. I will not dwell at any length upon the application of this principle of persecution, or pressure, if the right hon. Gentleman prefers
  418
  that word, in the elementary schools. My Noble Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) and the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) will, I believe, bring before the House the cases of the schools in Wales with some of which the House is already familiar. It is impossible to allude to those cases without a burning sense of injustice. We have had before us proposals emanating from a number of good persons of all denominations with regard to efforts towards educational peace. These proposals show a very remarkable desire on the part of persons of various denominations to come to some terms to settle our educational difficulties. The picture which is presented is an agreeable one. It is a sort of golden age in which the Nonconformist lion, instead of roaring after his prey, will lie down beside the denominational lamb, and I suppose they will be led into a land where formularies will cease from troubling and where even Dr. Clifford and the Bishop of Manchester may be at rest. But this pleasing vision is overcast by the gloomy shadow of the Board of Education. I see no object in those efforts at educational peace which must result in legislation, which legislation must be administered by the Board. For the last four years, ever since the present Chief Secretary for Ireland left the Board of Education, one cannot forget that whether the Board has used its power, or abstained from using it, in every case in which a voluntary school was concerned we have had reason to complain that the Department was administered in a way which did not show a judicial spirit. The power of the Department has been exercised in a way unfair and harsh towards the voluntary schools. This shows, to my mind, a steady and settled purpose on the part of the Government to drive out of our educational system a type of religious teaching which is dear to, if not a majority, a very large number of the citizens of this country, and while that temper prevails at the Board of Education, which has to administer the law of the land and declines to administer it in a proper spirit, it is idle to talk of looking forward to educational peace.
  Sir J. H. YOXALL: The Committee will have gathered from some of the facts and figures mentioned by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) the cause and origin of the somewhat remarkable attack upon myself, which, with very slight provocation, the right hon. Gentleman thought fit

  419
  to interpolate into what otherwise was an interesting and useful speech. I do not want to lay too much stress upon the attack, or to treat the matter in the nature of a personal explanation, although I might very well ask leave to do so. But I think that, in fairness to myself, I ought to say something first as to the manner, and then the matter of the references that have been made to myself. As to the manner, I can only explain it by supposing that there was a desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to give to the Committee that which is known in the scholastic world as an object-lesson. In the course of his remarks he referred to the practice on the part of some teachers—I believe one class of teachers alone—of lecturing instead of teaching, and he desired to show the Committee how exceedingly improper lecturing was. I will not attempt to enter into controversy with him on that subject. As to the matter of his speech, I will merely remark, and I believe those who have been longer here than either of us will agree with me, that a private Member is placed at some disadvantage through having no immediate opportunity of replying to unworthy attacks. It is all a question as to whether the Board of Education were justified in the prophecy which was made some years ago, and which has been amply proved to be false, and whether they can justify the continuation of the policy based on that prophecy. I maintain that they have thoroughly failed to do so. It is all a question whether the head of the Education Department should now stand up and defend through thick and thin the faults, follies, and incompetency of some of his officers. I say some, for there were only some concerned in this matter. The prophecy made by the Board of Education was that there would be a great shortage of teachers. That has been falsified. The prophecy was repeated last year in the Report of the Board of Education, and it is doubly falsified again. The facts of the case are these: In the year before last there was a considerable surplus of teachers who had been trained in the training colleges and for whom there was no demand. Last year the state of matters became worse, and this year it will be at least as bad as it was last year. The right hon. Gentleman explains and justifies that by such infinitesimal excuses as that some of these teachers have been
  420
  warned not to go to certain schools. May I ask, Warned by whom? Then came the onslaught on myself, to which the Committee listened. A few days ago some young men approached me on leaving the training colleges maintained by the London County Council. They asked my influence and assistance in making a great public demonstration in respect of the position in which they find themselves at the present moment. More than 900 teachers have been trained, not in the training colleges of the Church of England or other denominations, but in the training colleges of the London County Council alone, and are leaving those colleges this July, at the end of their course, the cost of their training having been paid partly by themselves or their parents and largely by the State, and they desire to obtain employment in the profession which they have chosen, and for which they have been trained at considerable expense, and over 800 cannot obtain employment at all. They came to me and asked if I would join them in making a demonstration. "No," I said, "I have made representations to the head of the Board of Education in this matter, and he has promised an inquiry, and, pending the promised inquiry, I cannot take part in the proceedings you propose." I feel that these young men—and there are young women also—are amply justified in in what they are doing. Most of them are children of poor parents. They are not the sons and daughters of rich people who put their children through a university course extending over six or seven years. The hon. Baronet opposite knows that there was a time when teachers could on leaving the training institutions obtain immediate employment. In those days there was a shortage of competent and trained teachers to meet the demand, but that is not so now. The remedy for the present state of affairs does not lie in the direction indicated by the hon. Baronet. I understand he is in favour of limiting the number of training college places and thereby checking the number who are trained.
  Sir W. ANSON: I only desire that the Board of Education should revise carefully the conditions of the training colleges and endeavour to establish some relationship between supply and demand.
  Sir J. H. YOXALL: I should be sorry to misrepresent the hon. Baronet in the least degree. I am not in favour, and the teachers with whom I am associated and

  421
  for whom I speak are not in favour, of checking the number of training college places. They are anxious, and have been all along, that certain modifications should be made in the training college system; but to pursue the policy of multiplying college places while at the same time increasing the number of teachers who have never been to training colleges at all, is surely madness, and that is the policy of the Board of Education which is defended by the right hon. Gentleman. He has attacked me and also certain persons with whom I have the honour to be associated because we have warned parents in regard to the state of things which exists in the profession which they may desire their children to enter. Most of these parents belong to the working class, and we have warned them of the state of things, knowing that they have not capital to maintain their children in idleness while they are waiting for appointments in the profession. We thought this was a desirable warning to give in order to prevent these people from making a mistake and to lead the Board of Education to rectify the error it has committed.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member and his friends, in dealing with this matter, sent out the statement, "Costly training and then no work," as a warning to parents. There are several other inaccuracies which I have already pointed out. Does he justify these statements?
  Sir J. H. YOXALL: I believe the statements were justified. I will give the case of the teachers trained in the London County Council colleges. There are 900 teachers, of whom 800 have no work to do and have no prospects for months. I understand they will hold a meeting to-night or tomorrow at which the facts will be given. The remedy, as I was trying to explain when I was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman, is not to narrow the number of places in training colleges or to attack critics who put their finger upon this weak spot. The remedy lies in the Board of Education, as early as may be, and as gradually as is fair, and proper, and practicable, preventing the entrance into the profession as certificated teachers of young men and young women who have not been to a training college. If the Board of Education had, in times past, when they were instituting these training college places, similarly narrowed what is called the acting teachers' list and adjusted more carefully the demand and the supply, this difficulty would never have
  422
  arisen, and nobody knows that better than the Board of Education and the right hon. Gentleman himself. I beg to pass from this subject, a subject on which I myself this afternoon had not intended to say a word had I not been provoked into so doing. There are other matters. The right hon. Gentleman alluded, towards the end of his speech, in somewhat enigmatic sentences, to further financial aid. He was good enough to tell us that more money would be provided to meet cases of distressed districts. Before the Debate closes I trust that he or his Parliamentary Secretary will inform the Committee in more detail on that point. I beg to point out to him that important and desirable as the additional Grant of £150,000 would be to local authorities in those districts where the educational burden is especially heavy and the education rate is particularly high, that in itself cannot meet the great need.
  The right hon. Gentleman painted this afternoon, not without considerable skill and many facts to draw on, a picture of the educational progress throughout the country; but I think he might have indicated a danger, a co-existent risk. It has often been said in this House by Friends of mine on this side of the House, that with the abolition of school boards and the replacing of the old system by a centralised education committee, with no local knowledge, the local interest in the schools of the village, and local feeling and enthusiasm for education would die out. I do not believe it myself. I have never echoed that criticism; but this I do know, that from other causes and in another way local enthusiasm and feeling for education are dying out. It seems to me, owing to the tremendously increasing cost of education in this country and the absence of proportionate increase in the central aid to the cost, that what has happened throughout the country in the rural districts and in the town districts, is that they are in danger of lethargy and of the coma which is produced by the lack of a sufficient supply of blood to the brain. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was an educational speech. He put forward all sorts of ideas, of which anybody in favour of education cannot but approve. I thought at the same time that even in this House, even on this Committee, among those who listened to him, there would be at least some Members who might say that we are going too far, and that the three R's were sufficient in most cases. Outside this House, in educational

  423
  districts of consequence, there are great numbers of ratepayers who say, "We are going too far. Let us be as we are." Their saying so is a standing danger. Even the three Rs, because of increased population and the building of schools and the repayment of school-building loans, are causing a mounting up of rates which they cannot sustain. It is an increasing danger that a great number will say that we are going too far.
  This very enthusiasm and earnestness and widening development in regard to education, of which the right hon. Gentleman's speech is an example, deepens the danger; and so long as from the centre, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the Board of Education, the local authority which is responsible for education cannot get a greater Grant, I say that there is great danger indeed of education becoming comatose. So I would beg the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government whom he represents, to take into consideration more thoroughly than they have done hitherto this need for an increased Government Grant for schools. More money is being found for secondary schools. £102,000 is being provided out of the present Budget. But I beg to point out that the number of children who can attend secondary schools is only a small proportion of the whole. It is on the elementary schools that you must chiefly depend for the progress of education of the whole nation. And as regards the elementary schools, the Board of Education demands have increased while their share in the cost of education have decreased. Not many years ago the proportions of the contribution towards education from the State and from the local authority were respectively 75 per cent. and 35 per cent. Practically three-fourths of the cost of the school were borne by the Exchequer in those days. Now certainly not more than half the cost of the elementary schools, the cost of the schools as a whole, comes from the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about skilled nurses, medical inspection and other admirable things. The cost of all these things is being thrown on the local authorities without a single penny additional being granted for the purpose. The same thing applies to feeding children in schools, and so reform after reform, and development after development, are piled on the back of the ratepayer. On this question of the cost of education I think
  424
  that the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well if they would devote their minds to seeing what can be done to meet the situation.
  I would like to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this year to do away with, or diminish largely, what is known as the half-time system. The matter has been investigated by a Committee, and in view of the strong finding of that Committee I hope there will be as little delay as possible on the part of the Government in making an effort to reform that system, so harmful to the child, so evil to the schools, and so bad for the cause of the whole nation. There is another point which I wish to raise, though for so doing I may be accused of acting from improper motives; but I will risk that. It is, I should hope, the case that a teacher may take a proper view upon educational questions. Knowledge and information, wisdom and judgment, do not reside entirely in politicians or in Civil servants. That leads me to what I have got to say, that the teachers for whom I plead do, to the best of their ability at any rate, their work in the schools, and do their best for the progress of education; and I would ask what is being done. What steps are being taken in the offices of the Board of Education, after years of delay, to rectify the almost disgraceful ineptitude of the administration of the Teachers' Superannuation Fund, under the Teachers Superannuation Act? Teachers are compelled to pay sums varying from £2 8s. to £3 5s. per year to an annuity fund under an Act which passed this House in 1908. The teacher with £60 a year must pay £2 8s. of it to this annuity fund as a condition of getting something like £16 of £17 a year from the State as a pension at the age of sixty-five. The man with £80 a year must pay £3 5s. to this annuity fund as a condition of getting a State pension of £22 per year at the end of forty-four years' service, at the age of sixty-five. This £2 8s. or £3 5s., if it were invested by the Post Office, or by an insurance company, or by a friendly society in Trustee Stock, would realise an annuity more than equal to what the person receives under the present system. The matter is at present so arranged that only a rate of 2 per cent. interest upon this money is allowed. Nothing is done to improve it. There has been some slight increase in the amount, about ¼ per cent., I know of late,

  425
  but no steps are taken to give teachers a reasonable, decent, superannuation allowance. Though it is a teacher's plea, made by a teacher, I beg to bring it under the notice of the Board of Education and under the notice of the Committee.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, as an Amendment, "That Item A, in respect of the salary of the President of the Board of Education, be reduced by £100."
  I regret, after the exceedingly long controversial speech of the President of the Board of Education, in which he outlined, I think, a very remarkable series of years of educational progress, to have to take the discussion back into an old controversial line, in raising the question of the action of the Board of Education in its treatment of elementary schools, elementary Church schools in particular, in Wales. But before I do that I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he can hold out any hope in regard to a matter which I raised by question some time ago in this House, namely, the question of altering the Code of the Board of Education with regard to closing certain schools when an infectious epidemic has broken out in a particular department of a school. I brought a case before his notice the other day, that of the Victoria Council Schools in Wrexham, where in the infants' department, which I understand has a separate door, a certain infectious complaint has broken out, and under the advice of the local sanitary authorities they decided that that department should be closed. When they came to examine the Code they found it was impossible to close that department and at the same time maintain the average attendance which would be taken into account for the giving of Grants, and the only way in which they could avoid losing the Grants was by closing the whole school, not merely the department in question. I say that condition does not make for educational efficiency; and by an alteration of Clauses 43 and 44 of the Code, I believe it would be possible to make an allowance to these schools, which might be partially closed owing to the outbreak of an epidemic, without impairing their whole educational efficiency. I desire to come to the case of a school in North Wales which I raised by a question in this House on 23rd June—I refer to the Towyn Church School. It is a very old-established school, and for nearly 200 years it has contributed to the education of the locality at
  426
  large. From its early history up to the present day it has received at various times private endowments from different charitable individuals. In several instances the endowment was given under a deed stipulating that Church of England teaching should be given in the school. Long before the council school or a Nonconformist school was established in that district, the Towyn Church School afforded educational efficiencies to the whole of the locality, and ever since the council school came into existence It has provided Church of England teaching for the children of those parents who desire that their offspring should receive that teaching. Throughout the history of the school there has been a large Church of England element in Towyn. I do not think anybody will accuse me of being a violent controversialist when I say that in a place like Towyn, where you have a small Church population, that Church population is very keen. In Wales, as everybody knows, Nonconformists are strong, and the members of the Church of England are strong, and both hold their opinions with equal tenacity. Personally, in the case of religion, I believe that is an exceedingly good thing. We have not indifferent, but sincere and active Church people in a place like Towyn. Owing to the circumstances of the locality, the Church of England parents are particularly anxious that they should have their old school, and that Church of England teaching should continue to be given to their children. Following on the action of the Board of Education in removing the school from the Grant list, forty-nine Church of England parents of sixty-six children have drawn up a petition praying that the school shall not be starved out of existence in this way. There are at the present moment on the books of the school sixty-nine Church of England children, and the Church people of the district are supporting a teacher and an assistant teacher out of their private funds. They intend to do so for a year, being determined to get the school back on to the Grant list as soon as possible.
  They are willing to fall in with any suggestion in regard to the school, where there have been in attendance more than thirty children anxious for Church of England teaching, and, that being so, under the Act of 1902, I should have thought they would have been absolutely protected. In answer to my question on June 23rd as to the removal of this school from the

  427
  Grant list, three reasons were given. In the first place the Board of Education said:—
  "For the past two Grant years the average attendance has not been more than twenty; secondly, ample accommodation is provided in other schools of the area; and, thirdly, the closure of the Church school and the transference of other children into the council school will serve the interests of secular education."
  In regard to the first question as to average attendance, the President of the Board of Education based his argument upon two years' attendance only. He will not look at the past history of this school, and he will not consider its present position. Why, I cannot understand. He said in answer to the question that the average attendance was 57.2. That I should have thought sufficient to keep the school alive. Let us look into the history of this school. We find that the number on its books in regular attendance was in 1901, 86; in 1902, 84; in 1903, 80; in 1904, 71; in 1905, 67; in 1906, 64. Then there comes this undoubtedly sudden drop in the attendance. That sudden temporary drop in the attendance was, as has been confessed by the manager, and by parents in the district, due to the presence of a particular teacher. After he had been there a comparatively short time in January, 1905, and when the attendance was still sixty-seven, this teacher sent in his resignation, and it was accepted by the managers. The local education authority refused to accept the resignation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] That is what I wish to know from the local education authority. Although the managers of the Towyn school all along expressed a desire that this teacher should be got rid of, nevertheless he remained. The reason why this teacher was distasteful is one which explains the sort of feeling which existed in regard to him. The story had got about—and it is this which I am endeavouring to find out—among the Church parents of the district that this teacher had been summoned to Dolgelly, the county town near by, on a charge of drunkenness. That charge was the subject of a summons, but what has been the result of that summons I have never been able to learn. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What was the date of the summons?"] It was in 1907. From that year the attendance dropped. I should have thought it would have been the very best thing that, under the circumstances, the summons should go on, and that it should come into court. The man, if not convicted, would have been discharged; he would have cleared himself, and the sus-
  428
  picion in the minds of the Church of England parents would have ceased. But something mysterious happened to that summons, and I am endeavouring to get into communication with the police and other authorities to find out what is going on with regard to it. I should be very glad if the hon. Member for Merionethshire, who lives near Towyn, who knows the full circumstances of the case, and who knows the police who issued the summons, will endeavour to clear up this matter.
  The second reason given by the President of the Board of Education for clearing this school off the Grant list was that ample accommodation had been provided in other schools of the neighbourhood. Here comes a rather remarkable sequence of dates and events. The attendance in this Church school was down in 1907 and during 1908 and 1909. In that time nothing was done to remove the school from the Grant list, though for two years the attendance was lamentably low. I do not know what the inspectors' reports were, but nothing was done to remove the school from the list. Why? In the first place apparently, because there was no accommodation for the children in other schools. There was a council school, but it was only just adequate for the accommodation of the other children of the district. Nothing was done in the matter until the Board of Education recently sanctioned the erection of additions to the council school, which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Trevelyan) said, in reply to my question, had nothing to do with the closing of this Church school. He made the remarkable statement that the enlargements were rendered necessary for the purposes of organisation and of class rooms, and he refused to continue the Grant to the Church school. The answer to the second part of my question, whether the additions had any connection with the closing of the church school, was in the negative. It is a very remarkable fact that the Church school was not removed from the Grant list last year, and that the Board of Education waited and did not say anything about it until the production of this document under the Education Act, 1902, Section 8 (2):—
  "Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Education Act …. to enlarge the council school situated in Towyn in the county of Merioneth, by providing additional accommodation for about eighty children.'"
  It seems to me that the action involved in the expenditure of the ratepayers'

  429
  money on the enlargement of the council school of Towyn is essentially and fundamentally connected with the closing of the Church school, and that the Parliamentary Secretary's answer to me was distinctly evasive. The managers of the Church school of Towy have under consideration the improvement of the premises. For some little time they have has at the bankers £160 for improvements and they are now engaged in building a new classroom. But the enlightening fact in connection with the action of the Board of Education is the time at which they chose to build additions to the council school and the notice that they gave. On 17th April last the teacher, who was thought to be undesirable by the Church of England parents, left. On the 23rd the manager wrote to the Board of Education asking for a new teacher and for continued recognition. They received a post-card acknowledging receipt of their letter, nothing more, and they never got an answer to their communication until 16th June, when they received the following:—
  "Welsh Department, Board of Education,
  "Whitehall, S.W.
  "Merioneth, Towyn, Church of England School.
  "Dear Sir,
  "Replying to your letter of the 23rd of April last, I am directed to state that the Board of Education, after careful consideration of the arguments advanced to the local education authority by the managers, have decided that the above-named school is unnecessary."
  That is to say, they received no warning before that? And what did that letter mean? It meant that fourteen days from its issue from Whitehall the Grant to this Church of England school ceased. That gave them no time to look round or no time to object, or no time to bring their case properly before the consideration of this House, or of the President of the Board of Education. I have no doubt the president of the Board of Education will say that he sent down an inspector. I should like to know what sort of a report that inspector gave. Did that inspector go down and say that there were forty-nine parents of sixty-six children who wanted Church of England teaching, and who wanted to keep going a school which had been in existence since 1717? The indictment is that a fortnight's notice was given to this school of its removal from the Grant list, whereas you require eighteen months in the case of a voluntary school before you can close the school. The third answer was:—
  "The closure of the Church school and the transference of the children into the council school in the area will serve the interests of secular education."
  That question depends largely on the respective merits of those who teach in the two places. But what I ask is: Why should only the interests of secular education be considered, and why should the President of the Board of Education entirely neglect religious education? It may be for the interest of secular education, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the most effectual and the most important thing in the whole of education, and the most essential thing for all young people, is to have religious education? That is the essential point. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, and thinks, perhaps, that is not meant. But I know, and can speak of the advantages that a person like myself has had from religious education. I may point to a public school like Eton, where you have chapel every day, and where every day is connected in some way with religion and religious professions. Where there is not such a provision you have a great gap in the educational requirements of every sound citizen of this country. I say that it is the duty, under the Act of 1902, of the President of the Board of Education to take into consideration the religious requirements of the parents, and as to those requirements the Church of England parents consider the religious teaching given in the council school at Towyn to be inadequate. I do not wish to disparage it, and no doubt, for those who like undenominationalism it is perfect. The President, however, did not enlighten the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) or myself as to whether it was very regular religious instruction that was given. He had no information on the subject. This I do know, that even in the interregnum between 17th April, when the last teacher left the Church school, and July, when the new teacher came, regular Church of England instruction was given in the Towyn Church school. I think I have shown in this case that we have a school which is necessary and desired by the Church people, that it is an old school that it has done good service in the past, and that there is a large number of children who want to attend to-day. We do not ask for unequal treatment, but we ask for equal treatment under the Act of 1902. We say that over thirty children are attending, and will attend this school if you will give us a fair chance and put us back on the Grant list. My last word would be to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will, at an early

  431
  date, restore the Grant to a school which is much needed and has done service in the past, and will do service to the Church of England in the future.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES (Merioneth): I have listened with considerable interest to the speech just delivered, and I must say that of a bad ease the hon. Member has made an excellent defence. I rise now with the view of dealing with questions which are of a non-controversial character, simply quoting facts. I will lay the facts before the Committee, and in this connection may I say that the facts quoted by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby Gore) are in no way correct. He started by giving the ancient history of this school. I could also give several vicissitudes through which this school passed, but it is more to the point to come down right on the facts bearing upon the case at issue to-day. On the question of attendance the hon. Member quoted certain figures. Where he got his figures I do not pretend to know. The average attendances since 1900 are as follows: 1900, sixty-nine; 1901, fifty-eight; 1902, sixty-one; 1904, fifty; 1905, fifty; 1906, forty-four; 1907, forty-four; 1909, twenty. Those in no way tally with the hon. Member's figures, but those were the actual figures on which the Grants were made.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I wish to explain that I have evidently given the number of Church of England children on the books of the particular school.
  Mr. H. JONES: I would rather deal with facts, not what appeared on the books, but what has been the actual average attendance. The Committee will observe that the average attendance fell from sixty-nine in 1900 to twenty in 1909. Why? That is entirely due to the transfer of the children from the Church of England school to the council school. The hon. Member shakes his head, but will he tell me what became of the children?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Where are they now? Did they go back?
  Mr. H. JONES: I will deal with the Noble Lord's question later. Let us come on to 1909. In July, 1909, the average attendance was 15.8; in November, 15.97; in January of the present year, 18; and in March, 18.4. For the eleven months ending 31st March the average was 17.36, or
  432
  only fifteen for all scholars over five. That brings me to April, and April was a rather important date in the history of this school. For the first fifteen days of April the average attendance in the school was exactly the same as in March. On 17th April the head master leaves without notice, and on the 18th the clergy set to work. They canvassed from door to door in the town, and they succeeded in withdrawing from the council school children who had been in that school for three and four years without any complaint of any kind whatever as to religious education nor as to secular education. Through pressure those clergy withdrew those children.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There was no pressure.
  Mr. H. JONES: On the 21st April the local education authorities petitioned the Board of Education to declare that school unnecessary. They did so on the ground that the school was unnecessary. That is proved by the smallness of the numbers attending it. They petitioned also that it would be economical to the rates to do away with it. The grounds upon which the Board of Education have to determine, when there is a dispute, as to whether a school is necessary are set forth in Section 9 of the Act of 1902. First of all, they shall have regard to the interests of secular instruction, and, second, to the wishes of the parents after the education of their children, and, third, to the economy of the rates. Then follows the general proviso that no school with an average attendance as computed by the Board of over thirty shall be declared unnecessary. The hon. Member for Denbigh does not contend that the proviso has been fulfilled, and therefore it is a question only of the ground on which the Board of Education declare the school unnecessary. Let us come to the grounds. In the first place, I may say that the management say nothing about the interests of secular education in their appeal. They did not base their appeal on that. Before I come to the point may I state that the withdrawal of children from the Church of England school did not take place all together, but was a gradual withdrawal. In 1905 fifteen left, in 1906 four left, in 1907 fourteen left, and in 1908 nine left, or a total of forty-two. If I am correctly informed, and I ought to be, for I know the parents of those children and the hon. Member for Denbigh does not, I can assure him that

  433
  thirty-seven of those children were children of Church of England parents. Among them was the only son of a manager and churchwarden, and that boy has been in the council school for three years.
  7.0 P.M.
  I am told that the withdrawal of those children was on account of the unpopularity of the teacher. May I point out that the withdrawal of the children commenced before ever that teacher came there. In 1900 there were sixty-nine children there, and in 1901 the number had dropped to fifty-eight. The late head teacher did not come until 1902, but the flow of the children kept on during the whole period from the Church of England school to the council school. With regard to the head teacher I will only say this, that if those complaints are correct the managers themselves had the power to dismiss him. Why did they not do so? It is all very well to say that the local education authorities have refused to accept his resignation. When was that resignation tendered? In 1905. Why? Because the head teacher had accepted another post in Devonport, and wished to leave at a month's notice. The rule of the education committee was perfectly distinct upon that point, "That no head teacher should quit the service of the authority under three months' notice." His resignation was on that account not accepted. I have here a letter signed by the Rev. D. R. Pugh, in which, writing on 13th February, 1905, he says distinctly that the managers of the school withdraw the matter of Mr. Martin's proposed resignation. If there was anything wrong with the moral character of the head teacher, why on earth did they withdraw the resignation? Why did they not protest at that time? They did not do it.
  With regard to the wishes of the parents, I say if the parents were allowed to act in accordance with their own convictions and without pressure from anybody, why did they transfer forty-two children who had been at the school for years? There had not been a single complaint lodged with the education authority by the managers or by the parents of the children as to the religious instruction given in the council school. I want to give credit to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh Boroughs. He does not question the religious syllabus of the council school. We go a little further. We say we have had no intimation of any kind that any parents
  434
  in the district wished for denominational instruction, and there were at the council school, I assure the hon. Gentleman, over sixty children of Church of England parents. On the 18th the pressure came. Clergymen went from door to door. I ask the hon. Gentleman does he really expect the Committee to believe that the withdrawal of these children would have taken place had it not been for the pressure of these clergymen? I venture to say if it had not been for the house-to-house canvass not one of these children would have left the council school. I myself saw children who have been compelled to leave. They said if they had had their own way they would go back to the council school on the morrow. As for the reason urged for continuing the school, namely, economy of the rates, I want to be quite candid. I do not want to conceal from the Committee a single fact. I believe in taking the Committee into my confidence. I venture to state here that the Board of Education has been pressing the local education authority to enlarge the council school. I will also state that there are notices out setting forth the intention of the local education authority to enlarge that school, and to provide accommodation for eighty additional children. Let me say that this Towyn council school consists of two departments, carried on in two separate buildings almost adjoining, one a mixed school and the other an infant school. At the present time there are two classes from the mixed school receiving instruction in the infant school, so that in that sense there is plenty of accommodation. But I want to be perfectly candid, and I wish to say, taking an interest in education, as I have always done, that it is not desirable that two classes from the mixed school should be educated in the infant school. Therefore I am prepared to argue the case this way—that it is necessary to enlarge the council school at the present time and to provide accommodation for eighty additional children. A provisional tender has been accepted for £1,923. We will assume, for the sake of argument, that it will cost £2,000 to the ratepayers. I do not want to incur the expenditure if it can be avoided, but I want to ask the question, assuming the council school is enlarged, would it be cheaper to maintain another school and the payment of the head teacher and staff of another school? One hundred and five pounds annually will provide the additional accommodation. Would the hon. Gentleman like to carry on a non-provided

  435
  school with £105? Then what about economy? You cannot argue upon that point at all.
  So far back as 1902 the managers mere called upon by the Board of Education to erect an additional classroom. In 1902, before this local education authority—this wicked authority, remember!—came into being the managers of the school were asked to provide, and they agreed to provide, this classroom, and they collected money for that purpose. They had money in hand. When the local education authority, in 1905, asked them to proceed with the matter, what did they do? These people, who are so ready now to provide accommodation for the children of this district, appealed to the Board of Education, though they had the money in hand and though three years previously the inspector had reported on the matter. What further did they do? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are bankrupt now."] Let me tell the Committee another thing. They appealed to the Board of Education, not my right hon. Friend who sits upon the Front Bench at the present time, but the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson). The Board decided that that room was necessary. The managers submitted plans; they undertook to erect a classroom during the midsummer holidays of 1905. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) doubts it I will read the letters here. You do not doubt it? In 1905 they undertook to erect a classroom. The Rev. D. R. Pugh, in a letter, said, "We have the money to do it." Not a brick of that classroom has been put up yet! These are the people who said that they were going to save the ratepayers! They have had all these years; they have done nothing. One reason they gave for appealing to the Board of Education was that the smallness of the numbers did not warrant them going on with the work—that there was only fifty in average attendance. It was the smallness of the number that led them not to do the work! That is the case which the hon. Gentleman wishes the Committee to meet by going so far as to reduce the salary of the President of the Education Board by £100 in order to mark their disapprobation of the local authority. I never heard a poorer case. He not only does that, but he wishes to emphasise this fact: "You allowed the school to continue with thirty-one scholars; you allowed it to continue with twenty; now it has nineteen you want to knock it off." If it had been knocked off sooner there
  436
  would have been an outcry, and it would have been said: "Look at these people, they are almost dying to knock a Church of England school off the list." Nothing of the kind. Religion never came into it. Religion was never considered. It was simply a case of this kind: that in the opinion of the local education authorities the school had proved itself to be unnecessary. The withdrawal by the parents themselves of their children had proved to the local education authorities that this school was unnecessary. It was on the ground of economy, and also on the ground of the secular education of the children. Will the hon. Gentleman contend that in a small school, and with a, small number of children, secular education can be imparted to the children as well as in a large school? We have fought fairly, and we look to the President of the Board of Education to back up the efforts of the local education authority to promote the education of the children. We have put in a syllabus that the hon. Gentleman opposite cannot find fault with. I must say here that I am sorry that he has lent himself to support such a rotten case. It is absolutely unworthy of his dignity. I trust this House will mark its disapprobation of the attempt to bolster up a case of this kind by negativing the Amendment.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There has been a certain amount of additional light thrown upon this subject by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but it does nothing to drive away the main contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs. Some of the figures which were quoted at the beginning by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down actually corroborate the figures which my hon. Friend has given. They show perfectly plainly that it was after the arrival of this unpopular teacher that the decline in the numbers began to take place. I do not think my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech another fact which had a good deal to do with the additional decline in the numbers in the later years—that is to say, in 1907—and that was the refusal of the local education authority to continue an assistant teacher in the school.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: May I ask what the numbers were at that time?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number the hon. Gentleman himself gave was forty-four. This was immediately after the assistant teacher had been taken away. Very naturally, if there was only one teacher in the school, the hon. Gentleman knows

  437
  perfectly well that you cannot keep up the infant department as well as the senior department. The contention he has not met in any way at all is our contention that the education authority had perpetually and consistently oppressed that particular Church school. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me if in 1902 rate aid was given to that school in the same way as it was given to the council school by the local education authority? I understand that it was withheld, and it was only after legal measures were taken that the money was secured. It was not likely to induce much confidence among the managers as to the advisability of spending money upon the school when the local authority showed their determination to do all they could to treat it unfairly. It is said that we never complained, that religion never came into the matter. We complain that religion ought to have come into the matter, and must have come in if the law had been observed according to the Act of 1902. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the children were compelled and parents were compelled, against their wishes and against the children's wishes, to leave the council school and go back to the Church school. That return to the Church school coincides with the departure of the unpopular teacher. I do not believe for one moment that the parents of children in Towyn are so mean-spirited as to be compelled to do anything that they do not think will be best for their children's welfare and their children's interests. But the complaints that I have to make against the local education authority are not only of systematic oppression of this school, but their action when this question came up. When this teacher went away on 17th April the local education authority refused to be responsible for any of the expenditure of that school although it was still on the Grant list of the Board of Education. What right, I should like to know, had they to refuse to do their duty to the school which was still recognised and continued to be recognised lip to the end of June by the Board of Education? I think the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Board of Education, or it may have been the right hon. Gentleman himself, said when that question was raised in this House that that money would be refunded out of the usual sources. It would be rather interesting to know what the usual sources are. I suppose the usual source in this case is the Merioneth education authority, and that the Defaulters Act or some
  438
  pressure will be put on in order to make them do their duty, and to make them pay the money that they owe under the law. With regard to the Board of Education, Section 9 has already been quoted, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said in this House that he had considered all the circumstances. But I ask him whether he seriously did consider the circumstances as required by this Section, and whether he seriously considered the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children? I understand that two inspectors went down after the crisis in April arose, and it would be very interesting if he would tell us what the reports of these two inspectors were, and if he would kindly tell us whether the inspectors visited the parents and what steps they took to ascertain what the feelings and the wishes of the parents were. I did not gather whether the parents were visited by these inspectors or not, or whether any efforts were made to ascertain their wishes. There is, indeed, a petition signed by the parents in favour of allowing their children to remain at the school; but that ought to have been one of the first considerations of the inspectors of the Board. At the end of the Section we are told that the school for the time being recognised as a public elementary school is a school in which the average attendance is computed by the Board of Education at not less than thirty.
  At the time these inspectors went down, that is, from 1st May to the end of June, the average attendance was fifty or thereabouts. The inspectors knew that, and was it not their duty to compute the attendance at the actual time? Are they allowed to take any year they choose in the past history of the school and base their arguments upon the attendance in any year which suits their purpose? I do not think they have absolutely any power to give different decisions upon two points that may arise in regard to similar accommodation. They must go by the attendance at the time being in interpreting this Section. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said there was plenty of accommodation in the council school. That cannot have been so, because at that very time notice was given for the enlargement of the school, and the Under-Secretary told us that that enlargement was for the purposes of organisation. Surely if a school required to be enlarged for the purposes of organisation, it cannot be at that moment capable of accepting a number of children

  439
  from another school. It is perfectly clear that at that moment, at any rate, there was no further accommodation in the council school.
  I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will agree that there probably has been a mistake made in this case; and I believe from the inclination he has shown he may be willing to take the first opportunity, if the managers enlarge and restore their school, to allow them to return to the Grant list. I beg him to do that, because since he has been at the Education Department he has certainly shown a marked desire for conciliation. And I do not believe he would have departed from those lines on this ocasion if he had gone more thoroughly into the question, rather than trusting the head of the Welsh Department, whose introduction into the Education Office took place at the time of the greatest intolerance and bigotry, and at a time when we were told that the sword was to be substituted for the olive branch. I think the right hon. Gentleman fell into the error of relying too much upon the opinion of persons such as the head of the Welsh Department at that time. I hope that, unfortunate as the circumstances are, he will, at any rate, use his sense of fair play in making it easy for this school to return to the Grant list. Surely hon. Gentlemen who sit for Welsh constituencies must have some feelings of compunction in their breasts when they know that a few years ago we in this House voted £100,000 of the ratepayers' money in order that there should be no single school area, and in order that there should be two types of schools in every one area—they must have some compunction now in using the ratepayers' money in order to stifle that system, and to impose only one school where two now exist. It is absolutely hypocrisy to pretend you want two types of schools, and to act in a manner like that, and I rely upon the right hon. Gentleman to see that justice is done this case. It is most important at this moment that the Board of Education should regain their reputation for justice. The right hon. Gentleman, if I may be allowed to say so, has done a good deal to restore the Board of Education to that position. He did me the honour to ask me to sit upon a Committee, which is sitting now, in regard to small endowments. In order to get any good result the only chance
  440
  is for the trustees of small endowments to feel confidence in the head of the Board of Education. Does anybody think that action like that which we are just now discussing is going to produce any feeling of confidence in anyone interested in Church schools?
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Hon. Gentlemen opposite deserve, I think, some sympathy inasmuch as they have rushed into this case, and they have met with the difficulties which ordinary people do meet with, and have got their information from prejudiced individuals. They are further to be sympathised with because the case happens to be a Welsh case. I can quite understand how hon. Members opposite would have got a palpitation of the heart immediately that they heard of something happening to a Church school in Wales. But I put it to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University whether it is not most unfortunate that at the present time such a miserable case as this is dragged out, and for this reason. It happens at a time like the present when the Welsh education authorities are getting into a very conciliatory mood, and putting their conciliation in practice.
  There are several cases that have occurred of late where the Welsh education authorities said the revolt policy fulfilled its purpose of entering a very practical and substantial protest against what the Welsh regarded as the injustice of the Act of 1902, and the revolt policy of refusing the rates to a few small and isolated Roman Catholic and voluntary schools has fulfilled its purpose, and it is unfair and unreasonable to drag it out over and over again, to the detriment of the education of the children and to the detriment of the comfort and status of the teachers as well. Many of our educational authorities did take a firm and formidable stand in connection with the revolt, but now they have taken over and put on the rates schools that they refused to recognise before. Therefore, it is most unfortunate that this apple of discord should be thrown into the midst of us once again, and especially in regard to such a miserable case as this. Surely it is obvious, from the figures given by the hon. Member for Merionethshire, who is a member of the committee of the education authority, that this school extinguished itself by a very natural process. He gave figures showing how year by year the attendance went down until it got to fifteen or seventeen children.

  441
  The hon. Member who has just spoken seemed to impeach the attitude of the educational authorities, and attributed to them motives of revenge, and so forth. But I would draw his attention to one feature: that the education authority has regard to something which is not in the Act of 1902. They had regard to a provision which existed previous to the Act of 1902—that is Article 80 of the Code, which says that a school would not be recognised unless it had during the preceding twelve months an average attendance of not less than thirty children. It is perfectly true that, technically and strictly, acording to the Act of 1902, you can recognise a school which has an attendance of less than thirty children; but surely everyone interested will agree that if a school falls below the average of thirty it ought to be set aside. I think the hon. Member for Merionethshire made it perfectly clear that for years the attendance at this school has fallen from fifteen to seventeen. And I am perfectly sure when the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford gets rid of the bee that may be humming because it is a Welsh school, he will agree to the proposition that on purely educational grounds it is fatal to go on spending public money on the maintenance of a school with only fifteen or seventeen children. The question is whether the Board of Education will reconsider the matter when they have gathered the sheep, first having given the reawakened shepherd an opportunity of going from door to door. I protest against the raising of this particular case at a time when we hoped that we were getting away from those religious difficulties which have done so much to the detriment of education. And since this case is one that deals with a single school only, I think it is to be deplored that the few hours granted out of the whole twelve months for dealing with the education of the country should be confined to the question of the education of fifteen children down in a little town in Wales. Therefore, I may be allowed to pass away from this subject to say a few words upon general matter.
  The President of the Board of Education, in his very interesting and admirable speech, which struck a note of hope for the children of this country and for the development of education generally, made a few remarks that I wish to punctuate. He made a few observations of the methods on which schools were being conducted at the present time in a manner which I did not like. He spoke, and quite rightly, about the necessity of teachers
  442
  not lecturing children, and of endeavouring to bring out the natural capacity of the children, giving them a chance to work out their own salvation. All these are admirable educational sentiments which the teachers when they leave college, like missionaries, try to accomplish. But it is the Board of Education and its inspector and the administration that make it impossible and are going to destroy it unless there is a change in the administration and methods and policy. Let me describe what happens in the ordinary school of the present time. There is the class teacher, who has to spend many hours upon Saturdays, and sometimes upon Sundays, preparing a record in which the teacher has to enter systematically the work of the children, and has to make out details with regard to form, method, and rule in a special fashion, according to the principle of a London firm from whom the book may have been bought. The teacher has, with these prepared diagrams and methods of giving lessons, to confine himself more or less to the secret record book rather than to proceed upon methods according to the circumstances of the time which are valuable to the children in front of him. The teacher has to compile this record book for every half-hour of every day. He has to conduct examinations on poor little mites every month. Of course, the headmaster when he comes round has to survey all these things and make up summaries, and impose another examination upon the little trembling children. He has to make another collection of figures, forms, and statistics, and if the President of the Board of Education could go round the country on an ordinary day in the week he would find the headmaster in his room in the bulk of the schools in the country doing the work of an office boy, spending most of his time, trained as he has been at the expense of the State, and receiving a salary of £300 or £400 a year, filling figures into columns, and getting out statistics. The inspector of the local authority then comes round and takes voluminous notes. He takes them to the education offices; and we have to employ there a lot more clerks. Then there is the Government inspector, the originator of it all, and he with his pencil and book makes voluminous notes. There are scores of inspectors receiving £800 a year who spend the bulk of their time simply sitting at the desk filling up forms and schedules for the Board of Education. The system is reaching such a pitch that the time is

  443
  coming very soon when, unless it is done away with, it will absolutely destroy individuality and all that makes for good in education.
  We have been pleading for increased grants to education and talking about the needs for this that and the other. I suggest the Board of Education can very wall economise in connection with this question of administration. Members will be surprised and perhaps they will hardly believe me, but I have been careful to add up the figures, and very nearly £2,500,000 a year is being spent on this administration, and hardly any of it reaches the child at all. There are £2,500,000 a year spent on forms and papers and on clerks and fiddlers who do not come into contact at all with the education of the children. Take that particular form of expenditure which has to do with securing the attendance of the children. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman ought to bring about a reform there and reduce the expenditure, which might be done with very beneficial results. The authorities in England for securing school attendance alone now spend £276,861 a year. It is spent, simply in order to bring the children to school, on school attendance officers, and their clerks and their forms. In Wales we spend £22,000 a year. It has to be done by the local authorities, because of this system of paying Grants according to the average attendance. A local authority knows if its average attendance falls by a few points it means an enormous loss of money in Grants, and they feel they must keep school attendance officers to screw up the average attendance. We do not proceed on that system for children for higher education, who are much more irregular in their attendance, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he would free the Grant system of elementary schools from this average attendance there would not be very much loss in the attendance of the children. The habit of going to school has got established with our people, and children are getting to like school because of the new methods of instruction which the right hon. Gentleman has so eloquently described. It is the teacher, after all, who really secures attendance. I do not want to say anything in disparagement of the school attendance officers, but their post is one not very necessary at all. This system of making Grants according to the average attendance makes the thing rigid and
  444
  cast-iron. If a teacher sees a little girl in a nervous state who certainly ought to be sent home, she dare not do it owing to the results that would follow upon the drop in average attendance. A little more elasticity in that direction would be beneficial to the children. This expenditure of £2,500,000 a year on administration means, in many places, a rate of 1½d.
  There are some very interesting comparisons. The City of Liverpool spends £13,000 a year on the enforcement of school attendance, and £19,000 a year on general administration, whereas Manchester spends £8,000 on school attendance compared with £19,000 on general administration. Why should Liverpool have to spend £13,000 compared with £19,000, and Manchester only £8,000 compared with £19,000? The administrative county of Lancashire spends only £5,000 on school attendance compared with £19,000 on general administration, whereas the West Riding of Yorkshire spends £6,000 compared with £30,000. This irregularity shows there must be a waste of money in some places. There are one or two other points of irregularity in the present system as between the Board of Education and the local authorities. Take the question of the rates, and Wales as an example. Llanelly has a rate of 21.6d. in the £, Merthyr 20.5d., Aberdare 21.2d., Mountain Ash 22.4d., Cardiff 14d., Montgomery 9.2d., Radnorshire 3.4d. For education Radnorshire gets £7,284 from grants and contributes only £2,401 from the rates. You are, of course, in Radnorshire encouraging educational inefficiency, because anybody who has been to a political meeting in the rural parts of Wales and has seen, as I have, the water coming down the walls of schools which are mere hovels, will quite understand why the rent is only 3.4d. There is another irregularity as to what the authorities are doing for the provision of teachers, which I think the President of the Board of Education ought to meet at once. It is no answer to say it is met entirely by the new bursary system. These figures relate to the time before the bursary system became effective. Anglesey does not now train any pupil teachers for an average attendance of 7,925, Brecknockshire trains forty-four for an average attendance of 9,050, Cardiganshire nine for 8,542, Denbigh 107 for 20,176, Glamorganshire 608, Cardiff 140 for 29,207, Merthyr seventy-seven for 12,909, Swansea 104 for 17,713, and Merionethshire six for 7,634. Some authorities go to the expense of educating the future

  445
  teachers, and other authorities do nothing at all. Thus, one might go on giving illustrations of the irregularities of the present system of the Board of Education in connection with various things. It is in things material and external where the central organisation might bring about unity with advantage and economy. Take the question of buildings and the amount of money which is wasted by experiments by various authorities. Why should there not be standard plans, and why should not the Board of Education take over the cost of building altogether. It would be very much better if instead of giving necessitous Grants the Board of Education took over the provision of new buildings. We should then get buildings of a uniform standard with certain economy. The Board is interfering with very essential elements in education, with its very soul, in a way that is very undesirable and leaves the local authorities in things external, where unity would be advantageous, to blunder along in that way.
  The Report of the Secondary Branch of the Board of Education has these very ominous words on page 45:—
  "The entire lack of organisation commented on by the Royal Commission has now given place temporarily to a state of things in which there is a risk of organisation swallowing up everything else, of means being made into an end, and of the education, for the sake of which the whole system exists, being subordinated to matters of less importance such as inquiries into the particular conditions under which it is given or its value as a source of reports and statistics. It is a risk which the Board are specially watching at the present time."
  That is the secondary side, and from his speech I am hopeful that the President of the Board of Education is distinctly watching that particular development. Take a summary of some notes in this month's number of the "Journal of Education" regarding the evils which they say come from too much dominance of the central concern and of its branches and organisation:—
  "(1) A sub-conscious feeling that one must always be teaching."
  If there were time I could explain how it is, so long as the inspector's report is the criterion for his promotion, the teacher has this sub-conscious feeling.
  "(2) In girls' schools we have had the lecture lesson worked to death, and the consequent appalling waste of time copying out notes.
  "(3) The master uneasy in boys' school lest the inspector should come in and find the boys working whilst he is merely looking on.
  "(4) Breakdown among women teachers.
  "(5) Epidemic of breakdown on the part of headmasters.
  "(6) There is a distinct danger and one which it behoves the Board and the local committees to consider lest the scholar and the man of ideas should be frightened away from our secondary schools."
  446
  There is a point about the way teaching is adversely affected by examinations in the secondary schools. If that is true of the green tree, what can be said of the tree long since dry? You have rigid examination upon rigid examination, report upon report, schedule upon schedule, and gaffer working on the heels of gaffer week by week, and you have the thing intensified to an outrageous degree. You have little children, as I found a little girl the other day in a town that has a reputation for its institutions, taking home a note from the head teacher informing the mother that the child must not be taken away for any Easter holidays, but must work at home five hours a day. Otherwise, she will have to be taken out of the class which is competing for scholarships in a secondary school. Take the system of intensive inbreeding to which the President of the Board of Education referred. During the past few years I have looked on with more than ordinary pain whilst young girls who have gone into the teaching profession have been in the training college eight or nine months, and have then come home to die. In one year two girls out of six, in another year one girl out of seven, and in a third year three out of fifteen, who went away to college, came home, having been done to death by the system which prevails at the present time and by this nervous anxiety which is created by the officialism of the Board of Education. Unless the President brings his ideals into practice very soon, this inbreeding that he has referred to is going to be very detrimental. I ask the hon. Member for Oxford University to contemplate what it is going to mean when the syllabus of the Board of Education is universal all over the land, when all the teachers have to conform to a particular method of instruction, and have to treat the children as though they were simply items in a great military battalion. It will mean something similar to what happened in the mediæval organisation of the Roman Church, when the organisation grew so strong that the centre was able to dominate everything; there was for a period stagnation in the whole intellect of Europe, and all Europe sank together. That is what will happen with the education of our children. It is high time that this should be recognised, that the local authority should be given much more freedom, and that they should be allowed to develop their experiments on various lines. I believe that out of this two and a half million which is being spent largely on

  447
  what I call interference in administration, one and a half millions might very well be withdrawn, and education, so far from suffering, would benefit in a very great degree.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I agree with what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Edgar Jones) said at the end of his speech, though not quite in the sense in which he meant it. I think there is a danger of a spirit growing up amongst the teachers not dissimilar from the spirit of the mediæval precedent to which he referred, and that teacher-craft may at some time be found as great an evil as priest-craft was 300 years ago. But I do not at all agree that the grievance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) called attention was unworthy of the consideration of this Committee, or that the time of the Committee would be better spent in discussing the details of school management. The House of Commons is a place of criticism and controversy; it is not a place for enabling Members of Parliament to instruct the Government about details of educational administration. This House is never so well employed as when it is calling attention to particular cases of injustice, whether they happen to individuals or in schools. The hon. Member for Merionethshire made a defence of the Merionethshire local authority, but his defence suffered from the fundamental defect that it was altogether or almost entirely irrelevant. His defence practically consisted in saying that the managers were in some respects very much to blame. I think they were to blame in more respcts than one, but that is not the point. The question is not whether the managers were to blame, but whether the local authorities and the Board of Education, in supporting the local authority, were not seriously to blame. The issue is perfectly plain and simple. The question is merely, Was the school unnecessary, having regard to the statutory requirement, that the wishes and the religious convictions of the parents are to receive attention? What is the answer made to that? That the school had been for two or three years in an unsatisfactory condition, and that the attendance fell to a low point. My hon. Friend had anticipated that answer, and had explained why the attendance had fallen. The hon. Member for Merionethshire did not dispute that the master was an unsatisfactory master, or that the attendance
  448
  fell because of the unsatisfactory master. I should like to ask why, being so well acquainted with the case, knowing all about the man, knowing what the parents were thinking, knowing what was going on in the school, knowing, it is said, that the man had actually been summoned for drunkenness—
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: He was not summoned.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Perhaps the hon. Member will say what happened?
  Mr. ROCH: I do not know; but I understand that the summons was withdrawn.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: But the summons had been issued. If the hon. Member for Merionethshire knew that it had been issued, why did he not tell the local education authority, and why were steps not taken to remove a master who was manifestly unfit for his work? I am far from saying that the managers were free from blame. I think they were to blame. The point is that, knowing all these things, the local education authority did nothing, or, at any rate, the hon. Member for Merionethshire, who must have known all these things, did nothing, but allowed the school to remain in its inefficient state, and the attendance fell very low. Why did he do all this? Why did not the local education authority issue a warning? Why did they not remonstrate with the school, as they had a statutory right and even a statutory duty to do? Why did not the Board of Education intervene? The suggestion is that the school was allowed to he in this state because the local education authority wished to destroy it. That the managers were weak and foolish is perfectly true. That they ought not to have played into the hands of such a nefarious game I grant. But that does not remove the grave discredit from the local education authority or from the Board of Education for supporting the local authority.
  How stands the case? The local education authority, having neglected its duty of remonstrating with the managers and keeping the school up to the point, suddenly ask that the school may be declared an unnecessary school. The teacher goes almost at the same time, and the school at once begins to recover. The Board of Education made no attempt to find out whether the low level of attendance was not due to the accidental circumstances of the inefficient teacher. Without making

  449
  any real effort to satisfy themselves whether the parents did or did not wish the school to be continued, the Board at a fortnight's notice requires the school to be closed. When the right hon. Gentleman is asked whether he will not postpone the enforcement of the order, so that the claims of the parents may be carefully heard, he refuses. When he is asked to postpone it in order that the matter may be discussed in this House he refuses. What is this but persecution? Was there ever an attempt more plainly unfair and unjust to injure a school which gave religious teaching with which hon. Members opposite are not in sympathy, and with which the President of the Board of Education himself is not in sympathy, for no other reason than that the religious teaching is out of favour with the other side of the House? I think the President ought to issue in future a circular stating that the text "Do unto others as you would be done by" must no longer be taught under the Cowper-Temple clause, as it has become the text of a particular denomination, and is not in the Bible of the Merionethshire local education authority. Have we not heard time after time of the grievance of the single school area? The right hon. Gentleman is creating a single school area. Was there ever such insincerity, such a want of charity in educational religious matters? Here is a case which goes to the very root of the efforts for conciliation which are often being made. Everyone knows that the most difficult of all the problems in connection with religious education is precisely this of the school area where there is only one type of school. Every one on the Church side has been anxious to remove that grievance. It has been brought before us over and over again. Only the other day there was a discussion in the Representative Church Council, and a resolution was unanimously agreed to that facilities ought to be given to Nonconformist parents who wished different teaching in those areas. Yet, when we are endeavouring to meet the Nonconformist grievance in that way, the Merionethshire local education authority and the President of the Board of Education are putting their heads together to destroy a Church school in which almost all the parents declare they want religious education for their children. Is that fair dealing? Is it consistent with the elements of either sincerity or charity, having regard to the course of the controversies which have taken place up to now? My hon. Friend
  450
  said that the President of the Board of Education was anxious to act in a conciliatory way. I am willing to believe it. I know that Ministers are often ministerially responsible for that for which they are not ethically responsible. It may well be that the real blame lies elsewhere than on the right hon. Gentleman. I know nothing about that. He is the head of a Department which during the last few years has incurred the stain of persecution against religious opinions which are unpopular with the majority of this House. The reputation of the Department was already smirched, but I say that the episode of the Towyn Church school will smirch it more deeply still.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think I should briefly reply on the case of Towyn school. It is really a matter of small importance.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is a case of injustice.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the Noble Lord will allow me to make my speech myself. I am quite prepared to be just to him and to those with whom he acts, but I am not prepared to go outside the law for the Church school managers at Towyn or anywhere else. The Noble Lord suggests that I have been guilty of insincerity, that I have shown an absence of charity, that I have made no inquiries into this case, and that I refused to reconsider it when it was put to me. What is this, he says, but persecution? The Noble Lord appears to know very little about the history of this school. No official of my Department is responsible for this matter; I am responsible for it. It is absolutely unfair to suggest, as the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridge-man) did, that the whole blame of a case like this should be put on the Welsh Department. If the head of the Welsh Department has been guilty of arriving at a wrong decision, I have a right to overrule that decision. If he has arrived at a just decision, I have a right to upset even that. The responsibility ultimately hes with me, and no one else can be blamed for the decision which has been arrived at. The Noble Lord appears to think that the school is necessary, because suddenly there is a rise in the average attendance. How does the Noble Lord interpret the words in Section 9 of the Act of 1902: "A school shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the

  451
  Board of Education, is not less than thirty"? How does he arrive at that? Are you suddenly to take the month of May, 1910, as the means of computing the average attendance? Never in the whole administration of the Board of Education has any Government, either Liberal or Conservative, computed average attendance in that way. Am I to make a new departure because the Noble Lord is angry at the treatment of a Church school? The average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, has always been the average attendance of the last Grant year. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson) represented the Board of Education in this House that is the way he computed it, and I adopted his system. I have made no new departure. I asked, "What has been the average attendance at this school?" They said, "It has been seventeen in the last Grant year." It is very remarkable that it jumped up in the month of May; but am I to discard altogether the last twelve months in order to please the Noble Lord? I cannot play ducks and drakes with the administration of my Department like that.
  Lord HUGH CECIL Lord HUGH CECIL rose—
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord has had his say; perhaps he will allow me to have mine.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Then the right hon. Gentleman must not ask me questions.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord says that I have been guilty of insincerity. What is the insincerity? The insincerity of carrying out the law. The Act of 1902 was not an Act for which I was responsible, but while I have been at the Board of Education I have administered it fairly, and the Noble Lord cannot bring against me any charge of ever having administered it unfairly.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Swansea.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. and learned Member must know that the Swansea case is still sub judice. I am quite prepared to admit that he is a better authority on these matters than the House of Lords, but until the House of Lords have delivered their decision on the case I refuse to discuss it in this House.
  Mr. RAWLINSON Mr. RAWLINSON made a remark which was inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have administered the Act fairly, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to make any such statement. He knows that the matter is sub judice, and anyone in his profession ought to know perfectly well that the point of law has not yet been decided. The Noble Lord asks where is there a case in which there has been such insincerity. I find that the history of this school, in the records of the Board long before I went to the Department, was no credit to the managers. Again and again they were told that they must provide better accommodation. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh District (Mr. W. Ormsby-Gore) said, in the course of his quite fair speech, that no warning had been given to the managers of the Church school. But he is quite mistaken. Warning was given. At the end of 1904 the Church school managers were warned that the Grant would be withheld if necessary improvements were not carried out, and most of them have not yet been carried out. But altogether on other grounds I believe it would have been possible to have closed this school. What I marvel at is the forbearance of the Board of Education, not the fact that it has acted after a long period of dilatory neglect on the part of the Church school managers. The hon. Gentleman also said, "Why is there this large increase in the accommodation of the county council school?" The reason is that the council school happens to be one of the most efficient schools in the locality, and there is an intention of making it a practising school for the College of Aberystwith. That is the reason why this school is going to be enlarged. I sent my inspectors down there, and they reported it is the most successful school in Towyn and one of the most efficient in Wales. Then I think the hon. Gentleman also asked why, if the small attendance was a reason for closing this school, was not this action taken before? Why did we not move in the matter before? When an appeal was made to me I at once stated that I would look into the case. I have looked into it as well as I could with all the information I have had at my hand. I got information from my inspectors, and I saw the records of the average attendance. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman) asked me whether I considered the wishes of the parents, the economy of the rates, and the interest of secondary instruction. I tell him that I considered

  453
  all those points. With regard to secondary instruction, you have here one of the best schools of Wales almost side by side with a tiny school in which you cannot possibly have the requisite number of teachers. Certainly in regard to secondary instruction the large school is to be preferred to the smaller. Then it is quite clear that for the economy of the rates you should not have this little school in existence. Then there comes the very important point, the wishes of the parents. What steps have I taken to ascertain the wishes of the parents? I saw that these parents would not send their children to this school. That is ten times better than getting petitions which can be signed anyhow.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Perhaps there was a bad teacher there.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The managers could have got another. What we have to look at is the average attendance in the school. The attendance dropped year after year until it was only seventeen in the year 1909–10. That is the best test of the wishes of the parents. The Noble Lord asks, "What is the remedy?" The remedy is that which I described to the hon. Member for Denbigh District (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) the other day. The procedure is perfectly clear; it is within the four corners of the Act of Parliament. I am not going to do anything to subvert the principles of that Act by administration. I would gladly upset it if I could by legislation, but whilst I have been at the Board of Education I have administered it fairly, and so long as I am there I will continue to administer it fairly.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman, in his most interesting speech this afternoon, omitted to refer to a point about which I wish to make a few remarks. It is a point that we in the rural districts especially have great regard to at the present time—the heavy incidence of educational rates upon the counties owing to the increased demand of the educational authorities. As I was coming down to the House this afternoon I received a letter from my county council, signed by the chairman and also by the head of the education authority, asking me to bring this matter before the House. I think I may speak for all the other counties, as well as Essex, in support of the plea for increased Exchequer Grants to meet increased expenditure forced on us by legislation or by the action of the Board
  454
  of Education. This is no new point. It has been raised several times in this House, and, therefore, I was rather disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it in his speech. He did allude to one question, namely, the salaries of the teachers. The salaries of the teachers have been largely raised, but further increases in the rates to provide for education will, I am afraid, in the case of the counties, meet with considerable opposition. The Association of Education Committees has furnished Members of this House with a very concise Paper containing all the reasons why we think we are entitled to a further increase of the Exchequer Grant. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education will look at that Paper he will see there are eight cases mentioned of largely increased expenditures forced upon the education authorities of the counties in connection with such matters as the bringing of non-provided schools into line with provided schools, the provision of secondary and other higher education, and the feeding of school children. The return shows that the proportion of expenditure on elementary education borne by Government Grants was only 61 per cent, from 1892 to 1902, whilst in 1908–9 it had sunk to 49.7. The Grants for the year ending March, 1907, were nearly £11,000,000. The Grants for the year ending 1909 were about £10,700,000. We have this position, that the expenditure has increased by £750,000, whilst the income has been decreased by £250,000, so that the local authorities are £1,000,000 worse off than they were two years ago.
  That has been brought very forcibly to the notice of the authorities on many occasions. The last occasion was on 18th March, 1909, when a deputation organised by the London County Council waited on the Prime Minister, who, in his answer, said that "he did not remember ever to have found himself confronted with a deputation more numerous, more weighty in its representative character, and more entitled, in the nature of the claim which it was bringing forward, at any rate, to sympathetic consideration." That, from the Prime Minister, was a very strong expression of opinion, and we had all hoped that we might have heard from the President of the Board of Education that there is some prospect of an increase of the Grant being made to assist the local authorities in their endeavours to carry on the education of the young in a satisfactory way. I am quite sure the right hon.

  455
  Gentleman himself will admit that the local authorities have done their best in every instance to assist education. They have not starved the teachers and they have endeavoured to adopt every new recommendation that has been brought before them. But the very fact that the rates of the rural districts are increasing in undue proportion for these objects is really highly detrimental to the cause of education generally and also to the teachers, who may often be underpaid. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman now responsible for the Education Department feels that this increasing burden ought to he relieved by Exchequer Grants. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given as to his attempt to solve the question of the registry of teachers. I do not like to commit myself by saying that what he has said will be equally satisfactory to those on whose behalf I ask the question, but, for my own part, I think it is a highly satisfactory start, and if the authorities will forward a good list of names to the right hon. Gentleman I should think a very satisfactory beginning of the register would be made.
  A third point to which I wish to refer is of a more technical nature, and one with which I am personally, perhaps, more concerned. For the last ten years I have been chairman of the governors of a large and ancient grammar school, assisted by a board of managers with whom I have been able to work and act freely and well. We have always endeavoured when we have accepted the Grant from the education authorities honestly and fairly to carry out all the wishes of the Department. The point to which I wish to refer is the rigid application of the Departmental rule of 25 per cent. of free places in the schools accepting the Government Grant. The number as laid down by the education authorities is 25 per cent. of the total number of pupils admitted during the previous year. With the object of the authority we are all in sympathy. That object is that a promising pupil at an elementary school should be able, at practically no expense to himself, to continue his education and gradually to be led up to a university career. I am quite sure that everyone interested in education must be in thorough sympathy with that idea, but it is with the way it is carried out that I have some fault to find.
  456
  And it being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No 11) BILL.

    READING BOROUGH EXTENSION.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    I want to explain somewhat shortly the reasons why I take this course. Caversham is a small town in the neighbourhood of Reading, but in a different county and on the other side of the river. It has not in any sense a town population; it is not a town community. As a matter of fact, the population of Caversham is slightly over 9,000, and the acreage of the Caversham urban district is 2,400. The population of Reading, on the other hand, is something like a quarter of a million. It is an admitted fact that the administration by Caversham of its local affairs is carried on in an excellent way, and has no detrimental effect upon Reading. What I think should be the dominant point in a question of this kind—one which makes it a matter of principle, rather than of detail—is that the predominant opinion in Caversham is undoubtedly opposed to this proposed incorporation. We may take three tests, and they are very proper tests to apply in a case of this kind. Caversham has to elect Members to the Oxfordshire County Council, and those elected members made it a part of their programme to oppose any annexation to Reading. There is a petition against the proposal, which, although got up in rather a hurry, represents more than half the rateable value, while a poll of the ratepayers, which was taken on the question, shows that they by three to one are opposed to the annexation. Surely, as a matter of principle, when you have facts

    457
    of this kind, a community ought not to be forced from the local administration of the county in which it is situated and annexed unwillingly to a borough with which it really has no connection. I am aware, of course, of the ordinary doctrine of community of interests, but I venture to assert that there the real community of interests is not between Reading and Caversham, but between Caversham and the surrounding rural districts, with which it is properly united. There is another very important point to be considered in matters of this kind. The President of the Local Government Board is too fond of the borough side in these questions of borough extension. The result is that in a place like Caversham, where at the present time you have real local government—they have an urban district council holding its meetings in Caversham itself, and the effect is to enable the Caversham people to take an effective part in the management of their own local affairs—immediately you annex it to Reading you will get a contrary result, and the local ratepayer—particularly the poorer man—who wishes to take part in the ordinary administration of local government will no longer be able to do so, because be will have to go to a central meeting place at the Town Hall at Reading. Under the principle of unfair borough extension, you are really destroying the spirit of local administration, because you are putting the head of local administration too far off, and people, locally interested, will be unable to attend the meetings.
    There is another very important consideration in cases of this kind which should induce this House to give weight to the opinion of the people of Caversham. Reading, like many other boroughs, has incurred certain debts in connection with its own local administration. I am not blaming Reading for that; but I do suggest that the burden of those debts ought primâ facie to be borne by the people responsible for incurring them. It is very important in local self-government that the burden should be imposed on the area which has incurred the debt, and not on an outside area which had no voice at all in incurring it, but for which it is sought to be made liable by incorporation with the adjacent borough. The Caversham ratepayer never had a voice as regards Reading expenditure. It is not suggested that any harm is being done to Reading by Caversham being left under county government, and, therefore, why should it be subjected to a burden of taxation in the incurring of
    458
    which it had no voice at all? I am anxious to emphasise this point because the time has really come when, if borough extensions of this character are permitted you will destroy the spirit of county administration in this country and make people liable against their will to heavy burdens in the creation of which they had no part. These are matters on which there is no clashing of evidence at all. It is really a question of principle that is involved here Will this House sanction a borough extension where the inhabitants of the borough proposed to be annexed are predominantly against annexation, and where they will be brought against their will under a burden which they had no voice in incurring in any sort or way?
    There is another point and one of great importance and that is the question of financial adjustment. I know at the present time it is proposed that this Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee. I am not satisfied with that. I think that Caversham and the county of Oxford ought to know what are the terms to be imposed in the financial adjustment before this scheme is allowed to go upstairs after Second Reading. The reason is this; these borough extensions nearly always take an important portion of rateable value out of the county. I believe in every case the expense thrown on the borough is greater than anticipated, because a great change has to be made in local administration. Pensions and compensation to officials have to be provided for, and there is, therefore, always very heavy expense incurred when a county district is annexed to an adjacent borough. It is of vital importance nowadays not to put an undue burden on the ratepayers of our country districts. They consist partly of people engaged in agriculture, and everyone must feel that if there is one industry on which no undue burden of rates ought to be placed it is the industry of agriculture. It is the industry which has to meet the greatest amount of foreign competition, and in respect to which we ought to be as careful as possible not to put upon it undue burdens as regards rates and taxes. Who are the other people? They are people who pay rates in the small villages and towns which we find in our country districts.
    I think everyone in this House agrees with me that the small villages and towns should be preserved, with their small local industries and small local prosperity, whatever it may be. And why should Reading, which has its own difficulties, no

    459
    doubt, but also its own prosperity—why should they add to the rateable burdens of the outlying portions of the county of Oxford when the rates will fall eventually either upon the agriculturists, who ought not to have additional rates thrown upon them, or upon the small industries of the villages and towns, which ought to be encouraged as far as possible? The present policy of the Local Government Board is to discourage county life and county government, whereas I take the other view that, although certain borough extensions are justifiable, yet you ought to be most careful to see that, as far as possible, you do not in regard to them interfere with the amenities of county life or place fresh taxation on the people who live there. I think the grounds I have indicated are grounds of principle. I know it is often necessary in cases of this kind to say, Why should not this particular Order go upstairs so as to give an opportunity of having the matter thrashed out before a Select Committee? The answer to that really is this. In those circumstances you place the determination in the hands of four or five Gentlemen, for whom I have the greatest respect, but who, as regards their particular conclusions on the evidence, may find one way or another, but I want this House to determine the question of principle. The question of principle is this, that a portion of a county district ought not to be annexed to a borough unless the borough can show that if that portion of the county is left independent they are injured as regards their urban life. This, however, appears to be a pure case of unadulterated coercion to those people who believe in a representative government and think that people should not be transferred from one form of government to another against their will where they have done no harm, and carried on administration in the best possible manner. I ask all persons who adopt that view to vote in favour of the Resolution which I move.
    Mr. V. FLEMING: I beg to second the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill.
    After the very interesting Debate which took place last Wednesday on the principle contained in the Birmingham Bill, and after the exhaustive speech of my hon. Friend, I do not think that I need do more than summarise some of the particular considerations which have led the people of Caversham to protest so frequently and so emphatically against the proposal of
    460
    the Corporation of Reading which is contained in this Provisional Order. I do not know whether the House realises the drastic nature of the action which the Reading Corporation desires to take. It is not a case of a borough enlarging its boundaries by annexing a few hundred acres of the county in which it happens to be situated. The Corporation of Reading proposes to do a good deal more than that; they propose to annex a part, and a very desirable part, of the county of Oxfordshire, and in doing so they disregard deliberately the ancient and definite county boundary which is formed by the River Thames. In doing so also they are acting in direct opposition to a majority of the population of the urban area of Caversham, which is within the district they propose to take. I do not intend to dwell upon the point of view which is taken by the Oxford County Council, because I know that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford will probably deal with that later, but I think it would be of interest to the House generally, especially to Members of county constituencies, if I were to bring before it the exact principles on which the Local Government Board act when they oppose and support these county borough extensions.
    I submit that there are really only two clear main grounds which can justify a gigantic extension such as this. The first is that the administration of the area which it is proposed to annex will be more efficient and more economical when carried out on the larger scale proposed by the scheme, and, secondly, that the desires of the inhabitants to be annexed have been ascertained to be absolutely in favour of the scheme of incorporation. Those are the principles which were laid down most clearly by Lord Ritchie, an ex-President of the Local Government Board, when a discussion was going on between Hove and Brighton. Those were the principles which were followed with the greatest possible success in the Bradford Incorporation Bill of 1901 and the Liverpool Incorporation Bill of 1903, but I do submit that in this instance both those principles have been disregarded in what I may call a most cynical and highhanded manner. Not a single word was said at the inquiry at Reading before the Local Government Board Inspector in disparagement of the local urban district of Caversham. It was admitted by Counsel in their speeches, and proved by the evidence, that it was worked economically in every detail, and was as

    461
    efficient an administration as that of Reading in the matter of roads, main drains, and sewers, lighting, police, and so forth, and it was established generally that Caversham had nothing absolutely to gain by incorporation with Reading, while a great many people in Caversham think it stands to lose a great deal. I quite agree that it is an important problem to get the working class of South Caversham to their work in Reading across the River Thames, and I think that could be solved just as satisfactorily and considerably more cheaply by the extension of the present footbridge. This extension would have been carried out some time ago if it had not been for the obstruction of the Reading people, and other methods could be adopted for dealing with vehicular traffic. I wish, however, to point out that this Provisional Order is persisted in in face of the downright and vehement opposition of the people who live in the locality.
    The President of the Local Government Board knows that petitions and polls are not always satisfactory means of testing what the feeling of a district is, but still they are indications of what the feeling in the district is. When this proposal was first mooted, a poll resulted in a majority of over 500 against the incorporation, and in the last few days a petition has been lodged with this House, signed by people representing more than half the rateable value of Caversham, against this Bill, and that exclusive of the largest owner in the locality, who is opposing this Bill separately on his own behalf. Moreover, I do submit that a county council election does afford a very satisfactory opportunity of finding out what the feelings of the people in a district are, and not very long ago a county council election was fought simply and entirely on this question. On that occasion the two retiring candidates, both men of considerable influence and popularity in the district, who expressed themselves in favour of incorporation, were beaten by a majority of over 400 by the two anti-incorporation candidates who fought the election on that issue alone. I submit that a scheme which, so far as I can see, will confer no additional benefits on the people of Caversham, which, instead of leaving them in the position they are in now, with an effective control of their own admirable local representation, will give them a representation of eight on the unwieldy Reading Council of forty-eight, and a scheme which, above all, has been opposed over and over again
    462
    by the people in the area concerned, does no credit either to its originators or to the Local Government Board, which persists in supporting it. We hear a great deal about the will of the people prevailing nowadays, but it seems inconsistent of a Liberal Government to support a scheme which, quite apart from its inherent vices, faults, and dangers, does absolutely go against the expressed will of the people, and which appears to me to strike at the root of the most fundamental principle of democratic government.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has taken the very exceptional course of moving the rejection of this Bill does not represent the immediate district which is to be absorbed. I admit that he represents an adjoining district that is perhaps indirectly affected by this Order, but I had hoped that with his experience, and in the light of some of the facts and arguments that he has used this evening, he would have seen not only the necessity but the justice and wisdom of these facts and arguments being tested, as they cannot possibly be tested properly on the Second Reading of the Bill, before a proper tribunal, where by maps, by diagrams, and by facts and figures that can be challenged and cross-examined, the Bill may receive that fair and equitable consideration that it can only receive from a Committee upstairs. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to the condition of things which might prevail under this Order, as if the town of Reading were to assume an added area of exaggerated size and of unmanageable proportions, the simple facts being that a town of not more than 80,000 seeks to absorb, for what the Committee may or may not determine proper reasons, an additional population of only 9,300. It is no answer to this Provisional Order to say that the river divides Reading from Caversham. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows his Shakespeare very well, will know that most unsuccessfully a similar argument was used with regard to a river by one of Shakespeare's characters, who said:—
    "There is a river in Macedon and there is also, moreover, a river at Monmouth."
    We also know that there is a river at Reading, and there is the river at Caversham. Each has the same community of interests that makes the river indispensable to both, particularly when the

    463
    river happens to have a very inadequate footbridge, for which is to be substituted, I hope and trust, a convenient and commodious and handsome bridge, the cost of which probably will mainly fall upon Reading. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not forget that Caversham is of Reading, although not in it. This Bill seeks to make it, under just and equitable conditions, in and of it, and when we know, as we do, from the facts that emerged on the Provisional Order stage that 50 per cent. of the people of Caversham get their living in and out of Reading, that seems to be primâa facie evidence in favour of the Bill being considered by a Committee. My hon. and learned Friend really misunderstands the attitude of the Local Government Board in these matters and certainly of myself. He is mistaken when he thinks we wish to destroy either civic pride or pride in county administration. On the contrary, when we can do anything to stimulate it we do our best in that direction, but it is a moot point whether we have not in this country too many authorities both large and small. We have 25,400 local authorities in England and Wales, involving in many cases great expense both to the ratepayers of the counties themselves and of adjoining counties, involving overlapping in many cases and waste of money which the facts and circumstances do not warrant, and we think this is a case in which 50 per cent. of the people dependent upon Reading, who live in an outside area, should be included in the larger township for the advantage of both. I believe the promoters are prepared, in the event of the Bill passing the Second Reading, as I hope it may, to assent to the financial adjustments to which my hon. and learned Friend refers being subject to the decision of the Joint Committee, as in the case of the Birmingham and Bath Bills. When my hon. and learned Friend seeks to make a grievance in the matter of rates as one form of financial adjustment, he has only to look at the Order and he will find that Reading has been not only generous but magnanimous to Caversham.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I was arguing the case of the outside county ratepayer. You can always bribe a particular district.
    Mr. BURNS: Sufficient for the day is the goodness thereof. I am dealing with the district to be absorbed. When my hon.
    464
    and learned Friend ricochets from the district to be absorbed to the outside areas which are not affected, that is not in the Order, and we have only to deal with Reading versus Caversham, and in the matter of differential rating I would ask the House to listen to the simple but very important fact that Reading is quite willing to give Caversham a differential rate for fifteen years, which for practically the whole of that period will be considerably lower than the rates of Reading—I believe something like 6d. or 7d. in the £. If Caversham is included in Reading I believe no injustice can be done to Caversham, because it will have the advantage of several profitable enterprises which Reading now has in the way of gas and water. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made no case against the Bill. When the Bill becomes law I have not the least doubt that the rural areas abutting upon the Caversham that now is, but the Reading that is to be, will profit to the same extent by the growth of both communities merged into one, and will not suffer as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
    I might point out that since this Bill has been under discussion 700 owners and occupiers in Caversham itself, out of a population of 9,300, which is a very large proportion of owners and occupiers in so small a population, have petitioned in favour of this Bill. This Bill has been very thoroughly considered. The inquiry lasted seven days, and everybody has been heard. I believe that nobody will be damnified if this Bill passes, and Caversham is included. Caversham has now the advantage of the tramways, libraries and markets, which the larger and wealthier community enjoys, and if it is included, instead of regretting this, it will, I am sure, get the safeguards and generous treatment which Reading already offers. The Committee upstairs will also secure for Caversham the adjustments which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite referred to. They will he equitably met and no injustice will be done to the included area. From the point of view of the permanent interests of Caversham and Reading there is no reason why a population which is relatively small should be governed by five different bodies when one is capable of governing not only equally well, but in my opinion better and more economically. I recommend the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. I trust that it will go upstairs and receive from the hands of the Committee the treatment

    465
    which Bills of this kind always receive, and that Caversham will be afforded an opportunity of putting its case before the Committee. If Caversham is not apparently at this moment as well treated as it thinks it should be, its interests can be safely left to the impartial Committee upstairs.
    Sir W. ANSON: In this case the district concerned is unwilling to be annexed. The figure which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) quoted does not represent more than one-fourth of the inhabitants of Caversham. While the district is unwilling to be annexed to Reading, Oxfordshire is unwilling to part with it. In these circumstances is Reading entitled to annex this district from the neighbouring county and to overstep the natural boundary? If Reading were extending in the other direction, there might be something to be said for it; but Reading has ample means of extending on its own side of the river, and therefore it is in order to gratify the ambition of the borough community that this district is sought to be extinguished as regards its local government. The wishes of the inhabitants within that area of local government are to be disregarded, and the conditions of the county which will suffer considerably pecuniarily by the taking away of Caversham, are also to be disregarded. I must confess it appears to me that the Local Government Board are treating these areas very much as portions of Europe were treated in the old days when the wishes of the inhabitants were disregarded and the great Powers portioned out Europe as they pleased. I cannot imagine a stronger case than this in which the parties most interested, not wishing to be annexed, have expressed an opinion against annexation. No particular profit is to be gained by anybody through the annexation, and when the Local Government Board wishes the district to be taken away from one county and given to another against the wishes of the parties interested in the matter. I must cordially support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): There are really two questions involved in this Debate. In the first place there is the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Oxfordshire (Mr. Fleming) to the effect that Reading is attempting to swallow Caversham, and that in principle this ought not to be allowed. Then he came to what I cannot
    466
    but think was the real point of his argument. His second point was that he was anxious to secure for the county of Oxford the financial adjustments which would make quite certain that that county would not suffer. It was in that sense that the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir W. Anson) spoke, not only as representing the university, but also on behalf of the Noble Lord who represents the City of Oxford (Viscount Valentia). The hon. Member for South Oxfordshire and I are close neighbours. Caversham is situated in his constituency, which is only separated by the river from that which I represent. In fact, I have many supporters or opponents in common on both sides.
    The main question, after all, is one which is not for the consideration of this House on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is most unusual to discuss a private Bill of this character in its intricacies and details at this stage, because the House is not really in a position to deal with the facts stated on the other side. It cannot examine into them, whereas a Committee upstairs has all the power to do that, and always does it very impartially and thoroughly. I do not wish to enter into all the matters which have been mentioned by some hon. Members opposite, but I wish to point out briefly that this is not a Bill in which one borough is seeking to merge a neighbouring borough or town or village which has no interest in the greater borough. Quite the contrary. What really happens here is that at least half—and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say a large majority—of the inhabitants of the district proposed to be annexed get their living in and are dependent upon Reading. They get all the advantages which the administration of the municipality of Reading gives, but they do not pay, and the result is, of course, that we get a constant stream of the inhabitants into the borough of Reading from Caversham. In that way a greater burden is imposed on the inhabitants of Reading who remain in the borough, whereas a great number of persons who get the advantage of the borough migrate to the neighbouring district. I would like to say a word on the substantial aspects of the question. Take the current six months. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for south Oxfordshire that there was some at tempt at imposing a crushing burden on Caversham for the benefit of Reading. That is a suggestion which it is very well to consider. It is utterly unsupported by

    467
    facts and quite unwarranted by anything that has been put before the House. I think the hon. Member who advanced the argument must have forgotten an important point. During the current six months the rate at Caversham is 3s. 9d. in the £, while the rate at Reading is 3s.10d. in the £. So there is only a difference of 1d. in the £ excess in the case of Reading over Caversham.
    Mr. FLEMING: Taking an average of the last three years the Caversham rates are 1s. 2d. in the £ lower than the Reading rates.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I happen to have here the figures of the rates for the last five years, and I quite agree that the hon. Member is correct to this extent, that if you take an average over the last five years, and not the last three years, it will show that the rates in Caversham are something like 10d. in the £ less than in Reading. From 31st March, 1906, to 31st March, 1910, the figures show an average of 7s. 10d. and one-fifth of a penny in Reading and 7s. and two-fifths of a penny in the £ in Caversham for the same period. So during that period there was a difference of about 10d. in favour of Caversham. The reason I took the last six months was because there never was a period in which, if Caversham is opposed to incorporation with Reacting, it would have been so much to its interest to keep down the rates, and yet in that period the figures are 3s. 9d. in Caversham as against 3s 10d. in Reading for the six months. But this is not a question of discussing where there is a difference of 1d. or of 10d. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board painted out, Reading is most generous to Caversham, inasmuch as it offers to Caversham differential rating for fifteen years to the extent of 7d. in the £. It is hardly fair, and it certainly is not generous. to complain in those circumstances of the way in which Reading is treating Caversham. There are other respects also in which Reading is willing to give terms to the advantage of Caversham. There is the bridge, which would be a great boon to Caversham, and which Caversham some years ago failed to secure, though it wanted it badly, in order, as my hon. Friend says quite correctly, that the workmen who live in Caversham may be able to cross the bridge to come to their work in Reading. It is for
    468
    that purpose that Reading is willing to have the bridge constructed, which will be one of the advantages that Caversham is to obtain by incorporation. In view of the Debates which took place last week in which everything that could be said was said on the principle of financial adjustment, I trust that in the present circumstances the House, having accepted this principle by referring to the Joint Committee the special Instruction which was moved by my right hon. Friend, will allow the matter to be dealt with by the Joint Committee. Reading has expressed itself as willing to abide by whatever the Joint Committee may say in respect of this financial adjustment, and under those circumstances I would press on the hon. Member for South Bucks, and those who are acting with him, that they may let this matter now proceed so that it may go at once into the hands of the Committee and be considered in the usual way.
    Mr. SANDERS: I believe that this Bill introduces a principle entirely different from what we settled last week as regards Birmingham and Bath. In both those cases the localities were ready to accept incorporation, but were anxious on the subject of financial adjustment. This is an entirely different principle. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the locality in this case, in the proportion of three-fourths to one-fourth, is opposed to this measure. It seems to me it is a measure which every county Member ought to resist. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, is anxious to incorporate portions of counties in the borough. That may be all very well when those portions of the county consent to it, but when the portions of the county are against it, then I think they ought to have the support of the county councils, and ought to have the support of this House in opposing it. I think we ought to take the part of the lesser bodies against the greater, of the weak against the strong. I hope that those who are opposing this measure will go to a Division, because it introduces a new principle which I do not think ought to be introduced.
    Mr. MOUNT: There is one point of which my hon. Friend who has just spoken I think is not quite aware. This Bill affects not only Caversham, but it also effects other parts of the adjoining districts. It affects the district of Tilehurst, which happens to be in my Constituency. It is a district adjoining Reading towards which

    469
    Reading has been growing rather rapidly during the last few years, and a district which clearly ought to come into the boundaries of Reading for municipal purposes. We have had, I frankly admit, our differences with Reading with regard to provisions which were not in the Provisional Order, but I understand that an informal arrangement has been made between Reading and Tilehurst which will meet the wishes of the people of that place. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division, and prevents the Bill being read a second time, he will not only deal with the Bill as regards Caversham but also as regards Tilehurst. It is far better that the Bill should go upstairs, where the claim of Caversham to be excluded and the claim of Tilehurst to be included can both be considered.
    Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.
    Ordered, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that, if they pass the Preamble of the Bill, they shall insert a Clause in the Bill providing that financial adjustments shall be made in accordance with the decision of the Joint Committee of both Houses on Financial Relations when ascertained, such financial adjustments to take effect as from the date of the coming into operation of the Order."—[Mr. Burns.]

SUPPLY.— [16th Allotted Day.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Postponed Proceeding on Question proposed, on consideration of Question, "That a sum not exceeding £8,664,677 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including Grants for the Building of New Public Elementary
  470
  Schools and sundry Grants in Aid,"—[NOTE.—£5,400,000 has been voted on account.]
  Which Question was, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect, of the salary of the President of the Board of Education."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I quoted from a document just before the discussion was interrupted by Private Business, and I was not aware at the time that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield was the author of it. It is full of valuable information, especially as regards the actual increase of expenditure. When the discussion was adjourned I was saying that although we all are agreed upon the principle which provides free places in secondary schools for a certain number, we are not all agreed as to the propriety and rigidity of the rules applied by the Education Department. I think it would have been the most natural and best course to pursue, when looking for those elementary school children who were fitted for secondary schools, to find out how numerous they were. As to the ratio of existing secondary school accommodation, it differs enormously in various localities. It would, I should have thought, have been much preferable to have made a choice of districts and not lay down a hard and fast rule of 25 per cent. There are many secondary schools where money might have been spent in enlarging secondary education, so as to provide adequate scholarships, and even travelling scholarships, for those elementary boys who would make a good use of the secondary course, even if such authority should go outside their own district. No inquiry was made as to what proportion of elementary children could with advantage proceed to the secondary schools. The Board laid down a hard and fast rule of 25 per cent. of the total number of pupils admitted during the previous year. That is a point I should like to urge for reconsideration by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Education Department. If there is any unfit pupil in a secondary school he inflicts a double loss on the school. In the first place, he keeps out another boy who might be fit, and, in the second place, he certainly tries the tempers of the scholastic authorities, and, in the third, he is himself deserving of

  471
  great pity, because he is in a position for which he is absolutely unfitted and for which no amount of secondary education would probably ever fit him. Originally established by the late President of the Board of Education, this rule was understood to mean that a quarter of the number of pupils at one time attending the secondary schools should be the proportion. This rule as at present interpreted is not at all the same thing. The parent's inducement to remove the child if he is not making progress is actually greater if the fees have to be paid. These cases increase, and in some instances become an incubus, educationally and financially, on the school. In some schools especially I believe, the number of free-places has amounted to 40 or 50 per cent. That would be a very great charge on an old grammar school with a decreasing income from tithes, as many of us know takes place at the present time. Against that it is laid down that a free-place is tenable for an indefinite time, unless the boy is so idle or undisciplined as to require expulsion; but I understand that the authorities are forbidden to warn him and commanded to inform the parents of the limitation of their powers as to the withdrawal of a boy. I submit it is casting rather a slur upon the headmaster and the authorities of the school to require that, and it looks as if the Board would not trust the headmaster or the education managers any further than they could see them. I quite understand that originally it was thought necessary to lay down this hard and fast rule of 25 per cent. I have no doubt means should be taken to prevent the elementary school children from obtaining places in the grammar school, for which they are not fit. I am perfectly aware of the argument, and I have no doubt there was a leaven of suspicion in the minds of the education authorities. For my own part, as governor of a grammar school, I must admit that I find no deterioration in the elementary school children who are admitted. We get them so young that they benefit from the society in which they mix, and we certainly have never suffered from their admission. On the contrary the class of boys who are admitted to many of the grammar schools reflect the greatest credit on the elementary schools from which they are sent. I should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman would give any indication of the possibility of reconsidering the 25 per cent. He will see, as we
  472
  have, that the gradual increase in the number of free places has already crippled and diminished the income of the secondary schools, and it must tell very heavily upon them. I should be sincerely glad if he will see his way to consider the whole subject, in view of the very generous and honest way in which the grammar schools, especially when in receipt of the Grant, have endeavoured to carry out the wishes of the Board.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I rise to emphasise greatly the point so well made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in reference to the enormous increase of expenditure from local rates upon education, while at the same time there is no proportionate increase—in fact, an actual diminution—of the Grants received from the Imperial Exchequer. I hold in my hand a circular issued by the Association of Education Committees, which is a very large and representative body, who put their case, I think, very fairly and clearly. Making a comparison between the Government Grants received before 1902 and since 1902, it shows that since the advent of the Act of 1902 the proportion contributed by the central Exchequer has actually diminished, in spite of the enormous increase in the local expenditure. The Government Grants in 1902 represented 61 per cent, of the total expenditure on education, whereas in the year 1908–9 the Government Grant only represented 49 per cent. of the total expenditure, a considerable reduction from the previous Government Grant. In the years 1907–8–9 the expenditure increased by £750,000, whereas the income from the Imperial Exchequer diminished by £250,000. That is to say you increased the burden during those three years upon local ratepayers by something like £1,000,000. That increase has come, broadly speaking, from two sources. You have first new legislation. It is a very curious thing that this Parliament has seen fit to impose such important work as medical inspection of children and the feeding of school children without making any provision to assist the local authorities, who have this large sum of money to find. Though this is beneficent legislation and legislation which I voted for, and should vote for again, yet strictly speaking it is not educational work. What it amounts to is this, that when you get no increased funds from the Imperial Exchequer, you have to put those new burdens upon the already overburdened

  473
  local ratepayers, and it means that in order to feed the school children and carry out the work of medical inspection, you must actually reduce some of your expenditure upon the work of education. I hope something will be done, especially in view of the speech delivered by the President of the Board of Education to-day, a speech, if I may venture to say so, which will be read with great interest by all educationists in the country who see it in to-morrow's paper, and a speech which shows breadth of outlook, real interest in the work of education and which, I venture to say, will stimulate to enthusiasm all those who have been working for many years without much encouragement in this most excellent work.
  In addition to the additional cost by reason of the new legislation, the President of the Board has also done a great deal towards increasing our local burdens by the acts of his own Department. I do not quarrel with any of those Orders that have been issued from the Board, or with any of those new circulars upon educational requirements. It is certainly desirable to reduce the size of the classes. It is certainly very desirable that everything should be done to promote the efficiency of the schools, and that there should be more air space, better accommodation, and better school buildings. But the President of the Board of Education, when he was issuing those Orders, should, I submit, have some regard to the cost. It is an extraordinary thing that when you go to the President of the Board of Education and point out to him the extra expenditure involved by this very desirable policy of his, his reply is, "I have nothing to do with the cost; you must settle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I am concerned about is a sound educational policy." Then he gets into a corner and says, "Do you disagree with the circular? Are you in favour of my policy?" You say, "Yes," and then he says, "What are you wasting my time for? If you agree with it, why come here? I have nothing to do with the cost; go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer." If you are a simple, trusting person you, perhaps, go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and you point out to him that you want more money because of the policy of the Board of Education. He says, "Go to the President of the Board of Education; it has nothing to do with me He prescribes his policy; he must find the money." That interesting pro-
  474
  cess of Spenlow and Jorkins may proceed from one Department to another until finally you go back home, and if you are chairman of an education committee you may have to apply for police protection.
  That is the condition of things in the education world. I do not understand that doctrine. I thought a Cabinet was one and indivisible; I imagined that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Education were identical persons, as far as policy is concerned. I thought that the Prime Minister took the responsibility for the whole business, and that if the Cabinet agreed upon these matters, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked to find the money, which the President of the Board of Education needed for educational efficiency, that of course it was instantly forthcoming. I do not feel inclined to accept the explanation which has been given, and the local authorities are not inclined to accept it. They are really anxious to do this work; they are enthusiastic in desiring to improve the schools; they want continuation classes; they want improved secondary schools; they want better trained teachers; they are prepared to go in for medical inspection, the feeding of children, and for the whole progressive programme; but you must find them the money or, at least, a fair proportion of the cost. I respectfully suggest to the President that he should have this matter out with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that if they cannot agree between themselves they should refer to the Prime Minister to take the responsibility. We ought not to be told when money is needed for a purpose of this kind, and when the policy of the President of the Board of Education requires additional expenditure, that he cannot obtain money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not a passive resister, but I believe that the local education authorities before long will take up the policy of passive resistance. I do know from my own experience that in many districts town councils have said to the local educational authority, "We will not grant a single penny for extra expenditure on the question of education. We have reached our limit, and if you have got to spend more money in one direction you must diminish expenditure in another."
  The President of the Board gave the total figures this afternoon of the expenditure upon education in the country. I think those are very moderate figures. When I consider our expenditure in other

  475
  directions I wonder that we grudge £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 extra for education purposes. It does not become a Member for a Sheffield constituency to suggest that you should not spend money for armaments, and if I were to suggest that I would lose my seat, but I do say this, that relatively to its importance upon the community you cannot afford to spend so much money upon armaments and to spend so little money upon education. There must be some sort of proportion in your expenditure. I do not agree with an hon. Friend who spoke this afternoon of so much of this money as being wasted on educational purposes. I believe our education funds are very wisely and economically spent. I do not think the inspectors are wasting their time. I do not think the official of the Department is a superfluous person. I believe we are excellently served both by the officials of the Education Department and the inspectors, and I do not speak without some little acquaintance with the administrative work. I think we ought to he entrusted with more money. When I contrast our educational system with those of our competitors abroad, when I realise and appreciate how much depends on the maintenance of our commerce and the extension of our trade and the well-being of our Empire from thoroughly trained, well-equipped manhood and womanhood, I think we are niggardly and parsimonious to a degree in our educational expenditure.
  I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have given us three or four million extra this time from the Imperial Exchequer. I do wish that the President of the Board of Education would take a determined stand and would insist on having the money to carry out his policy. I am satisfied that anybody who heard the President this afternoon would realise that the schemes he has in his mind are sound schemes, and that there is elasticity and vigour and energy in the policy of the Department. Though I support that policy, and though I wish to offer my tribute of praise to the work that the President is doing, I have this very emphatic quarrel with it, that he does not find us enough money. Unless he is able to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sufficient sum of money to relieve the overburdened ratepayers, educational work must come to a standstill, and that, in my judgment,
  476
  would be a national disaster. I do hope and trust that the President of the Board of Education will not allow himself to be deluded by this Spenlow and Jorkins doctrine, and that we will not hear more of these specious excuses, but that in the future he will accept joint responsibility with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet, and find the money that we need to carry on our policy of education.
  Mr. LYNCH: I would like to refer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, particularly with regard to his comparison of the amount spent on education and the amount spent on naval expenditure; also with regard to the amount spent by this country and by neighbouring rival countries, such as France and Germany. I would insist upon the point which he brought forward, and try to show the vital importance to this country of this matter, not so much, perhaps, in the way of elementary education as in the higher education; and I will show in how far and greater a degree higher education is fostered by neighbouring rival countries. I listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, and I also took occasion to read a speech which he delivered last April. That speech was a speech almost entirely of detail. It was a speech dealing with such questions as construction, and school places, almost to the exclusion of every other topic; so that before I got to the end of that speech I was fain to inquire: "Is this the utterance of the great field marshal of education, or is it a discourse of a carpenter and joiner?" Today, I must say, his speech covered a greater variety of topics, but even then it was remarkable for leaving out what is perhaps the most vital interest of education, the dominant interest—education in its higher reaches. The arrangements of this country compare very unfavourably with France and Germany. To point the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, I will recall an article which appeared recently in "The Times" newspaper, a newspaper with which we on these benches are not always in agreement, but whose remarks on this occasion I heartily endorse. The article dealt with a very practical issue of education, namely, the immense educational facilities given by France and Germany, particularly the latter, to enormous engineering works which have been of the

  477
  greatest practical utility. The "Daily Mail," referring to this matter, says:—
  "Mr. Selby Bigge sets out to discover the reasons for the paucity of work in so many of our large electrical and other engineering works, when compared with the remarkable activity in most American, German, and other Continental works during the same period."
  And the pith of the whole article may be expressed in one phrase which I find here:—
  "Germany is ruled by experts. We have the sporting and they have the scientific spirit."
  The article ends very judiciously by saying:—
  "Let us try a judicious blend of both."
  It was asked, where are the funds to come from? That precisely was the point touched upon by the hon. Member for Sheffield. There is a perfect orgy of spending funds on naval construction. We spend money very well in elementary education. But for higher education, which should be the outcome of it, and which is most educative in the most practical sense of the word, the funds peter out. Shipbuilding and naval construction runs up to over £13,000,000. Education is hardly more. Technical education is put down at £556,000. That seems large, but it is not large comparatively. It is very small compared with the immense Budget of this country. Let me compare it for instance, with a little country like Switzerland. We have £556,000 set apart for technical education in this country. Switzerland, with a Budget of about £1,600,000, allots no less a sum than £150,000 for technical education—and, of course, it derives a corresponding benefit. Again, this sum which is allotted to technical education is not allotted to technical education in the sense which gives a real stimulus, and helps to make it a vital technical education. The greater part of that sum really goes to the mere upkeep of museums. Here again I would call the attention of the Committee to an article by a very competent authority, Sir Ray Lankester, one of the greatest men, I venture to say, of this century, and one whom this Government has left out of employment. When there was a danger of the services of Lord Kitchener not being made use of by the nation there was a great outcry, and a berth was promptly found for him. But if we could see things in their proper perspective, and appraise the relative value of things, I think we would come to the conclusion that the services of a man of great intellect, great learning, and great intellectual activity might be equally well sought for as well as those of a great
  478
  leader of armies. Sir Ray Lankester in an article on museums makes this complaint:—
  "Thousands, even millions of pounds have been expended on the building of musenms, on the purchase of specimens, on cases and cataloguing, and … that all these make the museums mere repositories."
  He compares this use of museums with the use made of museums in countries like Germany and France. This again is an extremely important question which might be left to the consideration of the President of the Board of Education. Sir Ray Lankester is greatly distinguished as a biologist. He has a great interest in these great biological museums. I notice the very small and inadequate sum set down in these Estimates for biological research. There is nothing equivalent in this country to the immense stimulus given to biological research by France and Germany; nothing like the biological museum established by the French Government at Roscoff, which attracts students not only from France, but from every part of the world.
  I must just, in passing, say a word or two about Art. That comes within the category of the Estimates of the President of the Board of Education. It seems, usually, ridiculous in a Debate upon education even to speak upon art in this country. All these millions spent on naval construction! on elementary education! and we find set down for Scottish Art £1,000 and for Irish Art £1,000. That is equivalent to saying, to bring the matter down to something concrete and specific, that if a man had an income of £3,000 a year, and was thus living in comparative affluence, if he followed the example set by the President of the Board of Education, he would spend £1 1s. per annum on scientific education, and about 6d. for artistic refinement. £1,000 for Scottish Art! I do not know whether there are any Scotsmen here listening to me who are satisfied with that. I am reminded of the passage in Carlyle, in his wonderful "Sartor Resartus," where he begins:—
  "A second man I honour, and still more highly: Him who is seen toiling for the spiritually indispensable; not daily bread, but the bread of life. Is not he too in his duty; endeavouring towards inward harmony; revealing this, by act or by word, through all his outward endeavours, be they high or low? Highest of all, when his outward and his inward endeavours are ours: when we can name him Artist; not earthly Craftsman only, but inspired thinker, who with heaven-made Implement conquers Heaven for us!"
  After Carlyle has written that we have £1,000 for Scottish art! Shades of Carlyle, shades of Bobbie Burns, of Walter Scott, of Wilkie, and traces of McWhirter

  479
  now living. One thousand pounds for Scottish art! This is the little feeble tallow candle lighted in a corner to illumine the vast expanse of our civilisation. I have insisted on Scottish art although it is on exactly the same plane as Irish art.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already wandered far from the subject under discussion, which is the salary of the President of the Board of Education.
  Mr. LYNCH: I shall endeavour to conform, Sir, but the President of the Board of Education has control over and directs the expenditure which gives impression and colour to the whole question of education in this country.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: He does not control either Irish or Scottish art.
  Mr. LYNCH: Very well, then, I will come to scientific matters, and I think the indictment weighs still more heavily against the right hon. Gentleman in regard to science. Higher education is so important in this country that I can only apply to it the phrase which Renan applied as far back as 1867 to the Germans. He said:—
  "It is the university which makes the school. What won the victory of Sadowa was German science."
  What was true in 1867 was true in 1870, and what was true in 1870 is true in 1910. The Germans have recognised the immense advantage to their nation of encouraging in every possible way education in its highest reaches.
  The French in 1870, after that disastrous blow, saw that their weakness was a defect of higher education, and, even reeling under the staggering blow of 1870, they set about to strengthen their nation, and, though paying off an enormous indemnity, they placed large and increasing sums in the hands of the Ministers for the cost of higher education. They increased their five millions francs to nearly eight millions in 1867. Jules Ferry increased it again, and in 1884 Waddington almost doubled that sum. These sums are enormous when compared with the sums allocated year by year for higher education in this country. I would illustrate the immense direct importance of it by one story that is well known to scientific men, and that is the story of the discovery of the aniline dyes. The discovery was made, it is said, by an Englishman named Perkins, but the trade was begun
  480
  in Germany. As a matter of fact, though it was discovered by an Englishman, it was turned to the advantage of Germany by such men as Gay-Lussac, Berzelius, Wöhler, and Hoffmann. The great discovery of the aniline dyes, owing to the advance of science in Germany, gave the advantage of that discovery to the Germans, who built an immense and lucrative trade upon the results. The other day, in order to test in how far scientific education was encouraged in this country as compared with Germany, I looked up a German book called Virchow's "Jahresbericht der Fortschritte der gesammten Medizin," which simply means Virchow's "Year Book of Progress of all Medical Science." Medical science is a very definite and concrete thing, which comes within the scope of the Board of Education, and I find for every name of an Englishman contained in this book there are thirteen Germans.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman we are discussing the Education Estimates for the present year, and any Debate raised ought to be connected with the work which the Education Department is doing, or may do, during the current year. Only one day is allowed for that discussion, and I must invite the hon. Member to come to some practical point.
  Mr. LYNCH: I will come to a practical point. The Germans have recognised the necessity of science, and have got all the advantages accordingly. But now to come to the practical point, I would appeal to the President of the Board of Education to continue scientific research, and I would make a special plea in favour of bacteriological research, and if it is necessary to narrow that further I would make a plea in favour of bacteriological research in so far as it has regard to combating tuberculosis, and to be still more definite I would make a plea in favour of that bacteriological research in regard to tuberculosis, which is being carried on at the eminent institution, St. Mary's Medical School, by Sir Almroth Wright, and with such splendid results. I believe that on 31st July there will be published a schedule of Grants of various medical schools, and I believe it is the intention of the President of the Board of Education to include amongst, those medical schools St. Mary's Medical School, and I urge on him to pay particular regard to the splendid and magnificent work, which certainly compares with anything that is

  481
  being done in France or Germany, that is being done at that school. That work is being starved for lack of money. There we have a very definite and specific case, and certainly it is enormously important. I conclude with that point, and I ask the President of the Board of Education to very specially direct his attention to the splendid work done by St. Mary's Medical School, and I hope he may be able to give it a generous donation.
  Mr. ELVERSTON: I beg to thank the President of the Board of Education for the promise he made this afternoon of the further Grant for necessitous school areas, and I trust he will not consider some of us too inquisitive if we press him for a little further information. We would like to know if the additional Grants which he hopes to make will include those twenty-one areas which are at present excluded from the receipt of any special Grant. We would like to know in other words whether Clause 4 of the Regulations which govern the present special Grant is going to be deleted or not. Of course, we all recognise that the time for a general reorganisation of all the Exchequer Grants in aid of elementary education is very much overdue. We also recognise that the special Grant which he has promised to extend today was originally intended to be quite of a temporary nature, but so long as that Grant is being continued we earnestly hope that all the authorities which comply with the Regulations originally laid down will have some share of the same. What was desirable or necessary four or five years ago is equally desirable, and in fact, more desirable at the present time, for whilst there has been an actual diminution in the Imperial Grants there has been a great increase in the services that are demanded from local authorities. This is particularly true of the services that are being demanded by successive Ministers of Education and successive Acts of Parliament, which come particularly under the rule of the Education Department. I do not think any Gentleman in this House will disagree with most of the Acts of Parliament, which have caused additional expense to local authorities during the last few years. We all believe in better school accommodation, in the feeding of school children, in the medical inspection of school children, and in the better staffing of the schools, but still we all recognise this means more and more money for local authorities, and this additional expense presses very hardly upon the poor and
  482
  necessitous districts for which we have been pleading during the last three or four months in this House. We neither justify nor do we criticise this special Grant. All we say is that as it exists it should be administered in a just and equitable manner, and we are indeed glad to know from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there is some chance of this being done in the immediate future.
  Under Clause 4 some twenty-one areas are at present excluded from the receipt of any money under this Grant. If these twenty-one areas be included, it means a further expense of something like £20,000 per annum, but during the last four or five years the expenditure has increased so much that the £200,000 originally set aside to provide three-quarters of the excess expenditure over a rate of 1s. 6d. is short by something like £72,000, so that if we have an additional Grant of £140,000 I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find he has made some sixty or seventy areas in this country particularly happy. We press for this additional expenditure because we believe the money will be well spent, and because we believe this money is spent, not upon a local, but upon a national service, for of all the services of the country at the present time the most important, we believe, is the care and the education of the school children.
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: I wish to associate myself with what has fallen from hon. Members opposite, who have expressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education did not in his interesting speech allude to the subject which the Committee, and probably the country, most wishes to hear about, and did not say anything in recognition of the fact that for the last three or four years the Government has been placing burdens upon the shoulders of the education authorities without contributing anything at all, and for which they have made very little calculation as to the cost. I do not approach this subject as a ratepayer or as a Member of an education authority, but simply as one who wishes to see educational progress. I am perfectly sure there cannot be any educational progress until the Government recognise that the burdens they are placing upon the shoulders of the ratepayers of the country with regard to education are absolutely intolerable.

  483
  I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain unjustifiable and, I think, very absurd inequalities in the Grants which the Board of Education give to different parts of education. For instance, as far as I know, there is no reason why a teacher of handicrafts should rank below a teacher in the elementary schools, but whilst towards the training of a teacher in the elementary schools the Government gives no less than 58 per cent. of the cost, towards the training of a teacher in handicraft the Government only contribute 7 per cent. of the cost. There is also the training of a teacher in domestic economy. The Committee will agree, I am sure, that one of the most important and most useful spheres of educational activity is to train up the future wives in this country to provide decent homes for their husbands. Yet, while the Government contributes 58 per cent. of the cost of training elementary teachers, they only contribute something less than 10 per cent. towards the cost of training teachers in domestic economy, of which the supply is very bad at the present moment. The result is that a great many schools of domestic economy have ceased to exist. The schools at Birmingham, Norwich, and Shrewsbury have ceased to exist, and the London County Council have been forced to advise the discontinuance of the Northern Polytechnic. The Battersea Polytechnic is also in difficulties. They find that, whereas it costs £71 for the two years' training of a teacher in domestic economy, the Government only give £6 16s.
  Again, there is the subject of technical education. It is a well-worn truism to say that if our workmen have to compete against the highly educated and skilled foreigner, they must themselves be highly skilled and educated. Thank goodness, there are still a great many trades where artistic and highly technical skill are of the utmost value. Some of the more progressive educational authorities, notably the London County Council, to meet this undoubted need have started some excellent day schools, where some very good work is done, for boys and girls. These schools are maintained at considerable sacrifice not only on the part of the educational authorities, but on the part of the pupils themselves, because they have to give up earning wages for two years. The educational authorities find these classes are extremely expensive to staff and to
  484
  equip. Although the secondary school is not so expensive to equip, the highest amount of Grant that a pupil in one of these technical classes can earn is £3, whereas a pupil in a secondary school can earn £6.
  I also wish to refer to the unsatisfactory progress which is being achieved in our evening schools. It is true that there has been an increase of 2 per cent. in attendance during the last year, but according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education there has been of children below the age of fifteen an actual decrease. The consultative committee on continuation schools estimated that the population between the ages of fourteen and seventeen amounted to 2,000,000; but of those 2,000,000, 1,500,000 never enter school either day or evening. We have often wondered why there is so much casual labour in this country as compared with foreign countries. There is, however, ample evidence in the reports of commissions, consultative committees, and other bodies, to show that there are evil influences which are not only inimical to the welfare of the children, but absolutely forcing them to graduate in the casual labour market. My opinion is that education is more or less a failure simply and solely because we do not carry it far enough. You have only to look at the figures of recruiting. No less than 74 per cent. of the recruits are not equal to standard four; of those 74 per cent. 43 per cent. are equal only to standard three, and 13½ per cent. are absolutely illiterate. That proves that a great deal of the money spent on elementary education is absolutely wasted. Personally I do not believe we shall ever level up this school education or do our duty by the rising generation until the Government takes its courage in both hands and enacts that attendance at evening schools shall be compulsory, and that employers of labour shall give time off to enable the children to attend those schools.
  10.0 P.M.
  Another point is in reference to Labour Exchanges. For some months the Exchanges have been registering children and supplying them to employers of labour, but as far as I know very few advisory committees have been set up. That delay is no doubt due to the negotiations between the Board of Trade and the Board of Education. Unfortunately the impression has got about that the object of the Labour Exchanges is not so much

  485
  the welfare of the children as to "put up a good score." Perhaps that impression is unfounded; but I should like to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman an emphatic declaration that in these advisory committees the educational and not the industrial influence shall be paramount. I should also like an assurance that he will insist that in connection with every advisory committee there shall be paid organisers and paid investigators. Seventy thousand children leave school every year in London. London, I believe, is to be divided into twelve districts. It is quite obvious that to put upon voluntary workers the duty of placing 600 children every year is too much. It is an absolute necessity that there should be at least one paid organiser or worker for this work. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to make these advisory committees as efficient as anybody could wish. But unless they can be made satisfactory, I think we had better not have Labour Exchanges at all for placing boys and girls. Really, there is no necessity for them, as employers are only too anxious to snap up the children. Unless the advisory committee has statutory powers to insist that sweating employers shall not have the boys and girls, I think it would be a great mistake to spend the money of the taxpayers in doing harm to the rising generation.
  Mr. A. H. SCOTT: Reference has been made by previous speakers to the relationship of the rates to Imperial Grants. It is often contended that it makes no difference out of which pocket the money comes. I would point out, however, that those responsible for education in municipalities, unless they are aldermen, have every third year to appeal to the electors, and if the rate is an increasing one, as it must be where you have efficient administration, these men are put up to be shot at by those who call themselves economists. Many of the most active spirits in municipal life have been driven out simply because of their desire for education and the advancement of the children. The municipalities will be pleased that the Education Minister has been able to induce the Cabinet to extend the period for the purchase of schools from thirty to fifty years. Municipalities have long felt a grievance on that matter, and I am glad that it is to be removed. The question I wish particularly to refer to this is. Parliament has laid upon municipalities and educa-
  486
  tional authorities increased work, and where you have medical inspection and treatment most efficiently done, not only do the municipalities suffer in respect of the cost, but also in respect to the Grant. They have not only the heavy expenditure, but they are heavily penalised. Prior to 1903 the Code Regulations permitted that when a child was absent through illness it should not count as absence, but that a mark should be given, and allowance made therefor in the matter of the Government Grant. Since then that has been removed. You now have medical officers inspecting the children. If there is the slightest suspicion of measles, not only is the child in question removed, but those that have come in contact with that child are also removed. The result is that those absences tell against the school. If the medical officer chooses to close the school entirely there is no loss of the Grant. The President referred to Bradford. I have some very interesting figures bearing on this point from Bradford. They show that in the provided and non-provided schools there was a loss during last year because of different complaints—chicken pox, mumps, and so forth—of 36,436 attendances. That is the number as reported week by week from the schools. If a child is absent two weeks or more he will be reported each week, and so included twice or more in the above figures. My point is that each one of those cases tells against the Grant so long as this absurd system of giving Grants according to attendance is continued. Not only that, but they suffer in another way. When children are medically examined, the doctors sometimes find defective vision. It is very necessary that the eyes of the children should be carefully watched. Many children have, through neglect, suffered through life because of the strain on their eyes. Then cases of deafness are found. No sooner are children removed, and the attendances lost whilst the complaints are being attended to, than the Board comes along and refuses the Grant. What I want to ask the President to consider is whether he should not allow these cases to be specially marked. Very often there are the most cases in those towns where administration is most efficient, and I want the President to see that those schools and towns should not be penalised as is the case now for efficient administration.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I think the President of the Board of Education will take away from this Debate a strong impression as to the necessity for some readjustment of the imperial and local aid given to our schools in order that there may not be too strong a feeling against progress in educational matters on the part of the members of the local authorities. No one could have heard the interesting speech which the President of the Board of Education made without fully recognising the great weight of responsible duties which now falls upon the Board of Education and the difficulty of the many problems with which the Board have now to contend. If I venture to criticise any action of the Board I am sure it will be realised that it would be very strange if their activity, wide as it is, were not open to some criticism, and the President will recognise that what I say I say in no partisan spirit nor in any unfriendly spirit to the President or to the able experts who support him. I am quite certain that if the Board were freer than it is from political pressure it would still better respond to the educational needs and requirements of the country.
  Mention has been made of the progress of technical education. I have had some experience of technical education, and I think it is very satisfactory to note that there is no part of the Report which has been issued by the Board in which progress is more marked than in the branch of the Board's work bearing upon technical education, whilst at the same time there is no branch which is freer from political and religious controversy. I am very glad to know that the co-operation which has taken place during the last few years between the Board of Education and the City and Guilds of London Institute—the pioneer of technical education in this country—has been attended with most excellent results. I think the President is a little pessimistic in suggesting that the students are not able, in consequence of their work during the day, to make satisfactory educational progress in evening classes. That is, of course, true as regards young students, and it is a very great advantage that manufacturers and other employers of labour throughout the country are beginning to realise the necessity of allowing their young apprentices to leave their work at an earlier hour in order that they may attend continuation classes. It is very satisfactory to note that in the higher technical classes which have been registered by the City and
  488
  Guilds of London Institute during the last ten years the number of students attending these evening classes has increased from 34,000 to over 50,000. Those classes are held in the higher branches of technical knowledge, and are quite independent of classes in applied science and science generally under the Board of Education. But the number of students in those evening classes is not as great as it might be, and their ability to profit by the education they receive is less than it would be if their preliminary education were based on more practical lines. It is certain that all is not well with our elementary education at the present time. Complaints are heard from merchants and manufacturers that the boys who come to them are not as well grounded with elementary education as they might be expected to be. This is not wholly due to the fact that children leave school at too early an age. That is, I admit, far from being satisfactory, and I very much hope that increasing facilities will be given to enable children to remain at school till a later age than at present.
  It is also not entirely due to the absence of proper facilities for continuation classes. We have heard in this Debate something as to the necessity for making attendance at evening classes compulsory. There is a great deal to be said for and against that. I am not now going to argue that point. But I feel quite certain that the children who come from our elementary schools would remember what they have learned for a very much longer time, and be better able to take advantage of any further instruction that they may receive if the education now given in our elementary schools were more practical and better fitted to adapt them to the occupation in which they are likely to be engaged. May I refer the House to the well considered judgment of the Poor Law Commissioners on this subject. They distinctly state that the education in our public elementary schools should be made less literary, and better calculated than at present to adapt the child to its future occupation. This serious indictment is made more than once in the Report of the Poor Law Commission. They recommend a thorough reconstruction of the curriculum—as well as of the aim and ideals of elementary education. The Board of Education themselves recognise the necessity of some fundamental change in the spirit of our elementary schools. I notice in the prefatory memorandum to the

  489
  Code of 1907 it is stated that the Board are carefully considering the question of developing all forms of manual instruction in the curriculum. And in the memorandum attached to the Code of 1908 they also discuss the question, and say that at present they are not in a position to deal with the matter except by arranging for a Grant to be paid to a strictly limited number of experimental classes. Surely this is a very poor conclusion for the Board of Education to arrive at with respect to the recommendation of the Poor Law Commission. Why are not the Board in a position to deal with a matter which they themselves regard as urgent? Why do they simply offer a special Grant to a limited number of experimental classes which may make application? A thorough reconsideration of the curriculum as well as of the aims and ideals of our elementary school system certainly seems to require more active consideration than it has yet received on the part of the Board of Education. That is the first question which I desire to put to the President of the Board of Education.
  I would just like to say a few words with regard to our secondary schools, to which reference has been made by other speakers. I must own that I have always had some misgivings as regards the policy on the part of the Board of Education in endeavouring to link up our elementary and secondary schools, and I should like to say at once, to disarm any criticism that may be made by Members on the other side, that I am completely in accord with those who recognise the justice, the necessity, and the national importance of giving full opportunity of development to the highest educational level to the ability of all children in whatever class or strata of society they may be found. But I feel in doing so we must also consider in giving that education the chance of enabling the children by means of it to obtain remunerative means of living. I notice in the introduction to the Board's Code it is stated that:—
  "One of the objects of the elementary school is to discover individual children who show promise of exceptional capacity and to develop their special gifts."
  I would ask whether the ordinary examination by means of which the children in the elementary schools are selected is a means of discovering "individual children who show promise of exceptional capacity," and who have "special gifts," and I would ask, further, whether in the ordinary secondary schools as organised in this country
  490
  there is any opportunity afforded by which such special gifts, even if they are discovered, can be properly developed? I cannot help thinking that the Board of Education adopted these Regulations without sufficient consideration, and it is satisfactory to know that we cannot blame the present President of the Board for having introduced these Regulations with regard to secondary schools. They were introduced by his predecessor, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, but I very much wish that the Board of Education, in considering the above way of linking up our elementary with the secondary schools, had given some consideration to the methods adopted in foreign countries, and I should say particularly in France. I venture to say that there are no workmen more intelligent, resourceful, inventive, and artistic than the French workmen. I would say, further, that there is no country in which education is organised on more democratic lines than in France; and, further, that in no country are better facilities afforded for the training, the formation and development of ability and talent wherever found. As regards the inventive powers of the French workman I need only refer to the early history of the motor car, the submarine, and the aeroplane.
  In these French schools, into which the children from the elementary schools are drafted in much larger numbers than is proposed by the Regulations for the secondary schools in this country, the education is on distinctly practical lines. Boys and girls have the opportunity of developing any artistic abilities or constructive power they may possess. The curriculum is absolutely practical in every way, and, moreover, children who show great literary genius have the opportunity of being drafted from their elementary school into the secondary school, where there is every opportunity for this genius to be properly developed. These schools hold such a high position in the French system of organisation that the heads of commercial houses send to the headmasters asking them to supply boys and girls from those schools. There is no difficulty whatever, owing to the practical character of the education which the children receive, in finding at once employment when they leave the school. Can the same thing be said of the secondary school into which a large percentage of the children from our elementary schools are now drafted? I

  491
  think I gathered from the statement of the President of the Board of Education that, out of 158,000 children now receiving instruction in State - aided secondary schools, 50,000 occupied what are called free places, and 15,000 entered under the Regulations recently issued by the Board of Education. I should very much like to know whether this large number of children, who are being educated in our secondary schools as now organised, are certain to find employment when they leave the schools. I should like to ask in what way a boy's chance of employment in commercial work is likely to be improved by learning that smattering of Latin which he will obtain in the few years in which he is being educated in the school? I quite agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir William Anson) that some secondary schools should give a sound classical education, and I should like to see Greek also introduced into some of the schools, but I very much doubt whether the children of the elementary schools would be better able to find employment when they leave school if they devote a year or two to acquiring a smattering of Latin or of Greek instead of learning science, mechanical drawing, and a knowledge of their own language which will enable them to write it with precision and accuracy.
  But what are the Regulations of these secondary schools? Encouragement is given to the teaching of Latin and Greek. A curriculum including two languages other than English, but making no provision for instruction in Latin, will only be approved when the Board is satisfied that the omission of Latin is to the educational advantage of the school. That is a very good regulation, but although it may be for the educational advantage of the school, I very much doubt whether it is to the educational advantage of those particular children who are drafted into that school, and will afterwards have to seek employment in commercial or industrial houses. What is still more worthy of notice is that the very fact of encouraging the teaching of Latin has prevented, as the Board state in their Report, the teaching of German to the same extent as previously. Personally I cannot help thinking that a knowledge of German even would be of more use to boys drafted into these schools from our elementary schools than a knowledge of
  492
  Latin. It must be remembered that this Regulation was due to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson). When the Regulation was adopted it was not suggested that the scholars should be sent into these particular secondary schools. If the Board had considered the position in France or Germany I am certain they never would have adopted this Regulation. In Germany there are schools of the highest possible grade, which enable a youth to remain until he is eighteen or nineteen years of age and then to pass into one of the higher technical institutions, in which no Latin or Greek is taught, but where the education is arranged on such practical lines as to enable those who take advantage of the instruction given in these institutions to proceed at once into commerce or elsewhere. The French people tried the very experiment which we are now trying in the secondary schools at the expense, I fear, of the children sent there for further education. In a very able report written on the French schools, M. Martel, that distinguished French educationist, says:—
  "If, by too theoretical an education, such as our masters are now giving nearly everywhere, we induce these children (most of whom are already inclined that way by the mistaken pride of their parents) on leaving school to swell the already overflowing ranks of writers, office clerks and competitors for minor posts in Government offices, we shall have spent the money of the communes and of the State upon a work not only useless but even dangerous; for with the millions thus improperly spent, we shall have led away from productive occupations hundreds of youths who, under better guidance, would have been useful to themselves, to society and to their country, and made of them in one word déclassés. In this matter reform is urgently necessary; we must revise our curriculum."
  That Report was published and issued by the Board of Education, and therefore they must be perfectly familiar with what it contains. I venture to say that it is equally necessary that we should revise the curriculum of our secondary schools into which these children are drafted unless we are prepared to allow them to remain wholly unable when they leave the schools to find employment except in the various occupations referred to in that Report. The writer of the Report says with reference to these schools:—
  "In how many towns and villages in England is money … being unwittingly wasted in giving to a boy either an education which is quite unsuited to his capacities and which will leave him stranded and out of employment at the end of it, or else a base, fraudulent and spurious imitation of education, which is far worse in its effects on him than if the lad had gone out immediately to the work of life on leaving the elementary school."
  I hope that the Board of Education will carefully bear that in mind. In the higher elementary schools, education of

  493
  this practical character is given, and opportunities are to be afforded to children from the elementary schools to remain in these higher elementary schools for a period of years. Whilst there are hundreds of secondary schools into which these children are being drafted, there are only at present forty-four higher elementary schools in which practical instruction of this kind is given. I am not aware that any of the children are sent under the Regulations from the elementary schools into these schools where they would receive useful and adequate education.
  I may conclude what I have to say as regards these secondary schools with one or two suggestions. I venture to hope that the Board of Education will keep a very careful watch on the future career of the children who are now being educated therein. I think they should require returns to be made by the school, showing in what occupations these boys and girls are engaged. I would also support the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Lockwood), namely, that the masters in these schools should be free, at least, to offer advice to the parents of the pupils, who at present are unable to be removed unless for gross misconduct or incorrigible idleness, and that they should suggest to the parents that where the boy is taking no advantage of the education, he should be removed or transferred to some other school, where the education given will be better suited to his capacity. Further, I venture to suggest that schools somewhat similar to the higher elementary schools, or even the old organised science schools, provided a sufficient amount of English literature is taught in them, should be more generously supported by the Board of Education, so that a greater percentage of the children should be drafted into those schools, where they would receive the practical instruction which is so desirable for them. I bring these matters under the consideration of the President of the Board of Education because I really believe that immediate action ought to be taken with a view to preventing some of the evils to which I have referred, and which are likely to follow unless our education is improved. I have made these suggestions, I may say, in the interests of all classes of the population, but particularly of the wage-earning classes, because I feel that on their ability and on the improved education which they may receive in our secondary schools and higher elementary schools, the commercial future and stability of this Empire very largely
  494
  depends. There is only one other matter with regard to the last suggestion made by the Board of Education with respect to university education. I will only say a few words upon that, because I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to receive a deputation, at any rate, from my own university. I can only hope that the President of the Board of Education may be present, and may assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer when that deputation comes forward. We have today received a big volume, showing the large amounts which are now given from the Imperial Exchequer and the Board of Education for university education. I quite agree with an hon. Member on the left that larger sums might be given. I only want to say, in conclusion, that I hope the President of the Board of Education will take seriously into consideration the very great importance of co-ordinating all these Grants that are at present given by the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture, and also from the Imperial Exchequer, so that our universities, instead of being, as some of them are dependent on Grants very much in the same way as are our technical schools, may have greater freedom and may receive aid, whether it comes from the Board of Education or from the Imperial Exchequer does not matter, in one lump sum, which they will be able to apply to the best of their abilities in the cause of higher education.
  Mr. LOUGH: I have no grievance to bring forward and no complaint to make against my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. On the contrary, I desire to join with other Members in congratulating him on the excellent work which he and the Board are doing. In this connection I cannot help repeating what I said when we recently discussed the various Departments of the Government. I regret very much that the status of the Board of Education was not dealt with in the same way as the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. My right hon. Friend must not assume that I would have put his salary at so high a figure as the salaries of the presidents of those Departments, but in carrying out my principle of economy I would certainly have insisted on equality as between the Departments. Why should we say that the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board is more important than the Board of Education? I think it is a great pity that the matter

  495
  was dealt with in such a piecemeal fashion. I listened with interest to the numerous appeals which came from both sides of the House that more money should be given to help the local authorities in dealing with this great work of education, but I would ask hon. Members on both sides to be a little reasonable in this matter. My hon. Friend, who represents one of the Divisions of Sheffield, made an appeal for no less than three millions. He said there were three authorities, the local authority, then the President of the Board, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they were bandied about from pillar to post, while the only thing that was clear was that they could get no more money. My hon. Friend left out one great authority, the House of Commons; and if this House chooses to take the matter in hand it can deal with those appeals which are made—in a somewhat truculent form, I think—on too many occasions very effectively. I would suggest that before a grant is made in regard to any of these excellent purposes, that the whole question of educational expenditure in this country ought to be considered by a Committee of this House, and dealt with from top to bottom. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to listen too readily to all these requests made to him, and should some hon. Member put down a motion for a Committee to consider educational expenditure, I appeal to him to support such a claim. One reason why I press this claim was that we have not been told how large the total expenditure is. I think my right hon. Friend was speaking of England and Wales. He ought to include Scotland and Ireland, and if he includes rates and taxes and expenditure from all sources he would find in this matter that the House is dealing with a subject of national expenditure, which is more costly to the people than any other burden whatever.
  I would venture to point out two or three aspects of the question. The first is that the great funds applied to education come from various sources in great profusion, and no one knows how much each of the different sources contributes. It was in 1833, I think, that the first Grant was given at all. Previous to that education was carried on in this country by private beneficence, and there are still vast funds contributed by good people to the help of this great work. No one knows how much those funds are, but
  496
  they ought certainly to be considered in relation to the others. We have then the rates, which are a mighty charge, and the total of which no one knows nor the relation to expenditure as between one place and another. We do not know how much the Government give or how it is applied. Those sums ought to be considered in relation to one another before any change is made in the amount. Though the money Grants are equal, they are given under entirely different circumstances. The same Grant is given to a country school, carried on in a schoolhouse, given by some liberal donor, as is given in some great city; and in some great working-class centre that has sprung up, and where the building has to be provided out of the rates. The rates, too, differ in a most extraordinary degree in different places. In some places the rates contribute only 15 per cent. of the expenditure, while in London the rates contribute 70 per cent. of the expenditure. In some instances where the rates are least the wealth is greatest and the need is least, and in other places where the rates are highest the wealth is least; and there is immense demand for the work the education authorities have to carry on. Those great aspects of the case are much more familiar to everyone of the educational authorities I see before me even than I am. I only point the aspects out as good reason why the whole matter ought to be considered by the only authority that is adequate to consider it, and that is a Committee of the House of Commons. There is immense overlapping in the educational expenditure. A few years ago all the inspectors were under the Board. Now each of the local authorities has got inspectors, or many of them have, and certainly in London we have. We do not know which authority they are under nor how far there is overlapping in the work. I appeal to the common-sense of the House to say whether this matter is not sufficiently important, whether these appeals have not been going on long enough to make us agree that the time has come when the question ought to be considered from a business point of view. If any business man or committee of business men had to deal with this question the first thing they would do would be to see what we are spending now and how it was distributed That would give us some guidance in the direction of economy. I believe there is a vast limit for economy. In the reform of the

  497
  Education Act of 1902 no attempt was made as to the regularisation of the Grants or of the financial control. There was no time for it. Now when there is a Liberal Government in power there is room for economy in expenditure without doing the slightest injury to the great cause of education. So I make only this one appeal to my hon. Friend: While I congratulate him most heartily on the way in which he and the able Board over which he presides are carrying on this work, I venture to ask him, with regard to this great question of education, whether he will not promise to give consideration to this idea, and, if an appeal should be put forward to appoint a Committee of this House to consider the whole question with a view of recommending to this House—which is the final authority—what is the best course to adopt, whether he will see his way to use the great influence of his high office in favour of that appeal?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): At this late hour I have only a very few words to say. I am glad that the Debate has continued as it began, with only a very short interlude, without any disproportionate discussion over religious differences. I do not think that anyone who listened to the statement of my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the Debate could imagine that he would in any way try by administrative action to upset the arrangements of the Act of 1902. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson) was very friendly in his criticism. He did say what I thought was rather an exaggeration, that every case where a voluntary school was involved showed unfairness on the part of the Board of Education. I cannot think that what followed in the course of discussion quite substantiated that statement. The only case brought forward, whether it was made good or not, was the Towyn case. I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend exercised his discretion in that case, as he is constantly exercising his discretion in the triple consideration of economy of the rates, secular education, and the religious desires of the parents. He does, as a matter of fact, often give that discretion in favour of the denomination, and he often comes in for a good deal of criticism from his own friends. It is often quite possible, in the exercise of a discretion of that kind, to make out a case against the Department. But I must say
  498
  that I think that the fact that criticism during the last two or three years has only found vent in two or three cases is a proof that the Department is not quite so unfair as a good many of its critics are apt in their general remarks to say.
  I should like to say a word or two with regard to certain criticisms that were made, especially, I think, by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University with regard to our dealings with secondary education. I think he is rather afraid that in some respects the Department is interfering too much. Whether that is so or not I think it is very important to bear in mind that the secondary education system of the country has been advancing in the last few years by leaps and bounds; that there had been not only the network of the secondary schools spreading all over the country, but that the existing schools have unquestionably been enormously improved in the character of the teachers and in their curriculum. There is no doubt but the Board has exercised much influence in these changes, and it is to a certain extent inevitable that when you are trying to work a system that will be adequate at any rate in quantity all over the country that a certain amount of uniformity will result from the pressure from the central authority. But having got this system from one end of the country to the other in secondary schools at the present time, the Board is doing its very best to encourage in every possible way through its inspectors diversity of effort on the part of these various schools, and I do not think, in fact, at any rate at the present moment, that the effect of a central bureaucracy will be to drive all schools into the one system.
  The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) took exception to one particular case at Abingdon in which he apparently thought that the action of the Board was directed to preventing Greek being taught in that particular school. Greek can be taught in that school. It is quite true that under the old scheme governing that school Greek and certain other particular subjects were required to be taught by the Charity Commission scheme which governed the trust. What has happened is that we extended to this school the latitude of teaching all subjects which are suitable for all secondary schools—a latitude which I think the hon. Baronet himself, during his administration, began to extend to secondary schools, and

  499
  which we have extended to this particular school. We are not preventing the trustees making Greek part of the curriculum. We have only given latitude to include it and all other subjects that they like, and I may say that the governors never asked that Greek should be preserved when the new scheme was proposed.
  Sir W. ANSON: I think the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the nature of my criticism. It was that the governors asked that the education in the scale should be conducted on its own lines. They did not ask latitude, but they asked security.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: As I understand the security depends upon themselves, there is nothing to prevent them continuing their course if they wish. There has been a certain amount of discussion as to the 25 per cent. of free places in secondary schools which are subsidised by the State. I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding with regard to this. There is no hard and fast rule with regard to it. It is perfectly true that in return for the Grant which is given to secondary schools the State must necessarily have some kind of system upon which it is going to act, and unquestionably the policy is that the State in the secondary schools ought to know nothing of class distinction.
  11.0 P.M.
  If well-to-do people in some districts dislike the introduction into the school of 25 per cent. of some different class than have hitherto been in the school, it is not a matter of which we can take account. I do not think there is anyone in this House who has a stronger feeling about the maintenance of the tone of school than I have. I am a public school man. But there is good and bad in tone. If tone means class exclusiveness, then it is bad. If tone means gentlemanly behaviour I do not think much of it if it cannot infect 25 per cent. of boys who come in from outside. We think there will be far more benefit to those children who may want a little teaching in tone than the remainder are likely to suffer. The really important criticism is that this 25 per cent. of free places affects the financial position of schools. That is really the most important part of the objection. I think there is a good deal of exaggeration with regard to that argument. In the first place I must remind the House that when 25 per cent. of free places
  500
  were in the first instance required, there was an increase in the Grant which was expected to cover very largely the financial loss. It may not have been sufficient in all cases, but all cases of financial difficulties are carefully considered. A reduction in the requirement has been made a very large number of cases. Out of 833 schools no less than 110 are not required to have the full 25 per cent. of free places. In these 110 cases there has been a smaller number of free places required, going as low in some cases as only 10 per cent. The Board of Education is still ready to take into consideration the cases of any schools that can come to us and show they are in a precarious position owing to this requirement. The whole system is being watched by the Board with the greatest care, and I do not think there are many schools that will in the long run suffer very severely by this new obligation.
  The only other point on which I want to say anything is on the question of money. I do not think very much will be expected from me on that head. I can only say of all the people who want more money for education those who are in the position of responsibility at the Board of Education want it most. Although we are not in a position to say there is going to be any general increase in the Grants, we can, I think, show that we have been doing our part in assisting those of the public who feel the pressure of the rates by, at any rate, having induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a large sum at our disposal for necessitous areas. No final decision has been taken as to the basis of distribution, but the Government recognise that places that are really necessitous outside the present category of those which are now getting Grants for necessitous schools, ought to and must have assistance on the same basis as the others. The Board of Education feel that at the present juncture no very great advance can be made by them without considerably greater assistance from the State. I think we may be satisfied to-night with the enormous interest which the House has taken in this educational Debate, feeling that if money is forthcoming, if the State is able to do a good deal to help the local authorities, this House will be ready to go in for an even greater educational advance. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), who made a very enthusiastic educational speech, spoke of the desirability of having committees appointed by the education

  501
  authorities for helping children in the choice of their occupations. We already have a Bill on the Table for that purpose. I hope the House will be able to accept that measure when it comes up, and perhaps to treat it as a non-contentious Bill. I trust that next year, if we can get the money, we may be able to go on with even bolder legislation, dealing with such questions as the half-time question and with day and evening continuation schools, which interest the whole House, and to which the only serious obstacle at the present time in the eyes of most Members is the question of money. At this late hour I do not propose to go into other questions. We have had a lengthy discussion, and I know that many other Members would like to speak, but I hope that after this six or seven hours' Debate the Committee will allow the Vote to be taken.
  Mr. ROBERT SANDERS: I myself voted for going to bed at eleven o'clock, but as a certain number of Gentlemen on the other side seemed anxious that the discussion should be continued beyond that hour the least we can do is to try and oblige them. It is with a feeling of deep depression that many of us have heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. We have been glad to hear hon. Members opposite no less than ourselves urging upon the Government the necessity of providing further funds in relief of the Education Rate. I am always glad to have an opportunity of being in agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite; but there is this difference between us and them. We are prepared to back up our opinions by our votes; they will slip away with their tails between their legs at the crack of the party whip. I do not want to go at length into the various reasons for the substantial rise that has taken place in our Education Rates, but I may mention that in the county from which I come the increases have amounted to the equivalent of a fourpenny rate since the present Government came into office.
  I want to call attention to one matter in which the Government, without adequate cause and without compensating advantage, has contributed to the considerable rise of the rates, and that is by the alterations that have been made in the Code as regards teachers. We have been forced within the last four years to increase our staff of adult teachers from 1,500 to 1,900, and the increase has been almost entirely in the most expensive class of teachers. The last alteration has forced us to drive out scores of female
  502
  supernumerary teachers. They are admirable teachers, but they have no union and no vote, and so the Board of Education and the Government pay no attention whatever to them. We are actually getting complaints that good, experienced teachers are turned adrift, and that their places are filled by young teachers who have great general knowledge, but who are by no means experts in imparting it. Those teachers who are put in get higher salaries than those who are turned adrift, and we have no evidence whatever that the education of our children is any better; in fact, a good many parents will tell you that it is worse.
  Another cause of the increase of the rates are the eccentricities of inspectors. Some eminent lawyer—I think it was Solon—was talking about equity, and he referred to equity as "a roguish thing that varied with the Chancellor's conscience, and that might vary with the size of the Chancellor's foot." It is the same thing with the inspectors of schools. The requirements of the Board vary with the conscience of the inspector, and that may vary with the size of the inspector's foot. One thing quite certain is that whatever is demanded the county has to pay for. This is doing a great deal of harm to the prospects of education, because it is making education in rural areas even more unpopular than it was before. It is preventing the best men from embarking in the service of education. Everyone who has taken part in a county council election is quite aware of the truth of what an hon. Gentleman has said in this Debate, namely, that the candidate for the county council lays stress upon the fact that the Education Rate has gone up. The consequence is that the able and the pushing man in the village does not want to go on the education committee. The village candidate turns his attention to main roads and drains rather than to the schools. I believe that that is all for the bad. I know the right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Treasury. I dare say he cannot, but as another hon. Gentleman said just now, this House can. I wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in the same sense as I am speaking to have the courage of their convictions and vote for this Amendment.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN Mr. RUNCIMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 134.

  Division No. 92.]

  AYES.

  [11.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Alden, Percy

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hayward, Evan

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Barnes, George N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roth, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brace, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seddon, James A.

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shackleton, David James

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Kemp, Sir George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Lambert, George

  Summers, James Woolley

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Leach, Charles

  Sutton, John E.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Clough, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Verney, Frederick William

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Vivian, Henry

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Manfield, Harry

  Walsh, Stephen

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Wardle, G. J.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Waring, Walter

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Edwards, Enoch

  Muspratt, Max

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Elverston, Harold

  Nellson, Francis

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Falconer, James

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ogden, Fred

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Furness, Stephen

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Pearce, William

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

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

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Wing, Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Guest, Major C. H. C.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  NOES.

  Adam, Major William A.

  Bird, Alfred

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Brassey, Captain R. (Banbury)

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Calley, Colonel Thomas C. P.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cator, John

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Barnston, Harry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Grant, J. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Mason, James F.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Nield, Herbert

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Ormsby-Gore, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Walrond, Hon. Llonel

  Keswick, William

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rothschild, Llonel de

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, Watson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Question put, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the President of the Board of Education."
  The Common divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 163.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES.

  [11.25 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Adam, Major William A.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nield, Herbert

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Grant, James Augustus

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Gretton, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Barnston, Harry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Rutherford, Watson

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

  Keswick, William

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cator, John

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Valentla, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Wairond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hen. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo.,Han. Sq.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Mason, James F.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newman, John R. P.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Baker, Arnold T. (Accrington)

  Hayward, Evan

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Henry, Charles Soloman

  Robinson, Sidney

  Barnes, George N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Holt, Richard Darning

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Brace, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seddon, James A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shackleton, David James

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Kemp, Sir George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lambert, George

  Summers, James Woolley

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Leach, Charles

  Sutton, John E.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Verney, Frederick William

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Vivian, Henry

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Manfield, Harry

  Walsh, Stephen

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Wardle, George J.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Waring, Walter

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Edwards, Enoch

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Elverston, Harold

  Muspratt, Max

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Falconer, James

  Neilson, Francis

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Furness, Stephen

  Ogden, Fred

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Pearce, William

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Wing, Thomas

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Pointer, Joseph

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Guest, Major C. H. C.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 135.

  Division No. 94.]

  AYES.

  [11.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Dillon, John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Barnes, George N.

  Clough, William

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, Enoch

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elverston, Harold

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Falconer, J.

  Boland, John Plus

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Brace, William

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Furness, Stephen

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Brigg, Sir John

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Bryce, John Annan

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cullinan, John

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Greig, Col. James W.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seddon, James A.

  Guest, Major C. H. C.

  Millar, J. D.

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Shackleton, David James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Simon, J. A.

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Summers, James Woolley

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Sutton, John E.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Muspratt, M.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Neilson, Francis

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, George

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ogden, Fred

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Pearson, Weetman, H. M.

  Verney, Frederick William

  Hogan, Michael

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Vivian, Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walters, John Tudor

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Waring, Walter

  Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Wason, Rt. Han. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Watt, Henry A.

  Kemp, Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Lambert, George

  Reddy, Michael

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Williams, Perry (Middlesbrough)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wing, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Younger, William (Peebles and Selkirk)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Manfield, Harry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Llewellyn, Venables

  Adam, Major William A.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Macmaster, Donald

  Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mason, James F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Morrison, Capt. J. A.

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, J. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Newman, John R. P.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Nield, Herbert

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bird, Alfred

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Brassey, Captain R. (Banbury)

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cater, John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, Watson

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Colefax, H. A.

  King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Staveley-Hill, H.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Steel-Maltland, A. D.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

  510

  511

  Sykes, Alan John

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether there will be an opportunity to consider the Resolution on Report? There are many hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to speak on the question. This is a matter of very great interest, and several of my hon. Friends attach very great importance to points to which they wish to call attention, and which they have not been able to raise. In the circumstances, the Government ought to afford us an opportunity of discussing the matter on Report, and I hope they will tell us what they mean to do.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not know whether it is possible to give a day on Report. There are other questions which hon. Members are anxious to discuss, and it is difficult to find a day. It will be open to the Noble Lord to raise the question on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is allotted.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then he can do so on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, on which any question can be raised. I am afraid I cannot undertake to give another day.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly appreciates that it was apparently well known that a large number of Gentlemen desired to take part in the Debate, and it is cold comfort to be told that they will have an opportunity on the Appropriation Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that there are many other questions of burning public interest to be raised on that Bill, and I hardly think the appeal of my Noble Friend should be met in that way.
  Question put, "That the Chairman report the Resolution to the House."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 130.

  Division No. 95.]

  AYES.

  [11.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, George

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Leach, Charles

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Edwards, Enoch

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Elverston, Harold

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Falconer, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Furness, Stephen

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barnes, George N.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Barton, William

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Manfield, Harry

  Boland, John Pius

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, George Croydon

  Brace, William

  Guest, Major C. H. C.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Brigg, Sir John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Bryce, John Annan

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Mooney, John J.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen, W.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Muspratt, Max

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Neilson, Francis

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clough, William

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ogden, Fred

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hogan, Michael

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cullinan, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Kemp, Sir George

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Dillon, John

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Reddy, Michael

  Summers, James Woolley

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sutton, John E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Toulmin, George

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Verney, Frederick William

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Vivian, Henry

  Wing, Thomas

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Seddon, James A.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Shackleton, David James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waring, Walter

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Adam, Major William A.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Nield, Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Grant, James Augustus

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gretton, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Haddock, George B.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hombro, Angus Valdemar

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barnston, Harry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rothschild, Llonel D.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rutherford, William Watson

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, H.

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Keswick, William

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cator, John

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Valentla, Viscount

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Sallsbury)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Mason, James F.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Morbeth, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again to-morrow.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker.
  Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, in pursuance of the Standing Orders.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: On a point of Order. With regard to the statement just made by the Clerk at the Table, is it not a rule of the House that the absence of Mr. Speaker must be announced at the commencement of the Sitting? If it is not so announced, can it be announced in the middle or any period of the Sitting except at the commencement?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I know of no Standing Order that prevents it being announced at any time.

REPORT OF SUPPLY.— [27th June.]
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.—VOTE 12.

    WAR OFFICE.
    Resolution reported:—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £429,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the War Office which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911.'
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I wish to ask the indulgence of the House while I lay before hon. Members a statement which I feel I ought to make at the earliest possible moment, in reply to some remarks in Committee of Supply by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Woolwich (Major Adam), and which affected others beside myself. Of what he said of myself I have no cause to complain—
    Major ADAM: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if he alludes to me, I said nothing personally against the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. HALDANE: I have just stated that I have no cause of complaint. But the hon. and gallant Member did say something about some not here to speak for themselves, and I feel that it is due to them that. I should rise and make a statement on their behalf. I do not propose to discuss the views of the hon. Member about the system of promotion in the Army, or the qualifications of the military members of the Army Council. As regards the latter, their records of service may be left to speak for them. In regard to the former, the present system has been evolved during a long series of years, and though, perhaps, not ideally perfect, is probably the one most in harmony with the traditions, and best calculated to meet the existing requirements of the British Army. There are however, some specific instances of alleged maladministration that the lion. and gallant Member brought to notice. I do not know whether he obtained the consent of the officers concerned before initiating a public discussion of their affairs.
    In any case the responsibility must rest with him, since he has compelled me, in defence of the administration of
    516
    the Army and of the senior officers against whom he has made accusations, to inform the House in detail of the circumstances of each of the cases specified. He stated that Colonel Callwell was practically expelled from the Army owing to his supersession by a junior officer. In regard to that I can only say that Colonel Callwell was not superseded, and that the Army Council regretted his retirement, which took place at his own request. He has written some valuable books on military subjects, and did well on the General Staff under the Director of Military Operations. On the completion of the tenure of his staff appointment at the War Office he, as a substantive colonel, had for a time to be placed on half-pay; but when a vacancy on the Staff occurred at home for which he seemed fitted by his rank, qualifications and service, that vacancy was offered to and accepted by him. Shortly afterwards he asked leave to withdraw acceptance, and applied to retire from the Army. Meanwhile another opportunity for employing him in an equally suitable and better paid appointment abroad had occurred, and he was given the opportunity of accepting it. He again declined, and adhered to his determination to retire.
    The hon. and gallant Member next referred to Major-General Sir Frederick Benson, who retired when not selected for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant-General. No one recognises more fully than myself the good services rendered by Major-General Benson, which last month were rewarded by His Majesty with a K.C.B.; but in selecting Major-Generals for promotion to Lieutenant-General regard must be had to the number and nature of the Lieutenant-Generals' appointments likely to become vacant and the possibility of employing the officer if promoted in one or other of these vacancies. Moreover, owing to the establishment of Lieutenant-Generals being fixed at twenty and that of Major-Generals at eighty-four, only about one Major-General out of four can expect to be promoted. In Major-General Benson's case it was considered that there was practically no chance of employing him in a Lieutenant-General's appointment, and for that reason he was not recommended for promotion.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat that? I did not hear it very well.
    Mr. HALDANE: I thought it right to put my remarks in writing as accuracy in

    517
    these matters is absolutely essential. I have checked this statement over with the distinguished authorities with whom I act.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich also referred to Major-General Scobell, more particularly in relation to Captain Brice-Wilson and the 5th Lancers, and made a statement which, he said, contained the truth about that regiment. With respect to Major-General Scobell, the hon. and gallant Member made a private communication to me on 15th March last worded in the terms which he repeated to the Committee on 27th June. I had perhaps better read what the hon. Member said:—
    "The only way in which I can benefit Captain Wilson, even indirectly, is, I am advised, to read that statement to the House. I have it type-written, so that there may be no mistake and that I may not be led away by rhetorical exaggeration. It is as follows: That Major-General H. J Scobell, 512, Royal Irish Lancers, did render to your superior authority a confidential report or confidential reports of an officer or officers under his command, which report or reports contained wilful and deliberate misstatements of fact, thereby deceiving those in authority to whom the report Or reports were rendered, and causing injustice to be done to one of the regiment's under his command.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1910, col. 763.]
    12.0 M.
    My reply, on March 19th, was as follows:—
    "I have considered your letter of the 15th inst. and the statement accompanying it, in which you allege that Major-General Scobell, when in command of the 1st Cavalry Brigade, rendered misleading confidential reports on certain officers, presumably of the 5th Lancers, whose names you do not specify. In justice to Major-General Scobell it is impossible for me to discuss such n charge in private correspondence, nor am I prepared to reopen the question of the 5th Lancers, which, after careful enquiry and consideration, was decided on its merits more than two and a half years ago. The action then taken was, in my opinion, fully justified by the circumstances of the case."
    The vagueness of the charge is apparent. The nature and dates of the reports, and the names of the officers reported on, are not specified. Possibly the reason these particulars have not been given is that the hon. and gallant Member is not acquainted with them, and has based his charge on unverified rumours.
    When a General Officer commanding, in pursuance of the regulations, reports confidentially on those under his command, and when these reports are confirmed by higher authority, how can the Army Council impute bad faith to the opinion which the General Officer commanding is bound to express merely because the junior officers who are adversely reported on, and to whom the adverse reports are communicated, do not concur in that
    518
    opinion? The hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich seems to think that the removal of Captain Brice-Wilson and other officers of the 5th Lancers to half-pay was due to Major-General Scobell. He is quite mistaken. It was due to the representations submitted to the Army Council in the autumn of 1907 by responsible officers of much higher rank than Major-General Scobell, who, from personal inspection, were strongly of opinion that the regiment would not be as efficient as it ought to be until certain officers had been removed therefrom.
    In these, as in other matters, the Army Council endeavour to act without partiality, favour, or affection. They are anxious to retain the services of every regimental officer who is deserving of retention, but they cannot disregard the adverse reports of responsible commanders and inspecting officers, and the interests of the regiment and of the Army generally must be the paramount consideration. I may add that Major-General Scobell returned from South Africa on leave a few days ago. He took an early opportunity of calling at the War Office, and in accordance with paragraph 446 of the King's Regulations, has since written officially calling attention to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich as impugning his character as an officer and a gentleman. It now rests with the Army Council to investigate the indefinite charge made against Major-General Scobell, so far as such a charge can be investigated without particulars being given. Being well acquainted with the case, I feel confident that the result will be the complete exoneration of Major-General Scobell.
    The case of Captain Brice-Wilson has been referred to on several occasions in this House, and there is little to add to the explanation given by me on 30th July, 1908. The hon. and gallant Member appears to be unaware that Captain Wilson acknowledged the receipt of copies of the adverse reports which had been made on him, and that he had been informed that those reports might militate against his further advancement. When at a later date it was deemed advisable in the interests of the 5th Lancers to remove certain officers, and among them Captain Wilson, it was decided that this officer, though placed on half-pay, should be allowed to retain the appointment of Superintendent of Gymnasia at York, which he then held. In January, 1908,

    519
    an account of Captain Wilson's case appeared in the "Daily Mail," containing matter which could only have been furnished through the connivance of that officer. Three attempts were made to obtain a satisfactory explanation from Captain Wilson for this serious breach of the King's Regulations, but without result, and it was therefore decided that he could not be permitted to retain his extra regimental appointment, from which he accordingly had to revert to half-pay. Captain Wilson exercised his rights under Section 42 of the Army Act and appealed to the King. The whole case was reviewed, and laid before His Majesty, who was pleased to issue no special instructions thereon. A further petition was afterwards received from Captain Wilson's wife, when the case was again reviewed and laid before His Majesty. Captain Wilson's case has received every possible consideration, and the position in which he now finds himself is the direct outcome of his disregard for the regulations of the Army.
    In the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Gavin, quoted by the hon. and gallant Member, the facts do not bear out the construction it is sought to place on it. Colonel Gavin was originally promoted, after some hesitation, on account of the reports that had been received on him. During the first year of his command (1903) it was clear from the reports of the officers under whom he was serving that he was not a success as a commanding officer, and he was warned that he must remedy the defects brought to notice. In the following year Colonel Gavin was informed by the General Officer under whose immediate command he was serving that his removal from the command of his battalion would be recommended, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, who was acquainted with all the facts of the case, supported this recommendation. The War Office letter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was in accordance with the procedure in force at that time, under which only the annual confidential reports, if adverse, were communicated to officers. Since then the rule has been altered so as to include any special reports which may be made, or called for, upon an officer. The case was considered by the Selection Board at the time, and it was decided that the retention of Colonel Gavin in command of his regiment was neither in
    520
    the interests of the regiment nor of the service. Colonel Gavin thereupon appealed to the King, and the case was again reopened and considered, the previous decision being adhered to.
    The last case brought to notice by the hon. and gallant Member is that of Mr. J. S. Gage, late Lieutenant 3rd Dragoon. Guards. This officer joined the Army from the Militia in 1900 and retired in 1906. From the first the officers under whom Lieutenant Gage served reported indifferently upon him, as lacking in the qualifications necessary to a cavalry officer. Owing to the constant adverse reports, rendered over a course of five years by six different Commanding Officers and General Officers, the Army Council decided that there was no alternative but to call upon Lieutenant Gage to resign his commission, which decision, however, conveyed no reflection upon his honour or character, but merely that he was not adapted to the requirements of his profession. This officer was fully aware of the contents of every adverse report that was made on him, and of the reasons why it was necessary to call upon him to resign his commission. That is all I have to say. In the case of the 5th Lancers, the advice upon which we acted was the advice of the Inspector-General of the Forces at the time, and of General Sir John French, then General Officer Commanding-in-Chief at Aldershot, who personally investigated the case and reported to the Army Council.
    Major W. A. ADAM: At this late hour, and being totally unprepared to speak, I can do nothing but go over the points touched upon by the Secretary of State for War. I think, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman had intended to allude to the speech which I made on the Army Estimates some ten days ago, it would have been more courteous, especially to a young Member of the House, to have warned me of his intention. I can only say in reply to the Secretary of State that I listened intently to what he has addressed to the House, and in all his remarks there is not one single confutation of any fact which I stated in my former speech. I will take the facts as the Secretary of State took them.
    The first case the right hon. Gentleman alluded to was that of Colonel Callwell. He told us that Colonel Callwell was not superseded. I do not understand the expression "superseded" if it does not mean

    521
    when an officer senior to another officer is passed over by an officer junior to himself for promotion or for a position for which he is well qualified. If that is the meaning of supersession—and I think it is—then Colonel Callwell was superseded. The next case which the Secretary of State mentioned was that of Major-General Sir Frederick Benson. Major-General Benson was near the head of the list of Major-Generals at the time that he came up for promotion, and without anything being said against him, as the Secretary of State admits, he was passed over, superseded. by an officer junior to himself. Naturally Major-General Benson had no other course than to retire. That is the way that the Army has lost, is losing every day, and will continue to lose, perhaps its very best officers. A man's career is not ensured to him, and he knows that any day he may be passed over by the extraordinary decisions of the Selection Board, which the Secretary of State has praised so much, but whose decisions officers of the Army, no matter how intimate they are with the cases which come before the Board, cannot understand, nor can they understand how they are given.
    I have no hesitation in saying that the Selection Board, according to the practice now in the Army, has no possibility of finding out the best men for the posts it wishes to fill. It simply goes on reports, perhaps some years old. I do not say it is the fault of the Selection Board. It is the fault of the whole system. The Selection Board, when a case comes before it for decision, has not before it the data which it ought to have in a highly organised Army like our own. Then the Secretary of State for War alluded to the case of Captain Brice-Wilson and the 5th Lancers. That is a notorious case. The Secretary of State said that I probably relied on hearsay and rumours. I did no such thing. I based my statement on a report which I had seen myself, and I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing that statement either in this House or anywhere else. The Secretary of State said that the reports were communicated to Captain Brice-Wilson. So they were, but if we take into consideration the circumstances under which those reports were communicated, a very different aspect is put on the case. According to the letter and spirit of the Regulations, every officer in His Majesty's Service has the right to see a confidential
    522
    report that may be prejudicial to himself; he has the right to see that report and be allowed to express an opinion on it and give notice of appeal before any use is made of the report. The reports were never shown to Captain Brice-Wilson. It was only by accident, after they had been rendered to the superior authority, that they came to his knowledge. He asked to see them, and it was only after many weary weeks of waiting that they came back and were communicated to him. No doubt a decision had been come to on them a long time previously. Captain Brice-Wilson tried to get an inquiry into his case at the time, and he has been trying ever since, but he has never been successful.
    The Secretary for War refuses to reopen the case because, he says, there has been full inquiry into it. I do not know what the Members of this House understand by the word "inquiry." To my limited knowledge an inquiry should cover and hear both sides of the question. But the inquiry conducted into the case of Captain Brice-Wilson has only dealt with one side of the question. It has only seen the reports of the Colonel Commanding the regiment and of Major-General Scobell. It has never heard what Captain Brice-Wilson has to say. The appeal which he made in this case was suppressed by the very officer or officers who had rendered the reports, and Captain Brice-Wilson is still asking for an inquiry.
    Not one word of what the Secretary for War has said to-day confutes any of the statements which I made in my original speech. I take it in cases like this—and we have many of them—I have only picked out three or four haphazard—I say in cases where there is doubt as to an officer's efficiency for his position, and it is the intention of the Government to supersede him or to place him outside the Active List of the Army, then surely, in justice to himself and to the whole of the Army, that officer should be told on what ground he is condemned; he should be given a full right of appeal against the decision, and, if that appeal is not to be entertained, then surely he ought to have, in common justice, a Court of Inquiry, before which the facts on both sides of the case might be stated. The Army Council and the Selection Board judge these cases on reports by senior officers. They never hear the other side of the case. I sincerely hope, for the sake of Captain Bryce-Wilson, and for the sake

    523
    of those other officers whom I have mentioned, the Government will see fit to hold—what should have been held in the first instance—a Court of Inquiry to hear both sides of the question.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I feel confident that those who have heard the statement of the Secretary for War in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend will share with me reluctance to express any opinion upon what we may call the merits of the Debate. I am asked, "Why?" We sometimes call ourselves—in a popular phrase—the High Court of Parliament. When we say that we think chiefly of this chamber. It is true, in a sense, the House of Commons does supply—only informally, perhaps—the ultimate tribunal before which hard cases can be brought.
    Now I will answer the question "Why?" which an hon. Member puts to me. Would anybody ask any court to adjudicate upon matters affecting the personal honour and prospects of men of high position at twelve o'clock at night for no earthly reason? Surely the Secretary of State for War could hardly have been aware of what he was asking the House to do when at midnight he raised this question without even giving notice to my hon. Friend of his intention to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, ten days ago—I am speaking from memory and I think it was on Monday week—in what is called the dinner hour, criticised and criticised severely—I am not going to pronounce any opinion on whether he was right or wrong in his criticism—the system which now obtains for relieving officers of their positions in the Army and promoting others, and in support of his contention he instanced a number of cases. That is on Monday week, and we have not heard a word about it since till now. There are very few Members of this House, except those who read the OFFICIAL REPORT, who had any knowledge that so pointed an indictment had been brought, supported by arguments which had, from the necessity of the case, reflected upon the capacity, and in some cases upon the personal honour, of men many of whom we are proud to call our friends. General Scobell is a personal friend of my own, and how can I be expected to speak impartially on this matter when I have had no opportunity of examination and of putting myself in a position to speak as a juryman and in a frame of mind to judge of the matter. This criticism being made
    524
    on Monday week, now without a word of warning to the House or to the hon. and gallant Member who had obviously taken great pains, and for no reason which anybody is able to fathom the Secretary of State for War asks us to take the report of the vote of his own salary.
    That is from the point of view of Parliamentary life a most lamentable course. The right hon. Gentleman said the matter was so grave that he had had to commit his statement to writing. If it was of that gravity was not there some other channel of communication which he might have chosen, or if he thought this was the proper channel of communication was there not some other hour of the day or night more suited than the present for the declaration of a statement so grave that a Minister of the Crown who has an easy command of words felt it necessary to commit it to writing and read it out to the House. From that point of view, even if this House is the proper tribunal for deciding this question, which is a more serious one than one dealing with large sums of money, because it affects the reputation of men in the Army and the esteem in which they are held by their friends. I think the Secretary of State for War has been most unfortunate in selecting midnight as the hour for bringing up such a matter, and bringing it without any notice to the House or to the hon. Member he was replying to after ten days. He did not impugn either the honour of the hon. and gallant Gentleman or the veracity of the statements he made, and I think it was most unfortunate to make such a statement at such an hour.
    There is, perhaps, something else to be said, though by comparison it sinks into insignificance. We have a right to complain that the Government should take the Report stage of the right hon. Gentleman's salary to-night. Some of us were led to understand it was necessary to get this Vote on the score of money. I could not believe that. On this day week automatically the Government will get this amount of money. The amount involved is less than half a million. If the Government had chosen, we would have given them Votes embracing far larger sums without debate. It now appears that the reason was that the Secretary of State wished, late at night, to make a considered reply to a verbal speech delivered ten days earlier, and by rising first and confining his remarks to that one point, he has defrauded every member of the House of

    525
    the opportunity of speaking upon other questions, except by moving reductions on this or that point. The right hon. Gentleman has deliberately exhausted his opportunity of dealing with the many important point which can be raised on the Army Estimates in order to make a written reply to a verbal attack delivered ten days before. That is a departure from the spirit of the new Supply rule. It is well understood that it is within the right of the Opposition to select what Vote shall be down on one of the allotted days of Supply, and if they were not satisfied with one day the Vote was never finally disposed of until they were satisfied. The end of Supply comes within the week. Why are we asked to close the whole of our opportunity of discussing War Office affairs? I wanted to know, and now I know, and the reason is that the Secretary for War, misguided, no doubt, by a desire to vindicate those he has to defend, felt it was incumbent upon him to make that statement at the earliest moment. It is unfortunate that the earliest moment occurs ten days after the attack was made, and that it leaves no opportunity for the House to discharge its functions as a High Court of Parliament.
    Mr. HALDANE: I feel the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says. This question can be raised on Vote 13 and the Government is willing to put that Vote down as first Order for Tuesday. My reason for making the statement to-night is that I thought I ought to make it at the earliest opportunity I could, and it is necessary that we should get this £430,000 to-night. I make the suggestion simply for the purpose of showing the right hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to burke enquiry.
    Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I really cannot fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. May I point out to the House that it was under strong protest from me that this Order was taken tonight? I was told it was necessary, because the Secretary of State wanted his salary. I do not know that it was required for his own pecuniary reasons, but it was represented to me that it was necessary he should get the Report stage of the Vote to-night. I have a very strong feeling, and I think every old soldier will agree with me, that this system of confidential reports requires very careful consideration and overhauling. It is a system
    526
    under which very grave injustice is often done to officers, and they find it difficult to get any redress. It is not only the case in the Army, but it is going to be the case in the Navy. My complaint is that having been asked to take this Vote to-night for the purpose of giving the necessary money for the Army, it appears now the real reason is that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to answer at half-past twelve certain questions which were asked at half-past nine ten days ago. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of funking, but I do complain that when this Vote is put down for discussion at this time, he should take the opportunity of making an attack on my hon. and gallant Friend—[An HON. MEMBER, "No."] I say it was an attack. It may or may not have been justified, but it was an attack. I say the right hon. Gentleman ought to have given my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Adam) notice that he was going to deal with this matter.
    I have a further grievance. We have asked the Government for extra days to discuss Supply. There are many questions which we want to discuss, and the Government had plenty of time, but they chose to waste two days on the question of Women Suffrage. Some hon. Members went up in one lift in favour of the ladies and came down in the next lift against them. I complain of the mismanagement of business which has wasted two very valuable days just at the time of the Session when they might have been given, and ought to have been given, to the discussion of important Votes in Supply. I think the case is very strong. The Government, with the view of putting their political opponents into a difficulty, took short Votes on Account, thereby depriving them of those ad hoc discussions in Committee of Supply which are in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House. They lumped everything in these Votes on Account, and when fair and legitimate grievances are brought up we are told that English, Scotch, and Irish, Army and Navy, and whatever other grievances there may be, can all be discussed on the Appropriation Bill. How many days are the Government going to give to the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill? It seems to me that it will last nearly as long as the discussion on Woman Suffrage. The right hon. Gentleman has offered to put down Vote 13 as the first Order on Tuesday. Is not that a non-effective Vote? Are we to discuss on that Vote

    527
    the question of the right hon. Gentleman's reason for placing these officers on half-pay?
    We were already promised many other questions on the Appropriation Bill, and I understand it was for next Tuesday. Then we had Cordite next Tuesday. Does the right hon. Gentleman count that as non-effective? Perhaps he will allow me, with great respect, to say that it is the right of the Opposition and not of the Government to ask such Votes as they want taken in Committee of Supply, and it is especially the right of the Opposition at this particular moment, when the Government refuse us extra time and we only have, apart from Votes which I believe are mainly for Scotland, a day. It is our right to say which Votes we want to have on that day. We have already got the two Cordite Votes on the Army and the Navy, and I believe they will take some time. We decline to be put off by the right hon. Gentleman with Vote 13, a non-effective Vote. We have many other things to discuss after Cordite. If he really wants to discuss that non-effective Vote, and he plays the game on Tuesday, he will be sitting here until six o'clock on Wednesday morning. I really think we are being treated very badly. I was asked some days ago if I would agree to the taking of this Vote after eleven o'clock, because the Government wanted money, and I refused to do so. I said it was perfectly evident that the money would come under the Appropriation Bill guillotine on this day week or to-morrow week. Anyone who has been in this House not only as long as I have been, but even in the last Parliament, knows quite well that the ordinary time for passing the Appropriation Bill is about the 10th of August. All this talk about the Government wanting money now is nonsense. It is bad management, and I can only say that I am surprised that I, as Chief Whip, should have been asked to agree to a Vote to-night to provide money which is absolutely necessary!
    Mr. HALDANE: Yes, really necessary.
    Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: Yes, really necessary! But it is apparently necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech which he did not dare make ten days ago.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I am not quite convinced by the explanation which the
    528
    Secretary of State has made, and I think I will submit a motion that the further consideration of this Resolution should be adjourned. What is the right hon. Gentleman's case? That another opportunity, which he says, and quite truly says, is a more appropriate opportunity for discussing this matter might be afforded on Vote 13. If it is a more appropriate opportunity why does he select this less appropriate opportunity? The right hon. Gentleman has taken the whole House by surprise when, without any notice, before my right hon. Friend, who is entitled in ordinary circumstances to catch the eye of the Chair, he intervenes with a written statement which might be more appropriately brought forward on Vote 13, but which he chooses to bring forward at this very inconvenient moment, taking a departure from the ordinary natural course, and making it difficult for many of my hon. Friends to take part in the Debate by occupying a considerable part of the time which is open to the House to discuss the matter at all, and then in the end telling us that a better opportunity would be afforded on Vote 13, and that it can be put down, if we wish, on Tuesday as the First Order. He mistakes the whole position, which is usual, not only between the Opposition and the Government, but between my hon. and gallant Friend and the Government. It is a very important issue. It affects a number of gallant officers. From another point of view it is not an ordinary House of Commons issue. Why is the ordinary business of the House on Tuesday to be upset by putting down Vote 13? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make his statement he should have put Vote 13 down to-day. He could have given proper notice, so that everyone would have known what was going to happen. Instead, he has taken a highly novel and inconvenient course, and put us in the position of having to consider a judicial question which ought never to be raised late at night, when the House is not fit to deal with the matter. Everybody knows that some Members are tired, some are excited—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and some are foolish. The proper opportunity for discussion was earlier in the afternoon. Since the right hon. Gentleman thinks it so important as to deem it necessary to write every word he was going to say, I really think he might have given a little time and taken some other business. Why did he not put down Vote 13 [Non-effective

    529
    Services] for the purpose of discussing this matter? If all this importance is attached to it, it is not a fit hour at which to raise it. In view of the way the Government have handled their business, and of their unfairness and discourtesy to my hon. and gallant Friend, I protest against a matter of this kind being taken at this hour, and I move, "That the further consideration of the Report be adjourned."
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSseconded the Motion.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I support the Motion, and appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be reasonable. Up to the present time the Government have been fairly reasonable, but I think the reason of that is largely due to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford, from whose usual place I am speaking. We have listened to-night to a most important statement by the right hon. Gentleman, so important that he had it written and read it to us from the Table. I think a statement of such importance ought not to be made in the middle of the night. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now showed that the Government have plenty of time, and the statement could have been made at a time different from that which has been chosen. I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman, by the method he has adopted, has not treated my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich in a fair and proper way. He is a new Member, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have shown to him every courtesy. I think the least the Secretary for War could have done was to give him fair warning that he intended to answer him in debate this evening.
    In the circumstances the Noble Lord is entirely justified in moving the adjournment of the Debate. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Motion I think the House will agree that he will be treating us in a most extraordinary manner. Those of us who were Members of the last Parliament were accustomed to be ridden over rough-shod by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We were then a weak body only 160 strong, but still even in those days, I think hon. Members opposite will agree, we were able to put up a fair fight. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of one particular occasion, of which he will have a vivid recollection, when we sat up on
    530
    the Army Annual Bill until 6.30 on the following evening. We are a great deal stronger now on these Benches than we were in the last Parliament, and I believe there are many young Members who are very ready and willing to win their spurs in all-night sittings. If the right hon. Gentleman is reasonable we shall all be reasonable, and I ask him to accept the Motion.
    Mr. HALDANE: I have listened to the appeal made by the hon. Member opposite and I say, whether it is mismanagement or not as was suggested that it is not a question of War Office salary, but that the troops cannot be paid unless I get this money to-night. This is a case in which we must have the money to carry on the Service. I am stating what is an actual fact. As I have said before, I quite recognise that there may be a desire to comment on a statement which I made not by way of initiating any debate, but in defence of an officer whom I had no opportunity of before defending. I was, unfortunately, out of the House at the moment, it was at the dinner hour, when the reference was made to Major-General Scobell and the other officers. I had no opportunity of having a full knowledge of what had been said, or of dealing with it that night. I think it may be quite reasonable that something further should be said; and I am not in any sense trying to dictate in any way to the Opposition. I quite recognise that it is their choice as to what Vote should be put down. I am willing to take any course that is most convenient to the House. If they wish they can have Vote 13 [Non-Effective Services] put down on Tuesday, and that will give them the opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then take the Cordite Vote [Vote 9.—Armaments and Engineers Stores] in that case, and the further discussion will be taken on the Appropriation Bill. I need not say I have not the smallest wish to preclude any comment on the grave statement I have made to-night. I only assure the House I had the feeling that I ought to make a statement in this case at the very earliest opportunity, and I did what I conceived to be my duty to-night.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has again brought the Debate round to Major-General Scobell. I do not think he is entitled to do that after having just stated that his reason for putting down

    531
    this Vote to-night was that it was absolutely necessary to get something less than half a million to pay the Army. I do not think he is conducting the Debate in a fair manner by raising a subject at one o'clock which ought not to have been raised at twelve o'clock, and a subject raising the personal honour of a respected officer, Major-General Scobell, who has many personal friends on this side of the House. How then can it be the case that this Vote had to be put down only because the Government wanted money? We have had it from my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Acland-Hood) that the Government were offered other Army Votes bringing in millions instead of this Vote which brings in less than half a million—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is so. I am speaking with my right hon. Friend by my side, and he has objected altogether to this Vote being taken to-night. He has been absolutely unable to say why it was necessary to put down a Vote of less than half a million. No counter proposal has been made. Let me put it this way. My right hon. Friend was prepared to take Army Votes which would have amounted to larger sums of money, and non-contentious ones, too. So that if money was the object the Secretary for War might have had more money. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say in reply to the Motion for Adjournment that he cannot accede to it because money is the object. It is not the object!
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the right hon. Gentleman has even now missed the real gravamen of our complaint, because I think that we on this side of the House, who wanted to raise other questions, have great cause for objection to the course which has been taken. The personal question which has been raised by the Secretary of State for War is certainly of great public interest, but it is not the question that many of us came down to the House to discuss on the Report of these Army Estimates. By the action of the right hon. Gentleman we are entirely shut out from raising these questions. The right hon. Gentleman insisted upon addressing the House first, and so prevented my right hon. Friend from moving any reduction by way of Amendment; so that the main Question was put from the Chair and, therefore, that power of moving amendments was taken away from us. What is the result
    532
    of that? It is that the right hon. Gentleman must get his Vote without answering a great many things which we raised when the Army Estimates were discussed on 27th June, and also without answering those points which we are anxious to raise this evening. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that on 27th June he got up and answered my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), who had raised a very important question upon these Estimates, but he entirely ignored a great many other—which he perhaps was pleased to call minor—points which had been raised by other Members interested in various branches of the Army. I think we have a considerable grievance in the matter. We are very well justified in pressing this Motion for Adjournment on the Government. After all, it is surely absurd to offer this excuse, or it is a confession of gross mismanagement on the part of the Government. It seems difficult to believe the Government when they come down and tell us that the Army cannot be paid unless this Vote is carried to-night. Are we to believe that the whole of the pay of the British Army is run to so fine a point that if this Vote is not carried within a given hour the whole of the military organisation will he upset? I submit that the proposition is ridiculous. It is either incredible, or it is incredibly foolish.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. I am rather inclined to support him on this occasion. I understand he wants £400,000, and must get it to-night—[The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR assented]—otherwise he will not be able to pay the men. Is that another triumph of Free Trade finance? If the right hon. Gentleman really assures me that that is the question, as I here put it, I feel tempted to vote with him.
    Lord BALCARRES: Do I understand that the Army Council does not transfer money from one Vote to another?
    Mr. HALDANE: We have had only Vote A and Vote 1: that is the only money we have had. It was at the request of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Vote, which includes my salary, was put down ten days ago. We should have been glad to put down another Vote, but at the request of the Opposition we put down this Vote.
    Lord BALCARRES: That is no doubt the case. But my question was whether the Army Council transfers money from one Vote to another? Do I understand that the whole of the money already voted for Army services has been expended?
    Mr. HALDANE: It will be to-morrow.
    Lord BALCARRES: The pay of the whole Army has been voted. Ten years ago when the Supply Rule was set up it was found, by universal practice, that it was adequate to allow Votes to remain open until Supply was closed, practically to the end of the Session. Is it not extraordinary mismanagement that the right hon. Gentleman should find himself now without any money at all?
    Mr. HALDANE: I should have taken other Votes much larger in amount had it not been for the request of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Lord BALCARRES: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite candid with the House. We asked for the Vote of the Secretary of State's salary then, no doubt, in order to discuss his policy. We did not ask for the Secretary of State's Vote to-night, because we did not want to discuss his policy. We want to discuss his policy not at the end of a long Education Debate after eleven o'clock, but when we can have a proper debate, with an opportunity of moving a reduction. The right hon. Gentleman says that we asked for this Vote. I deny it absolutely. On being told that the right hon. Gentleman wanted money, we said, "Certainly, so far as Members on this side are concerned, we will give without debate non-controversial Votes carrying more money than the Secretary of State's salary." The Secretary to the Local Government Board says we have no right to take it.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I said nothing of the kind, and I am not Secretary to the Local Government Board.
    1.0 A.M.
    Lord BALCARRES: I apologise on both counts. If the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question I have put twice it would simplify matters, namely, Whether it is the practice and within the power of the War Office to transfer money from one Vote to another Vote?
    534
    Really, the right hon. Gentleman has no for taking this Vote against the wishes of the Opposition when he could have got larger sums on other Votes which, as we all know, as the right hon. Gentleman will admit, before the Appropriation Bill is passed, can be, in the Army as in the Navy, transferred from one Vote to the other. I should like to say one word in conclusion. When we passed a Supply Rule ten or eleven years ago, it was an understanding in the House and upon that understanding alone, I take it, that change got through. The understanding was to the effect that, questions of high policy apart, there rested absolutely within the right of the Opposition of the day the selection of the bulk of the Votes to be discussed. One or, perhaps, two days were within the right of the Nationalist Members, and the Labour party in the House, at that time a very much smaller party than it is now, had a kind of understanding with the Government of the day that they could name their day, which was generally the Home Office. I say that has been the point. We said then, and it has been universally admitted, that when high questions of policy arise the Government has the right to veto any particular Vote being taken. It is very easy to imagine that circumstances may arise when, in the public interests, it would be most undesirable to take, say, the Foreign Office Estimates. But the contrary is growing up, and the right hon. Gentleman, I think most improperly, has forced this Vote upon us against our will, to the great inconvenience of Members. He has not even given notice to the Member most concerned, and by the way he did it he prevents our moving reductions. I really think the right hon. Gentleman ought to adjourn this Debate. It is no good saying the Appropriation Bill is the proper time. We all know you cannot conduct a set Debate on the Appropriation Bill as you can on the Estimates; and he forgets that we have lost our day for Irish Estimates, and that the First Lord of the Treasury this afternoon practically allocated the Second Reading of that Bill to the Irish Estimates. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adjourn the Debate.
    Lord CASTLEREAGH: I think the right hon. Gentleman is treating the House in the most extraordinary way. I cannot believe that he is short of money as he said that he is, and that it is impossible that the forces can be paid, and I think he can

    535
    perfectly well accept the Motion moved by my Noble Friend, accept the Motion for Adjournment, and put down this Debate for to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman has treated the House in a most extraordinary way. If we go back to the beginning of this Debate, he rises in his place and so he is precluding all Amendments. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he expects us to take? How does he expect us to raise all these important points on the Army of which there has not been adequate discussion? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Financial Secretary to answer our questions? I for one say that I am not prepared to accept the answers from the Financial Secretary. I expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer all these important questions which are sure to be raised if this Adjournment is not accepted. The right hon. Gentleman rose in his place and read to us a typewritten statement—a statement which I have no doubt he has taken sixteen days to prepare. Well, he has had sixteen days to inform the hon. and gallant Member behind me of his course; and I think it would have been very courteous on his part if he had first of all taken some other opportunity of making this very important statement, and if he did not take another opportunity, certainly of giving notice to the House and my hon. and gallant Friend.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I want to ask this. Has the right hon. Gentleman not already got the pay for the Army? What has happened to it? He has got the whole of the pay. He tells us that the soldiers are not going to he paid to-morrow. Supposing something had happened here to-day that the House had had to be adjourned or something of that sort, does he mean to say that not one single soldier would have been paid to-morrow? Why have things been run so fine that we have come absolutely to the last cent? The whole of the money has been "blued," or spent on something else. All I can tell him is that if that is the case surely the credit of even Free Trade is not so bad that he could not have borrowed the money temporarily to have paid the soldiers for one day more or two or three days. The hon. Member for Swansea, for example, and other hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been only too glad to have guaranteed the money at the bank. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that he has not
    536
    received the whole of the pay for the Army for the whole year? He has received it, well, why cannot the men get it? Where is it?
    Mr. HALDANE: According to the invariable practice, which has prevailed from time immemorial, it has been spent on all sorts of things, to keep up buildings, and everything of that kind.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: We are faced with the fact that the whole of the money voted for the Army so far this year has been spent in other services. To-morrow morning, if anything happens here to-night, the Army is not to get a single penny. The whole of the Army will be suspended. I think that is perfect rubbish, and the point is a rotten one, or if true, it is a perfect scandal.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Secretary for War has to-night set us a very bad example. In the first place he has set a precedent for a method by which one of the great spending departments of the State can come to the House and do the Members out of their right of reducing the Vote. That is a most unfortunate thing to happen to a Liberal Government. If the precedent is followed it will be possible to prevent the Opposition at any time, whatever party it may consist of, from making effective criticism of that Department. The other example he has set us is that we have to-night had the privilege of listening to the reading of a long type-written statement. I almost expected that Mr. Deputy-Speaker would have called the right hon. Gentleman to order, because I find that a Member is not permitted to read a speech, although he may refresh his memory by a reference to notes. The right hon. Gentleman did not refresh his memory by reference to notes; he read every word from a long type-written document which he had either prepared himself or had prepared for him by some official.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: How is this relevant to the question before the House?
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I was about to connect it with the Motion by pointing out that when the Secretary for War comes here and reads a speech, and admits that the matter is a very grave one indeed, he cannot expect that matter to be passed over at this time of night without giving a reasonable opportunity; at a reasonable hour and on a reasonable day, for discussing the merits of this very

    537
    grave question. It seems to me the House is being treated in a discourteous manner, and, I also suggest, not in a Constitutional manner. In these circumstances we are entitled to protest in the clearest manner against the course a Minister of the Crown has taken. We are entitled to have it fully discussed, and to have an opportunity of going into the Lobby to enforce our views.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to ask the Secretary for War whether he has no other suggestion to offer as to occasions on which hon. Members on this side of the House may bring forward some of the questions they wished to discuss other than on the Appropriation Bill. That Bill was hypothecated to Irish affairs. When a question was put earlier in the evening with regard to education, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that education was to be raised in the Appropriation Bill. It is evident that all the various points which may be raised in regard to Army affairs cannot be raised after Irish affairs, and Education has been dealt with in the Appropriation Bill. There is another point. We have not heard quite definitely whether the officers and rank and file of the Army will not get their pay at some stated hour this afternoon supposing that the Debate is adjourned. One understands that transfers are made as between one vote and another, and that a sum voted for Army pay might
    properly have been applied to other Army purposes. If it is true that the money does run out this afternoon, how far are the Government and the Secretary for War justified in allowing the general amounts available for the services to be cut so fine? We were told earlier in the Session that the Government were taking one small vote on account after another because they were reverting to older and sounder methods of finance. We are entitled to ask the Secretary for War whether it is an older and sounder method of finance to allow the pay for the Army to run so fine?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see the relevance of this to the Motion for adjournment.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: One other point I should like to urge is that the answer given by the Secretary for War against the Motion for adjournment is inconclusive. He remarked that the Debate upon his salary was asked for by this side of the House. We did not merely ask for a debate on the salary, but a day on which it should take place. I think he will admit that we did not ask for it on this day and at this hour.
    Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 146.

    Division No. 96.]

    AYES.

    [1.20 a.m.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Llewelyn, Venables

    Adam, Major William A.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    , Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Falle, Bertram Godfrey

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Bagot, Captain Josceline

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Macmaster, Donald

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mason, James F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Barnston, Harry

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Newman, John R. P.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gretton, John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Nield, Herbert

    Bird, Alfred

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Brackenbury, Henry Langton

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)

    Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

    Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Butcher, John George (York)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

    Carlile, Edward Hildred

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rothschild, Llonel de

    Cater, John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, Watson

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Kerry, Earl of

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Colefax, Henry Arthur

    Keswick, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

    Kirkwood, John H. M.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Sykes, Alan John

    Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

    Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Walrond, Hon. Llonel

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Torrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Younger, George (Ayr Surghs)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    NOES.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Radford, George Heynes

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Allen, Charles Peter

    Hayward, Evan

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Hazleton, Richard

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Reddy, Michael

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hindle, Frederick George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barton, William

    Hogan, Michael

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Brace, William

    Hooper, Arthur George

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Robinson, Sidney

    Brigg, Sir John

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Keating, Matthew

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

    Seddon, James A.

    Clough, William

    Lambert, George

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Leach, Charles

    Shackleton, David James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lehmann, Rudolf C.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Soares, Ernest Joseph

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Summers, James Woolley

    Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sutton, John E.

    Crosfield, Arthur H.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Crossley, Sir William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

    Cullinan, John

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Toulmin, George

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Mallet. Charles Edward

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Manfield, Harry

    Verney, Frederick William

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Marks, George Croydon

    Vivian, Henry

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Walters, John Tudor

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Elverston, Harold

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Waring, Walter

    Falconer, James

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Muspratt, Max

    Watt, Henry A.

    Furness, Stephen

    Neilson, Francis

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Gibbins, F. W.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Ogden, Fred

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Guest, Major C. H. C.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

    Wing, Thomas

    Hancock, John George

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Ellbank and Mr. Gulland.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order. Is it within our power to move a reduction of the Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not in order, the Motion on the main question having been put.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The first point I wish to raise is in connection with the Territorial Force, and it is a point which I have raised in previous Debates. It is true it is only a minor point, but it is one of great importance to the Yeomanry and the Territorial Force. It is that we really do want, and must have, some training
    540
    manual more satisfactory than we have at the present time. We have now a drill-book, which came out, I think, in 1907, and that is only an amending drill-book to the one which came out in 1898. It is based entirely upon Cavalry, and there is no recognition of the fact that the Yeomanry is based upon entirely different principles from the Cavalry. The Yeomanry drill to-day in single rank, whereas the Cavalry drill in two ranks. It makes a great difference in the drill, and anyone who has to deal practically with the question will realise there are many difficulties connected with not having a proper manual of training. It is no use going

    541
    to the War Office on the matter. Very often officers who are directly in touch with troops and squadrons can point to small practical difficulties that do not come within the recognition of more senior officers, and, therefore, although these points are not raised by major-generals or lieutenant-generals, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay some attention to them. The defect makes it very difficult for men to learn their work. There are men in the Yeomanry who are very keen. They are very anxious to learn all they can about it, and they find every difficulty thrown in their way, because in order to get any appreciation of what they are there for, what Yeomanry training is, and what their duties are, they have to dig into three or four different books and find out from the different pages to which they are referred what their functions and duties really are.
    If that could be put into one small simple book which the Yeomanry could learn, it would be a very great advantage to the force. I think that the Yeomanry officers in this House will agree with me, although I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the point. There is another point which I think requires discussion and answer with regard to the Yeomanry, and that is the point which was raised by an hon. Member on the Estimates, and that is whether or not it is proposed to give the Yeomanry some white arm. A great many of us feel very strongly on this point. I was at manœuvres a year ago and with a squadron of Yeomanry, and for the time being I was attached to a regular cavalry regiment. The cavalry have gone back gradually to shock tactics, and they do a good deal of charging, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, as he has been at the manœuvres. The Yeomanry will be called upon no doubt when on active service to serve very often with Cavalry, and to make up regiments, and, maybe, to make up brigades. But the Yeomanry has no weapon whatever to charge with, no arm whatever which can be used in the charge. Take another point. The Yeomanry, it is supposed, would have to fight, if ever they do fight, in the roads and lanes of this country. Anybody who has done any manœuvres or field days in this country knows quite well the difficulty there will be, and the surprise there will be, and how the Yeomanry will find themselves at a disadvantage for want of an effective arm. I do hope the right hon.
    542
    Gentleman will apply his own commonsense to this question. Of course, nobody would suggest that the white arm is in any sense a rival to the rifle. We all want the Yeoman to be a good rifleman; we all want the main part of his training to be devoted to the effective use of the rifle and the taking up of positions from which rifle-fire can be directed. But we do say that circumstances will arise over and over again when the rifle is not a sufficient weapon—when there must be some other weapon in addition.
    We want a white arm, but we do not want a bayonet to put on the rifle only, because, although they may be useful dismounted, the bayonet on the end of a rifle is of very little use to a man on a horse. What we want is a slashing white arm of some sort. I do not think it would be much use giving the Yeomanry a sword with a point such as the Cavalry have, because it comes easier to Englishmen to slash and hit than it does to point. The Latin race always use the point more naturally than the blow. For the Yeomanry we want some slashing, hitting sword which can be used with ease in a skirmish and mêlée on horseback. There is another point in connection with the organisation of the Territorial Force and the Yeomanry branch, and that is, what is the proposed organisation in time of war? At present the Yeomanry requirements are organised into four squadrons, but I have heard rumours to the effect that on mobilisation they would be reduced to three, and that one of the squadrons would be split up among the others so as to increase their strength. I protest very seriously against that proposal if it is the case. I only ask if it is the case; I may have been misinformed. If it is the case I venture to suggest that it is a bad proposal, because, after all, that squadron which is split up loses its identity entirely, and all the officers, who have had all the worry and trouble and bother of training that squadron during peace time suddenly find men whom they have at last brought to the state they have been aiming at, taken away from them. I think that would be a great disaster and very unfortunate not only for the particular squadron but for the other squadrons which have so many strange faces put amongst them.
    Then there is the very important question, the horse question. I am rather sorry to have to raise it to-night after we have had a rather controversial discussion,

    543
    because I do not want this horse question to be regarded in a controversial light, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it as such. I purposely refrained from raising it on the Army Estimates when they were in Committee because there were other very important questions which had to be discussed, and I did not think we should get a good Debate upon horses. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have had a Committee sitting on the Hunters Improvement Society for some time, and we have brought out a report, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman has seen that report. At all events, it has been sent to him. It would be out of order for me to discuss the "breeding" parts of our recommendations; they would be more appropriate, no doubt, on the Board of Agriculture Vote or on the Development Commission. But I think I might call attention to those of our recommendations which deal with the co-operation which the Army should give in the matter of horse breeding. First of all let me say that I do not quite follow what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. I gather that he is going to buy a certain number of three-year-olds for the Army; well, that is all very good, but unless he is going to buy these three-year-olds at the same price as he now goes for older horses, I do not think it will be doing much good, for, after all, what is the gravamen of the charge in connection with horse buying now? It is that they give an average price which does not pay anybody to breed.
    No man can sell a horse which he has bred to the Army at the average now given and make a profit out of it. He is probably suffering a loss, and therefore, as it can only be done at a loss, it cannot be expected that anyone will go in for breeding Army horses. You may say, roughly, that a horse will cost at least £10 a year to a breeder, and therefore by the time the horse is three years old it has cost, certainly, £30 to produce. Well now, if the Army goes to that man and says "you must sell us that horse for £30." there is no profit, and no inducement for anyone to breed it. If he can raise the price and give £40 for three-year-olds, there would be just a small modicum of profit which might turn the balance slightly in the direction of encouraging breeding, So, I do hope, that if he is contemplating buying three-year-olds he will realise the relative necessity of increasing the price
    544
    at the same time, so that if he prefers, as he probably will have to do, to buy a certain proportion of older horses then let him pay a higher price for them than he does now. After all, it is very largely a question of price. It is quite true that it is not a branch of agriculture which will be much enjoyed in by anybody. I do not mean to say nobody will set up to breed horses at that price, but what will happen is this.
    The Army can if it will afford encouragement to ordinary light horse breeders. These horses are destined for more valuable purposes than the Army; they are destined to supply the demand for high-class riding horses of all kinds. If the breeders have a chance of getting rid of thoroughbred animals, which are not of the highest class, but which are very serviceable animals for the Army, at a reasonable price, they will be encouraged to breed horses, because they will be able to get rid of the misfits. I further ask that the Army should give a price that will pay the breeder. Army buyers are good judges, and often buy extraordinary horses for the money they pay, but it is bad for the Army to go on bleeding the horse-breeding industry by stinting the price. There are fewer people engaged in the industry, and there are fewer demands for misfits because of the development of motor traction, and it is more difficult for the breeders to get rid of them. If they look upon the Army as a last resort they might think it just as well to shoot the foal instead of keeping it to sell to the Army. Another way in which the Army might help horse-breeders is by keeping in closer touch with them. Good attempts have been made in this direction recently. There have been gatherings at which horses have been assembled for inspection by Army remount representatives. The owners of horses require experience as to the sort of horses which the Army will buy. When it is understood that an Army buyer is coming down, people will gather every sort of horse they have not been able to sell to anybody else under the impression that it will do for the Army. The Army is quite right in not buying them. When the breeders come to understand that the horse required for the Army is a fairly good one, better results will come from these meetings.
    The other day the Secretary for War said the Army would put their breeders under the new scheme of the Board of Agriculture. I hope he does not mean to confine

    545
    his buying to breeders who have registered mares and sires under that scheme. Do not let it be understood that only those people who have come in under the Government's scheme will have the chance of selling to the Government. I am afraid of too much red tape. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to give assistance to horse breeding by making it part of his policy to buy only a certain class of mares. If they were bought at four years old they would be bought at too high a price. Foreigners give higher prices and get better mares. I suggest that the Army might buy these mares before the foreigners want them, say at two or three years, and should then leave them with the breeder for a year for breeding purposes, and the mare should not be claimed for the Army unless there has been an opportunity of breeding from her at that early age. I will not go into the question whether or not that is injurious, because most experts are agreed that it is not injurious to breed from young mares. When the mare had to be taken for Army work you would have left some progeny to carry on the strain, and so diminish the lack of horses which exists at present. An additional advantage would be that it would be impossible to cast the mares from the service at a much earlier age than now. They would be valuable brood mares. The number of mares in the country is extraordinary. I am told the percentage is as high as seventy or eighty. That is all to the good, because you have a certain portion of stock which would be conceivable breeding stock, and which you can utilise if you encourage private enterprise to keep up the supply of horses. The annual demand for the Army is 3,000, so that the authorities cannot do very much, but they should do what they can to foster the industry. I have only touched upon what I must describe as rather a minor question, because I do not wish to embark on the larger questions connected with Army policy which were raised the other day.
    I should like to add that it seems to me rather a pity that the idea is getting about the country that the War Office is unsympathetic to the Territorial Association. I am no longer a member of a County Association myself; and I do not speak in any sense as directly representing an Association, but one cannot help hearing what is going on, and I am sorry to say it appears to me there is considerable friction exist-
    546
    ing between the War Office and the County Associations. A good deal of that friction is due to the fact that the War Office will not regard the County Associations as composed of business men and energetic men, who are ready to give their time and trouble to the undertakings which they have in hand. The War Office seems more inclined to regard them as the children who want to be led in leading strings. The War Office does not give them a free enough hand to deal with a great many matters. There is far too much correspondence, and the sending of papers from the County Associations to the War Office and back again. Perhaps a County Association wants to alter a door in the side of a building. They have to write the War Office. Such things as these are very galling and harassing to the County Associations, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not alter them will go far to spoil the success of his scheme, which otherwise, at all events with regard to organisation, appears to me to be satisfactory. It is a pity that the War Office does not get out of its habit of red tape and of persisting in treating the Associations as if they were merely minor departments at Whitehall. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remedy the position in this respect.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I wish to say a few words with regard to a point raised by the Noble Lord who has just sat down. I know, of course, that ignorance of orders is no excuse in the Army. At the same time I must say that I was not aware that this Debate was coming on, and so I did not prepare things I should liked to have discussed on the subject. There are, however, a few general matters with which I should like to deal. One is that in the Army Estimates we were told that six divisions were ready for war, but we see from a discussion in another place that two of those divisions are not ready. I never thought they were. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman on the point, but I do hope that something will be done to get these two remaining divisions prepared for mobilisation as soon as possible. If that is not done it means that the whole establishment substance will be absolutely upset. The arrangements for the drafts and the expeditionary force will be upset if those two divisions are not up to strength. It means that the Territorial Force will have to fill up the gap, and there will be a far bigger drain on the so-called general service soldiers in the Territorial Force than might

    547
    otherwise be expected. I do hope, therefore, that something will be done to hurry on the effectiveness of these two divisions. Otherwise it will be difficult indeed to have any settled policy for the Territorial Force.
    A very short time ago everybody in the counties, no matter of what party or station, no matter whether peers or labour men—everybody in the various counties worked together to try to make the Territorial Army a success. There was a sort of wedding between the Territorial Force and the Army which were joined up in one great entity. All of us were, so to speak, bridesmaids, and the right hon. Gentleman gave the bride away. But one would have thought this married couple would not have been launched out without it being seen that there was a sufficient supply for the natural increase that would occur. That increase is beginning, and the money which may have been sufficient for a commencement will not go far enough now. At the present moment there are a great many points in regard to which the Treasury will have to be sympathetic if the Territorial Army is really to be the success which we all hope it is going to be. It is perfectly absurd to think that it can go on on nothing. Patriotism is all very well. People are very anxious to do what they can, but you cannot go on making bricks without straw. You cannot go on unless you supply sufficient money to carry it on properly. What is very irritating is the sort of grandmotherly legislation there is at headquarters. I have been in the Army some eighteen years, and I say without the slightest hesitation that there is more bother, red tape, and difficulty in getting things done now than ever there has been in the period I have known. There is no trust even in the divisional generals. We were told the generals would have a great deal of power, but that is not so. Every point which you submit to a divisional general eventually goes up to the War Office, comes back again, and takes an enormously long time to be cleared up.
    2.0 A.M.
    I am talking about subjects which I know perfectly well. I do not want to give particular details, but I will give the sort of case. We heard a great deal some time ago that it was impossible to get ranges in the country because of the trouble that landlords were causing and so on. That may or may not have been
    548
    the case in some parts. But I know of one case in my own part of the world. Just before the Territorial Forces were formed it was proposed to make a range. It was passed by the military authorities, and at that time all the officer commanding the regiment had to do was to make the range. Then out came the Territorial Force. It stopped the making of the range. Then the fun began. That is over two years ago. That range is not made yet. Sanction may have been given now owing to the Chairman of the Territorial Association having gone to the War Office, and really explained the matter himself in person. First of all there were strong letters from the local military authorities, and the Territorial Force Association had to put up with a good deal of abuse for not getting it done. They took all the trouble they could, got way-leave and so on, and then the matter was shelved for a long time. We heard nothing for weeks and months. Then a short time ago the General Officer Commanding complained that the range had not been made. The Association said it was not their fault. The War Office then suddenly woke up and ordered the range to be made. I suppose it was some new officer in the War Office who next asked, "For what do you want this range?" After two years of hard work at it, writing and writing, we are suddenly asked, "For what do you want this?" Then it was stated what the reason was. They said, "Oh, there is another range which is only fifteen miles off." But, at the same time, in Scotland there are certain high hills, and in this instance there was a very high hill between the two places. That is the sort of thing which I think might very well be left to the Territorial Association. They are not children; they are the best possible men in the counties—land experts looking after works and men, who are in touch with the labour men in the place. Yet you tie them up. Why not say "There is the money, run yourselves. If you are not efficient we will send down a general, and get rid of you." Instead of that, we are tied by the hands.
    I know of a case where a magazine was wanted. Four years ago the ordnance authorities wrote and said this regiment was not looking after its ammunition and it ought to have a new magazine. Immediately steps were taken to get a magazine made. From that day to this there has been correspondence going on with regard to this blessed magazine, which is simply

    549
    four walls about the size of the table here. Yet there has been very nearly as much spent on postage as would pay for slates on the top of it. But the people concerned were not allowed to put up four brick walls. We were offered free land, and they wanted to know why we had consented to a yearly tenancy instead of a long lease. The reason is obvious. The people knew the locality, knew the man they were dealing with, and they were offered the land for nothing. Here we are hung up simply because we are not supposed to know how to build four brick walls. This is the sort of thing that might be left very much better to the local authorities. It would give much less work to the War Office and give a great deal more satisfaction. Let people think that they have some rope.
    Then, so far as the personnel of the Territorial Force is concerned, there are one or two little points that I wish to raise. We have a very fine ship only just launched, but it wants a certain amount of tar. It is not right yet, and we won't spend the money to make it absolutely watertight. A very little more money would do it. It is perfectly certain that in any new case of this sort that you must have a certain amount of grumbles, but there is no reason why you should go out of your way to do certain—what I might call meannesses. Everybody wants economy, but what the British soldier cannot stand is little pin-pricks of meanness. I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman. He nearly always puts these things right when his attention is called to them. It is not desirable that anybody should keep going to the Secretary for War over the heads of departments. Yet anybody who goes to the Departments knows what an enormous time it takes to get anything arranged, and if it is a small matter we never hear anything more about it.
    I believe the permanent staff of the infantry regiments on mobilisation have to go back to rejoin their regular units. In peace time it is necessary to have these experts to keep men together, to train them and so on, and it is money well spent—there ought to be one to every company. But instead of that I understand it is the case that they go back to special reserve or depot.
    Mr. HALDANE: It has been changed.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The War Office has had a wash out, then. The next point is that if you are going
    550
    to have a permanent staff pay them properly. There are two or three cases which I think really are mean cases, and which we have sent up time after time to the War Office without getting redress of any sort. Surely it is wrong to appoint a man to be an adjutant of a regiment and not pay him the proper salary of his rank. The pay of officers in the Army is not so high that you would think the War Office—I mean the system generally—should actually want to take off half the salary a man deserves for absolutely nothing. I know two cases in Scotland. There are adjutants serving who belong to the regular forces; they left the Army the other day. They are particularly keen officers, closely connected with the districts concerned. These officers were selected as adjutants. Apparently, as a rule, these officers ought to be entitled, all adjutants are, to £36 19s. 9½d. These officers are only being paid £8 6s. 8d. a month. How on earth can you expect an officer, in the station in which he is expected to live, living on that sum without allowances of any sort? I am told the reason is that he belongs to the reserve. A married man with children has to do on £8 a month that for which he would be paid £36 in the regular Army.
    If a man is worth his job he should be paid properly. I understand that the principle is that the War Office do not wish to have volunteer adjutants. Take the case of some regiments. A man has to be in the drill room every day. He is away where houses are expensive. I know one who has between four and five thousand acres in a mountainous district in Scotland to look after. Can he do that on the money paid him? It is neither honest nor for the good of the service, and is resented by all ranks. With regard to the permanent staff it is most desirable that they should be properly paid on the same scale. In certain regiments it happens that there is not a cavalry man suitable for the job, and in that case you get an infantry sergeant. I know one infantry sergeant doing a cavalry job who is kept on infantry pay. If he is doing the work he should have the pay of the rank. This is a case of pinching. A man cannot get redress. He is threatened, and told there is going to be trouble if he complains, and that he will be sent back to his regiment. If he is a married man, he has to get on with £3 a month less, which means a great deal to him. I think that is a case the right

    551
    hon. Gentleman might look into. It is one of injustice, and injustices do not grease wheels.
    Then there is the question of the cyclists' regiments. If you want them to be efficient, you must give them sufficient money to hire cycles. It is absurd to say that the coast is guarded by a splendid cyclist battalion when they have not got cycles or the cycles are so bad that they are of no use. Some of the cycles are of different kinds. Some of the men can go quickly; others go slowly. Half the men are dead beat and the other half efficient. It would be much better if some system could be adopted whereby there would be regimental cycles. The allowance is so poor that it is difficult to get sufficient cycles for the training. The fact is you have a sort of hope that the man who has a cycle will come in and lend it to you for nothing. But the man who has a cycle never does come in; he generally joins the Yeomanry. Do not let people be lulled into false security by dwelling on the cyclists' corps. Another point is that no allowance is made for a drill field. That is an absurd order. I understand that in one particular division no such allowance is made. It may be by the ruling of the local Territorial Association. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, and that the regiment will be given an allowance for a drill field as well as a drill hall.
    Another point I wish to raise is rather important as concerning the officers. It is most important that we should do all we can to get the officers in the Territorial Force properly trained, but at present I do not think they are given proper facilities. The officers are the most difficult people in the Territorial Force to deal with as regards training. I get no difficulty, so far as I am concerned, to get the men and non-commissioned officers to drill and go to training courses, but officers, who work all night and all day during actual training, will do very little at other times. [An HON. MEMBER: "Mix them."] Certainly—I would like to see them mixed, but to do that you must have universal service. If you had universal service for the Territorial Army, not for the foreign army, you would solve all these questions. Then you would put the whole lot into the ranks and pick the best men. But returning to the point in question, if the War Office wishes the officers to go through the courses they ought to treat them justly.
    552
    An officer who goes through a training course is entitled to pay if he passes, but is not entitled if he does not pass. Territorial officers are very often men who have very little capital, and the expenses of the journey and so forth mean a great deal to them. They work very hard and learn a lot, but, perhaps, they fail on one point, with the result that the whole allowance is taken away from them. That is neither right nor fair. The instructor in command of the particular course ought to be given a little latitude and should be allowed to recommend that a man who has worked very well, but, perhaps, failed on some one point, should have a portion of his pay, at any rate.
    Mr. G. F. STANLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has had to listen to many suggestions and criticisms, and to the former he always has a sympathetic reply. I hope he will pay especial attention to the appeal which is made to him to give the arme blanche to the Yeomanry, so that they may have a weapon which they can use in enclosed country. I am speaking for the Artillery when I say if we have to fight in England we shall not trust very much to the Yeomanry, who would have to escort us down narrow lanes whilst they are only armed with rifles. It is quite possible under those conditions that the Artillery of the defending force must be subjected to more danger than the attackers would be. I believe the right hon. Gentleman really means the Territorial Artillery to be a success. But how can he expect that if he does not give them the best materials to work with? The equipment given to Territorial Artillery is almost all open to condemnation. They are given the old pattern harness. Although the right hon. Gentleman has done something by taking the collars away—a portion of equipment that gave very considerable trouble when the batteries went down to camp—the horses are still overloaded with an enormous amount of harness.
    The very cheapest thing the Government could do would be to scrap every bit of that harness, as would have to be done if the Artillery went on active service. Then, again, the guns are a great deal too heavy for Field Artillery work. It is no good giving these drivers—men with the best intentions of the world and very highly trained—guns that they cannot get along with. And if the Territorial Artillery had to go on active service with the guns it has at present, in a very few

    553
    days all the horses we have in England, or which the right hon. Gentleman says we have, would be by no means sufficient to horse those guns. Another little, but important, matter is that of giving these batteries dial sights. The right hon. Gentleman said recently that they were to be given these soon. "Soon" is not a good enough answer. They ought to be given them at once in order that they could train their men before they go down to camp, so that when they get down there they may be able to be put to some use. An hon. Gentleman asked how they were going to manage in direct laying if they did not have the dial sights. The right hon. Gentleman replied, "I am told it is perfectly easily done." It has been done, I know, but if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to inquire first he would not say that. In the Artillery formerly we had to do it, and we did it with wooden arcs. I have seen batteries whose errors with those wooden arcs would be something like 30 per cent. At present each Horse Artillery Battery has a regular adjutant. It is only in human nature that the officers commanding these batteries cannot be so thoroughly trained that they will not rely to a very great extent on the advice of these regular Horse Artillery adjutants. I venture to say that when they go on active service they will rely still more entirely on the advice of these Regular adjutants. But the right hon. Gentleman has determined that when they do go on active service they shall not have this advice and that these officers shall be taken away from the batteries. I contend that it is impossible to raise these brigades to that pitch of efficiency to which we all desire that they should come. The right hon. Gentleman has been subjected to a great many criticisms of his policy during these long Debates, and I think he has generally given the soft answer which turneth away wrath. There was one question raised to which the right hon. Gentleman answered with rather more than his customary vehemence. I refer to the question of the command in the Mediterranean, a most important point which cannot be sufficiently cleared up.
    The hon. Member for Fareham raised this question of the Commander - in - Chief in the Mediterranean, and the right hon. Gentleman in his reply seemed to insinuate that he was bound to get up and answer at that moment, because he considered it a direct attack on General Sir Ian Hamilton. I am the very last person
    554
    ever to engineer any attack on General Sir Ian Hamilton. I have the greatest possible respect for him, and as a junior officer no one has had more kindness from General Sir Ian Hamilton than I personally have had. I am perfectly certain that he will do his utmost to make this post a success. It is no attack on General Sir Ian Hamilton when I say that the fact of his having accepted this post does not make out that the post is an important one, for I contend that General Sir Ian Hamilton had no option but to accept the post. The right hon. Gentleman told us that General Sir Ian Hamilton was perfectly free to refuse the post. Well, in theory that may be true, perhaps. In theory it was possible for him to say that he would not go to it. But I contend that for all practical purposes he was absolutely bound to go to that post, because otherwise he would have completely stultified not only himself but the Army Council of which he had been a military member for over a year.
    When we come to look over the history of the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, it is rather curious. We know well that it was given to the Duke of Connaught some years ago, and that he decided last year that it was a sinecure and that it was only honourable for him to give it up. It was a very good card, no doubt, for His Majesty's Government to be able to play by saying that they had appointed Lord Kitchener to that command. The Army generally was willing to say that Lord Kitchener, being the magnificent organiser he is, might possibly make something of it. But the Army began to ask questions when months went by and Lord Kitchener did not take up the post, and the duties were exceedingly efficiently carried out by a junior officer. That has continued for several months, and now the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House, after repeated inquiries have been addressed to him, and says that, to his great regret, Lord Kitchener has decided not to accept the post. I think everyone is entitled to look into that matter. There are two questions that strike one. The first is whether Lord Kitchener ever accepted the post at all. The right hon. Gentleman nods his head. I take it that he did accept the post. Then did Lord Kitchener accept that post unconditionally? If he accepted the post, one would like to know what it was that, after a tour round the world on Government business, induced Lord Kitchener to say that he

    555
    could not accept the post. The right hon. Gentleman makes no sign when I ask him if Lord Kitchener accepted the post unconditionally. I therefore conclude that Lord Kitchener did make some conditions. The only conclusion therefore is that the Government did not see fit to concede those conditions. If that is so, I think we are entitled to have some explanation of the whole facts of the case. Now we are told that this post is a most important one.
    The right hon. Gentleman said, the other day, that he could not define an elephant, but he knew one when he saw it. We must be forced to the conclusion that either the right hon. Gentleman cannot define an important post when he sees it or else that the Duke of Connaught and Lord Kitchener do not know an important post when they see one. There is no question about it that there has been much discussion and much comment on this particular post in the Army, and I cannot help thinking that it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us plainly and only what happened. If, as is generally believed in the Army, the Government made a mistake and created
    this post and then discovered that it was not wanted, it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman would get up in this House and tell us that after the Government had created the post they discovered that it was not wanted, but that an Inspector-General of the Forces Overseas was wanted, and they had decided to make that appointment instead. Trying to cover up a mistake by statements which do not clear up the matter is the worst possible policy for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue. I am certain that the whole Army has distinctly mistrusted this policy, and would welcome any statement which would clear up the confusion.
    Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I ask if we are not entitled to an answer from the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Secretary of State for War has no right to speak.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 83.

    Division No. 97.]

    AYES.

    [2.40 a.m.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Allen, Charles P.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Anderson, A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Reddy, M.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hayward, Evan

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barton, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Hogan, Michael

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Brace, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Robinson, S.

    Brigg, Sir John

    Hughes, S. L.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Samuel, J. (Stockport)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Keating, M.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Seddon, J.

    Clough, William

    Lambert, George

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Leach, Charles

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Summers, James Woolley

    Cullinan, J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Toulmin, George

    Davies, E. William (Elfion)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Dawes, J. A.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Vivian, Henry

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Millar, J. D.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Waring, Walter

    Elverston, H.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Falconer, J.

    Muspratt, M.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Neilson, Francis

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Furness, Stephen

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Gibbins, F. W.

    Ogden, Fred

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Gibson, Sir James P.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wing, Thomas

    Guest, Major C. H. C.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Radford, George Heynes

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Adam, Major W. A.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Grant, J. A.

    Rice, Hon, Walter F.

    Bagot, Captain J.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rutherford, Watson

    Baird, J. L.

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Baring, Captain Hon. G.

    Heath, Col. A. H.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Barnston, H.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stewart, Gershom (Ches, Wirral)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sykes, Alan John

    Bird, A.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Brackenbury, H. L.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Brotherton, E. A.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

    Llewelyn, Venables

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Carille, E. Hildred

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Cater, John

    Macmaster, Donald

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Nield, Herbert

    Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    MASTER of ELIBANK: I move "That this House do now adjourn."
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I rise to protest in the most emphatic manner against the action adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he has put down this Vote in a most unprecedented manner. A great many questions of importance were raised by three hon. Members, and surely out of courtesy to them and in the interests of the efficiency of Debate we are entitled to an answer from the War Office. Through the action taken by the Secretary for War—a quite unprecedented action—he was precluded from taking any further part in the Debate without the leave of the House. No answer whatever has been given to the questions raised during the Debate of the last two and a half hours. I do not know what reason the right hon. Gentleman will put forward for the course he has adopted to-day. It may be that he has in his recollection the proceedings of the last Parliament, when we, a small minority it is true, were subjected to almost tyrannical treatment by the Government. But the situation is a very different one now. We are a minority who are capable, in numbers and in other respects, of holding our own, and we are
    558
    entitled to the courtesy and the respect of the right hon. Gentleman. I sincerely hope before this Motion to adjourn is accepted, I we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman some adequate reason for what is his apparently discourteous action.
    Mr. HALDANE: I think this is but a poor return for my kindness in moving the closure, thereby releasing right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite from a self-imposed task which is as quixotic as it high-spirited. I put down Vote 12 [War Office] ten days ago in order that there might be a full discussion on it. We desire to get that amount of money to-day. It is the only Vote we have put down besides Votes. A and 1, and I shall be very glad, if it is, desired to raise any other points on Tuesday, to put down any Votes in respect of which hon. Gentlemen may wish to raise discussion. The last thing I would wish is to stifle the discussion of Army matters. I always have tried to meet things as far as I could, but to-night, at this hour, and after the amount of discussion we have had on this matter, I think it would be very unsatisfactory if we had gone on longer. I shall be very glad to put down any Votes on Tuesday, and will undertake to make a statement covering any points that remain undiscussed; but there is no point that has been raised now to which, in the course either of speeches or answers to questions, I have not replied most copiously.
    Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: Whilst there are many points, as the right hon. Gentleman says, which have been raised, there are a great many which have not been answered, and which he knows as well as I do cannot be answered during the present Session unless he takes the opportunity of answering them now. His offer to take Votes on Tuesday is not the point. We have, on Tuesday, the right to discuss Vote 9 on cordite, and the right hon. Gentleman has offered us a Vote on which we can discuss the question raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Major Adam). But there are many other points, one of the most important being that of the Mediterranean command. We have never had any real answer on that question, and it is a point on which a great many of my hon. Friends have the strongest opinions. If we are sitting here at three o'clock in the morning it really is the fault of the Government. They chose to put this Vote down to-night at eleven o'clock. I have said all along it would take considerable time and that it would be a contentious Vote. But the Government have precluded themselves from reopening the question because they have moved the closure, and it is against all principles of my right hon. Friends behind me to vote against the Secretary of State for War, especially when he tells us that on the passing of this Vote depends not his salary, but the pay of the rank and file of the Army. Why did we pass that Vote just now without a Division? Because the right hon. Gentleman told us it was necessary for the pay of the rank and file of the Army. Whatever hon. Gentlemen may think, the Conservatives are not going to vote against the pay of the rank and file of the Army. The fault for our sitting here now does not rest with me or my right hon. Friends behind me. It is due to the way the Government manage their business, and because they chose to put down a contentious Vote containing many matters which ought to be discussed, but which we now have no chance of debating fairly.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The conduct of the Secretary of State for War has amazed me, because when I was making the few observations I ventured to address earlier in the evening, I suggested we might perhaps have a reply to them, although the right hon. Gentleman had technically exhausted his rights of speech, because, no doubt, if he asked for it, the consent of the House would be given for him to reply to the various questions raised. When I
    560
    made that suggestion the right hon. Gentleman nodded his head as though he assented to the proposition, and I quite thought, from the courteous attention he was giving to the remarks and to the fact that he was taking notes, that he was going to reply. Judge of my astonishment, therefore, when, after the Debate had proceeded and hon. Members on this side had addressed most cogent remarks, suddenly, without a moment's warning, the right hon. Gentleman got up and moved the closure. It is not necessary to go very far to find the reason why he moved the closure. He knew perfectly well that it was contrary to all usages, and also, I would venture to say, contrary to the decencies of debate in this House.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lord has no right to reflect upon the closure. He is really reflecting on the Chair, and if he wishes to do that he must do it in proper form.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The last thing I would wish to do is to reflect on the Chair. That is not the point I am raising. I am raising the point of the right hon. Gentleman moving the closure, not of its being put. His doing so is contrary to the courtesy and decency we might have expected from the Front Bench.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the hon. Gentleman has said that the action of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the closure is contrary to the decencies of Debate, he suggests it was wrong for me to accept the Motion.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I have already stated that I wish, naturally, to make no reflection on your granting of the closure, and if you think that the word I uttered implied that reflection I will most certainly withdraw it. I can only say that we on this side of the House take it as a grievance that we have not had an answer from the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues, who had not exhausted the right to speak before the Debate was drawn to what we, at all events, felt to be a premature conclusion. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have given us a little more time under the circumstances under which this Debate was initiated this evening. We now complain that the Debate was taken to-night. What is the object of suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule if you are not going to have a full discussion of the subject under Debate? Of course, if this Debate had

    561
    taken a day to itself the discussion would not nearly have terminated by now. We have had only four hours of it, and that is rather less than half a Parliamentary day. Therefore, I do think that the right hon. Gentleman, before moving the closure, might at least have reflected that we had not had adequate time—many Members still desire to speak—or he might have been courteous enough to give us a reply. I would point out that there is no further chance of getting a reply on the questions we have raised. Other questions can be raised.
    I understand that the Vote on cordite will raise some questions which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will listen to. Whether he will reply to them or not is another matter. I understand he says he will put down some other Votes. But from what I gather the particular questions we have raised on the salaries, which are general questions, cannot be raised in the same way on other votes. It is doubly aggravating to us not to get any reply, because the same thing happened in Committee. What is the use of raising points of this kind if the Front Bench and the responsible Minister are not to give any answers at all? It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that no fresh point has been raised to-night which was not raised fourteen days ago and which he has not answered. I may say there are dozens of points which have not been answered of greater and minor importance. It seems to me that it is making a farce and travesty of our whole Parliamentary procedure. After all, what is Supply for? Surely a Debate in Supply is intended to give an opportunity to Members of this House to criticise the administration of the Departments; there is no other way of which I know. It is not easy to raise any question of administration at Question Time in the form of criticism. You can certainly raise matters of innuendo. You can insinuate that a Minister is not administering a Department to your satisfaction. But as to giving any actual criticism of administration it is perfectly impossible to do so. Supply is the only chance you have of really bringing to the notice of a responsible Parliamentary head of a Department the grievances which you may feel as to his administration. And not always grievances. There were some points I urged this evening which were not grievances at all, but suggestions for his consideration, and I think that when suggestions are
    562
    made on the floor of this House the person who makes them has a right, at all events, to some indication whether those suggestions are received favourably or unfavourably.
    After all, are we to consider in this House that Ministers are there in office, drawing their salaries, quite independent of anything this House may do or say? Or are we to have the old-fashioned idea that Members of this House may really have some effective voice in the administration of the nation's affairs, at all events through the power of criticism? I think the right hon. Gentleman has by his conduct to-night struck a very severe blow at House of Commons procedure and House of Commons dignity. We heard a great deal when the Conservative party was last in power of the dignity of the House of Commons and the way in which that Government was said to have destroyed it. We heard that when the Radicals came in that dignity was to be restored. How have they restored it? By using the one solid argument they possess, which they used to great effect in the last Parliament—the weapon which they sharpened with such admirable skill, namely, the closure. By using the closure at all sorts of inconvenient moments—that is the way they hope to restore the dignity of the House of Commons, and I suppose that is their idea of the freedom of Debate. I am glad to have had this opportunity of making a protest against the conduct of to-night's Debate. I think we are legitimately possessed of a very considerable grievance against the right hon. Gentleman, and I may say that that comes all the more hardly from him, because if there is one Minister who I should say has received attentive consideration—almost kindly consideration—at the hands of the Opposition it is the right hon. Gentleman himself. So for my part I am not only grieved, but profoundly disappointed.
    Captain CLIVE: I wish to join in this protest. The Secretary for War appears to have fallen back on the excuse that he has spoken, and that without leave he could not speak again. But there has been an hon. Gentleman who has not yet exercised his right to speak. I mean the Financial Secretary to the War Office. It is the financial muddle that we are chiefly kept up to discuss. It is the fact that the affairs of the War Office have been so conducted that unless this Vote is made there will be no pay for the rank and file. Who,

    563
    next to the Secretary for War, is responsible for that state of affairs? Surely it is the Gentleman who is styled the Financial Secretary to the War Office? He is responsible, I believe, for the Votes, and he is responsible, therefore, for bringing those affairs to such a condition of chaos that the Votes for the salary of the Secretary for War has to be forced through at three in the morning, because but for that there will be no pay for the Army. There are, of course, a number of other questions which we should have liked to raise. I think it is extraordinary that the Secretary for War should think that sufficient discussion of his salary has taken place after only three hon. Members have been allowed to speak on the general question of Army matters. He must admit that each of the three hon. Members are experts in the subjects they have raised, and it would only have been common courtesy that he should have replied even shortly to their criticisms. There is the question of the Inspector-General of the Overseas Forces. On 27th June the right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "We have reached a stage in the evolution of the English forces in which it is necessary to have an Inspector-General of the Overseas Forces. It is no longer possible for the work to be done by a single inspector, as the whole globe has to be considered." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1910, col. 794.]
    I should like to ask since when has the whole globe had to be considered? What new territory has been acquired since the right hon. Gentleman went to the War Office, or what new garrison has been established to necessitate this Inspector-General's inspection? As a fact, one garrison has been withdrawn—that of St. Helena—and in the case of South Africa it has been reduced. There is, therefore, no reason whatever for a new expenditure of £10,000 a year upon a fresh appointment. I protest against the right hon. Gentleman throwing the matter back on the shoulders of Sir Ian Hamilton by suggesting that when we criticised the appointment we were criticising Sir Ian Hamilton.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE Mr. WHITEHOUSE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question, be now put."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    Captain CLIVE: The appointment was, an unnecessary one. In the Debate on Monday week we were promised some figures as to recruiting for the Territorial Forces. The right hon. Gentleman then said they would be available in eight or ten days' time, and it is only reasonable that they should be given to us now. As to the question of horses—
    Mr. CAWLEY: On a point of Order, is the hon. Member in order in raising questions of Army policy on the Motion for the adjournment of the House?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is in order.
    Captain CLIVE: The same horses are used again and again by different corps for their manœuvres. That is obviously unsatisfactory, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given any promise to remedy that state of things. The remedy is comparatively simple. I suggest that the Territorial Forces should draw horses for the manœuvres first in the summer, and; that the horses should be branded on the hoof in the same way as the horses of the-Regular Cavalry, so that it would be impossible for any other Territorial regiment to use the same horses for their manœuvres. In that way we should ensure having the necessary number of horses for manœuvres.
    Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose 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, 110; Noes, 70.

    Division No. 98.]

    AYES.

    [3.20 a.m.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Clough, William

    Elverston, Harold

    Barton, William

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Falconer, James

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Fenwick, Charles

    Brace, William

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Furness, Stephen

    Brigg, Sir John

    Cullinan, John

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Gibbins, F. W.

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mallet, Charles Edward

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Guest, Major C. H. C.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Seddon, James A.

    Hancock, John George

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Muspratt, Max

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Neilson, Francis

    Soares, Ernest Joseph

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Summers, James Woolley

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Ogden, Fred

    Toulmin, George

    Hayward, Evan

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, Joseph

    Vivian, Henry

    Hogan, Michael

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Waring, Walter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Radford, George Heynes

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Reddy, Michael

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Keating, Matthew

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williamson, Sir A.

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wing, Thomas

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Lehmann, Rudolf C.

    Robinson, S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Nield, Herbert

    Adam, Major William A.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Baker, Sir Randolf. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

    Barnston, Harry

    Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

    Rutherford, Watson

    Bathurst. Hon. Allen B. (Glou., E.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Brackenbury, Henry Langton

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

    Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sykes, Alan John

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Brotherton, Edward Allan

    Hunt, Rowland

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Carlile, Edward Hildred

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Llewelyn, Venables

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cator, John

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

    Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
    The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 70.

    Division No. 99.]

    AYES.

    [3.30 a.m.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Allen, Charles Peter

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Hayward, Evan

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hogan, Michael

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barton, William

    Elverston, H.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Falconer, James

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Brace, William

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Furness, Stephen

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibbins, F. W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lambert, George

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Guest, Major C. H. C.

    Leach, Charles

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Clough, William

    Hancock, J. G.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Harcourt, Robert V.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Mallet, Charles Edward

    Cullinan, J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Muspratt, Max

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Vivian, Henry

    Neilson, Francis

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Waring, Walter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Ogden, Fred

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Seddon, James A.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Wing, Thomas

    Radford, George Heynes

    Sherwell, Arthur James Wood,

    T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Soares, Ernest Joseph

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Summers, James Woolley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Toulmin, George

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Forster, Henry William

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Adam, Major William A.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Arbuthnot, G. A.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Baird, J. L.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rutherford, William Watson

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Barnston, Harry

    Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirrall)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

    Sykes, Alan John

    Brackenbury, Henry Langton

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Brassey, Captain R. (Banbury)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hunt, Rowland

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carllie, E. Hildred

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Cator, John

    Llewelyn, Venables

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Castlereagh and Captain Morrison-Bell.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Neild, Herbert

    House adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes before Four o'clock a.m., Thursday, 14th July.

  Super-Tax (Pensions).
  Super-Tax (Pensions).
  Athy Workhouse (Cost of Maintenance).
  Athy Workhouse (Cost of Maintenance).
  New Coinage (Wales).
  New Coinage (Wales).
  Places of Worship (Land Tax).
  Places of Worship (Land Tax).
  Untenanted Lands, County Limerick.
  Untenanted Lands, County Limerick.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Evicted Lands (County Limerick).
  Evicted Lands (County Limerick).
  Alleged Official Intimidation (Ireland).
  Alleged Official Intimidation (Ireland).
  Earl of Leitrim's Estate (County Donegal).
  Earl of Leitrim's Estate (County Donegal).
  Reinstatement Application (County Donegal).
  Reinstatement Application (County Donegal).
  Cleary Minors Estate, County Limerick.
  Cleary Minors Estate, County Limerick.
  Roche Kelly Estate, County Limerick.
  Roche Kelly Estate, County Limerick.
  Purchase of Count de Salis Lands, County Limerick.
  Purchase of Count de Salis Lands, County Limerick.
  Lady Dyer's Estate, County Limerick.
  Lady Dyer's Estate, County Limerick.
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Constable Treacy).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Constable Treacy).
  Evicted Tenants, Rathnavague, County Tipperary.
  Evicted Tenants, Rathnavague, County Tipperary.
  Gradation of Teachers.
  Gradation of Teachers.
  Evicted Tenant, Thurles.
  Evicted Tenant, Thurles.
  Labourer's Cottage, Thurles.
  Labourer's Cottage, Thurles.
  Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1909 (Fair Rents).
  Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1909 (Fair Rents).
  Workshop Inspection (Ireland).
  Workshop Inspection (Ireland).
  Imprisonment in Default of Fines (Metropolis).
  Imprisonment in Default of Fines (Metropolis).
  Home Office (Clerical Staff).
  Home Office (Clerical Staff).
  Use of Anæsthetics (Coroner's Committee Report).
  Use of Anæsthetics (Coroner's Committee Report).
  West India Regiment (Promotion).
  West India Regiment (Promotion).
  Territorial Force (Gordon Highland Infantry Brigade).
  Territorial Force (Gordon Highland Infantry Brigade).
  Arrest of British Trawler "Onward."
  Arrest of British Trawler "Onward."
  Prisoners (Bengal and Eastern Bengal).
  Prisoners (Bengal and Eastern Bengal).
  Local Government Board (Clerical Staff).
  Local Government Board (Clerical Staff).
  Weights and Measures (Inspection).
  Weights and Measures (Inspection).
  Cardiff Post Office (Telephonists).
  Cardiff Post Office (Telephonists).
  Postal Arrangements, County Tipperary.
  Postal Arrangements, County Tipperary.
  Argentina (Foot-and-Mouth Disease).
  Argentina (Foot-and-Mouth Disease).
  Dutch and Scotch Potatoes.
  Dutch and Scotch Potatoes.
Preamble
The Earl NELSON—Took the Oath.
SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN BRITISH POSSESSIONS ACT, 1909.
Order of yesterday for the printing of the Memorial to His Majesty in Council,discharged.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—

L. Wenlock;

L. Ramsay (E. Dalhousie);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committees made: The report of
  120
  Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L].
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he is able to give us any information as to the course of business during the next few days.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I do not know that I can give the House any very definite information as to the course of business during the next few days. We have not, I think, to expect any business from the House of Commons of importance during the next few days, but I understand that the general line which business takes in another place leads us to hope that it may be possible to terminate this part of the session before the end of the month. It is hoped, as I understand, that one important business which will concern us here—namely, the question of the King's Accession Declaration—will be completed in another place in the last few days of the month. I should hope that, although the subject is one, I know, which is of profound interest to your Lordships, it will not involve any very extended discussion here, and in that case we also may be able to rise on the last days of the present month.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not wish to intervene, but there is one Bill which was not mentioned by the noble Earl—namely, the Regency Bill. If report speaks truly, a very serious change affecting Scottish interests has been made in that Bill, and I hope ample time will be given for the consideration of it when it comes to this House.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me. That Bill, I hope, will come here, I cannot say within a. few days, but certainly within time which will enable full discussion to be given to it if it is thought desirable.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can only speak again with the permission of the House, but I would venture to express the hope that in the form in which the Bill now stands its passing will not be regarded as a pure matter of form.

IMPERIAL AND LOCAL FINANCE.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE*THE EARL OF DUNMORE rose to call attention to the financial relations between the Imperial Exchequer and local authorities, and to the inadequacy of the present grants in aid of local taxation having regard to the annually increasing duties thrown upon local authorities by Parliament; and to move for a Return giving particulars of the financial relations in the principal foreign countries and in British possessions between the central and the local governments.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to propose the Motion which stands in my name I feel that some apology is due to your Lordships for introducing the well-worn topic of local taxation which has already been the subject of many debates in this House. About two years ago the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees introduced a somewhat similar discussion when he moved for a Return bringing up to date the Blue-book known as the Fowler Return, which was issued in 1893 by Sir Henry Fowler, who has since become an honoured member of your Lordships' House. A very interesting discussion took place on that occasion, although the Government excused themselves, on the score of the labour involved in a busy session, from granting the Return asked for by Lord Onslow; but the Leader of the House undertook to confer with the President of the Local Government Board with a
122
view to affording of the information desired. In these circumstances Lord Onslow did not press his Motion, and, so far as I am aware, the Fowler Return, which relates to the expenditure of the various local authorities throughout the country, has not been brought up to any date more recent than 1893.
There is, of course, a good deal of statistical information issued by the Local Government Board in its annual Report to Parliament, and some particulars also contained in the annual local taxation returns. There is, in fact, no lack of statistical material in connection with local finance, but the subject is so vast—I might say so complicated—that few people desire to struggle through the details. But if any excuse is required for introducing this subject again, I think it may be found in the fact that so many members of this House are especially well qualified to deal with this subject owing to their great experience in local administration. We also have the advantage in this House of many members who have not only had to look at this question from the point of view of local administration, but also from the somewhat different attitude of Ministers of the Crown responsible for the relations of the central government to the various local authorities. These facts, together with the growing importance of the financial aspect of local government, encourage me to believe that your Lordships may not regard a discussion of the Motion which I have the honour to bring forward as altogether a waste of your Lordships' time.
I desire this afternoon to deal more particularly with the position which is arising in regard to the grants from the Imperial Exchequer towards the expense of certain services of local authorities. I suppose there must always be a certain amount of rivalry between local and Imperial claims, as there will always be some divergence of opinion as regards services which are of a purely local and those which partake of a more national character. This division of the services administered by local authorities formed much of the consideration which was given to this subject of local taxation by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which was presided over by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh with so much ability. That Commission reported as far back as 1901, and I am sorry that so

123
little progress has been made since that date by any Government in dealing, with this question. But I am glad to acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his recent Budget statement, informed us that in his opinion this question of the readjustment of local and Imperial finance could not be postponed beyond the year, and that whoever occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer next year would have to deal with it. I confess that I should like a fuller assurance from His Majesty's Government that they do intend to deal with this question at an early date, for the financial aspect of it is really most important. I might almost add, without being inaccurate, that it is most depressing.
Certainly from the point of view of an economist there is little that is reassuring in a survey or our public expenditure, while the position of the unfortunate ratepayer is a grave reflection on our system of local self-government. And what is the reason? I think the real reason, the root of the matter, is to be found in our system of municipal representation. There are far too many electors in this country who care nothing about the rates. Many of them imagine that they pay no rates, owing to our unfortunate system of compounding. I think there is a. good deal to be said with regard to the defects of that system, although I shall not trespass on your Lordships' time to-day by going further into that matter. Then we see great powers given to our local bodies. Those bodies by their very constitution are open to be used, and are used by Parliament, for the administration of all those Acts which the demands for social reform create almost every day. But in putting these new duties on to local bodies the Government exercise no official supervision. I have been told that the President of the Local Government Board has kept a somewhat restraining hand recently on the borrowing powers of some of these local authorities. That may or may not be true, but I am quite sure of one thing—that he has not protected those same local authorities from the extravagant demands which have been put upon them by Parliament.
The Imperial taxpayer is in a very different position. He can resent to some extent the imposition of new taxes. He can make his voice heard to some extent in the Houses of Parliament, and, if he is
124
of an optimistic nature, he may even look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to protect his interests. But the difference in the attitude of Parliament towards local as compared with imperial expenditure is shown, I think, in a small but very significant manner, in the form in which Bills are presented. Bills which create new charges on Imperial funds can only be brought forward in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown. A private Member is not allowed to suggest the imposition of new taxation. Formerly when a Bill was printed the taxation proposals were left blank, and now they are printed in italics until the necessary Motion has been brought forward by a responsible Minister and carried. There is no such safeguard as regards the ratepayer. His pocket is open to he picked by anybody who chooses to suggest fresh legislation the result of which will be to increase the rates. In fact, local finance has been regarded with indifference by Parliament, and the result is to be seen, not only in the present injustice of the incidence of rates, but also in the alarming increase in our local expenditure.
Speaking on this subject in the House of Commons in 1881, Mr. Gladstone said—
"What we have to do is to strive honestly and impartially to keep down the aggregate total expenditure of the country, whether it be local expenditure or Imperial expenditure. That is the interest and that is the duty of Parliament."
That remark was made in the course of a debate on a proposal that just as an annual Budget is prepared for the Imperial Exchequer of the country, so the House of Commons should devote some portion of its time to the consideration of a Budget relating to the local finances of the country. I do not wish to unduly weary you with masses of figures. I know that the mere recital of figures is apt to be far from impressive, especially when, as is so often the case nowadays in speaking of public expenditure, those figures amount to many millions. But I would like to remind your Lordships that the present local expenditure in the United Kingdom exceeds £160,000,000 a year, and, as your Lordships know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is budgeting for an Imperial expenditure of about £170,000,000 this year. It is true that some part of that Imperial expenditure in the Budget will go to relieve the amount which has to be found. by the rate

125
payers. but taking local and Imperial expenditure together we are now paying for the public administration of this country considerably over £300,000,000 a year; or, if I may put it in another way, it is costing us not far short of £1,000,000 every day to run the public business of this country; and if the life of the present Government be unduly prolonged, I have no doubt that it will take £2,000,000 a day to run our public business, and that every other man in the United Kingdom will be employed by the State in carrying out its administration.
In the face of these facts it may be said that it does not matter whether the money comes out of the pockets of the ratepayers or out of the pockets of the taxpayers. If the basis of taxation were the same or even similar for local as for Imperial expenditure, that might be the case; but the incidence of local and Imperial charges is by no means the same, and the importance of the financial relations of the central Government to the local authorities is of the first magnitude. In discussing this subject I should like as far as possible to avoid going over old ground, but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to go back a little way and recall to the House that prior to 1888 the Parliamentary grants which were annually voted in aid of the rates were appropriated to specific services and bore some relation to the expenditure on those services. But in 1888 a great change took place. This was in the substitution of the system of assigned revenues for that of grants in aid, and at the same time most of the direct grants were abolished or else were paid out of the proceeds of the assigned revenues. In assigning these revenues they allocated to the local authorities the produce of certain licences and one-half of the Probate Duty. This was done with a view to broadening the basis of local taxation for national purposes, and with a view of making the owners of personalty pay towards local charges. But it is not clear on what principle these revenues were assigned, for if there had been any distinction drawn between national and local services those revenues would have shown it in the sources from which they were drawn. But in any case, whatever principle these revenues were assigned on, and whatever distinction, if any, was drawn between these services, it has been entirely lost sight of in all the changes
126
that have since taken place. Acts have been passed and changes have been made which show that the present system of assigned revenues is regarded by the Treasury merely as a measure of relief from the Imperial Exchequer to local funds.
It is true that these assigned revenues have been enlarged since 1888. They have been enlarged from two sources. First, under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890; and, secondly, under the Licensing Act of 1904. But putting aside the Parliamentary grants which were given in aid of elementary education, we find that the Education Acts of 1902 and 1903 have swept away all the relief which was afforded under the first of these sources by earmarking that revenue to go towards meeting the increased cost of higher education which was thrown on the local authorities by those two Education Acts. We also find that the recent Finance Act has swept away the relief which was afforded under the second of those sources by allocating the revenue obtainable from the monopoly value of new licences to the Imperial Exchequer. But apart from the effect of these two Acts, as a measure of relief the system of assigned revenues has failed. It was no doubt contemplated under the original scheme that the resources of local authorities would be automatically increased in order to correspond with the growth of the charges thereon which have to be met. No doubt it was thought that the yield of the assigned revenues would augment as years went on. It is true that the increase in revenue was fairly steady from the year 1888 to the time of the Report of the Royal Commission in 1901; but since that date this has been by no means the case. The total amount drawn from the Local Taxation Account in the United Kingdom has dropped from £11,150,000 in 1908 to £9,820,000 in 1909, and there is a further decrease to £9,445,000 in the year ended March 31, 1910. That is a drop of nearly £2,000,000 within the last two years.
The unfavourable position in which local authorities now find themselves is largely due to the alterations in the law which have taken place since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, alterations which have not only greatly complicated the system but which have also had the effect of reducing the amounts

127
available for distribution amongst the various local authorities. Year by year Parliament passes Statutes imposing new duties and new charges upon local authorities. The object, no doubt, of these Acts is excellent, and the arguments by which they are supported are very strong; but the action of Parliament in this matter really amounts to nothing less than adopting an attitude of generous benevolence at the expense, not of Parliament, but of the ratepayers. I think harsh words would be used of the public philanthropist who practised his philanthropy by putting his hands, not into his own pockets, but into the pockets of his neighbours; yet that is the course which has been adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
I do not propose to deal in detail with all the Parliamentary delinquencies of this nature. I think the catalogue would be so long as to be absolutely wearisome. But I would venture to point out to your Lordships one or two instances of the kind of generosity to which I have referred. Under the Police Act of 1890 police authorities were compelled by Parliament to grant pensions to members of the police force. Part of this pension fund was found by the police force and a portion of it came out of the Imperial Exchequer; but the balance came out of the pockets of the ratepayers. I am sure that nobody will grudge the granting of pensions to such an excellent body of public servants as the police admittedly are; but the police service is a national one, not a local one; yet the greater part of the cost of the upkeep of this service falls upon local and not upon Imperial funds. Then within the last few days Parliament has had before it the Police (Weekly Rest-day) Bill, again an excellent Bill with most excellent objects, but its objects cannot be carried out without increasing the cost; and while Parliament has been giving this well-deserved privilege to the police force, the Government have refused to defray any part of the cost, which will now fall upon the local authorities.
Then recent Finance Acts have not proved by any means mines of wealth to local authorities whatever they may be to the Imperial Exchequer. The Budget of 1908 transferred from the Government to the local authorities the collection of the establishment and dog licence duties; but with an appearance of great generosity the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated a sum
128
of £40,000 to be divided up amongst local authorities in order to reimburse them for the extra cost of getting in these duties. In order to gauge the extent of this generosity one can remark that London's share of this grant only amounts to £4,000, while the cost last year to the London County Council of carrying out this new duty amounted to £12,000, or just three times the amount of the grant allocated; and no doubt in future years this cost will increase.
I have already made some criticism as to the effect of the Finance Act of 1909–10 on local funds, but I should like to say a few words in regard to the effect of the new Land Taxes which are imposed under that Act. When the Budget of last year was introduced with its proposals for the further taxation of land it contained no provision for helping local authorities out of that new taxation. Criticism was quickly offered on behalf of local authorities, many of whom, I think most of whom, had regarded this form of taxation as offering a possible future source of revenue for local purposes. Certainly in urban communities they regarded land values as a subject which they were in the future going to draw upon. I do not wish to discuss the vexed question of the justice or otherwise of the policy of taxation of land values. I would merely remark that prior to the passing of this Act most of the advocates of that policy had regarded it merely as a fund for local purposes. However, during the discussions which followed the introduction of this Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer incidentally announced his intention of allocating one-half of the proceeds of the new land duties to the local authorities. No doubt Mr. Lloyd George thought that in allocating one-half of a tax which is regarded as being derived from a purely local source, he could in justice say that half a loaf was better than no bread, and that the local authorities would accept it. I am not at all certain that the local authorities are satisfied that half a tax is better than or equal to getting the whole tax. However, their opinion has not been asked, and they have to content themselves with the crumbs which fall from the table of the Imperial Treasury. The distribution of those crumbs has been long in suspense, but apparently from the recent Budget statement this new revenue—the local authorities' share of the Land Taxes—is merely going to replace the disappearing spirit duties. In

129
other words, the decreased consumption of spirits has affected local revenue to the extent of £328,000, and this is now going to be made up by a grant out of Imperial funds, which is to include the local authorities' share of the yield of the Land Taxes. But when this revenue was allocated in the first place to local authorities, the gift was regarded as a spontaneous one, but apparently under these new proposals it is merely going to make up for a deficiency in Imperial revenue, for which local authorities are in no way to blame.
To enter even superficially into the relations between the Imperial Exchequer and the local authorities all over the country would be a work of considerable magnitude. I therefore propose to deal more specifically with the claims of London, and to leave the grievances of other local authorities to those of your Lordships who are better qualified to speak upon them. London has certain claims which are not shared by other local authorities. In the first place, her share of the assigned revenues, which were allocated to London on the basis of the discontinued grants in 1888, was unfair. These revenues were distributed among the various local authorities in proportion to the grants which they were receiving in the year 1887–8. But this basis of apportionment was not only unsatisfactory in its working, but distinctly unfair to London. In the first place, these grants did not at the time meet the requirements of London as compared to other localities. In the second place, this basis was on the grants of a. single year instead of being taken on an average of several years. Thirdly, no provision was made to meet the increased cost of the growth and the development of London and its suburbs.
Then as to the revenue which is paid to the local authorities from the duties on licensed premises, which are, of course, the most remunerative of all licences, London is again at a distinct disadvantage. The average size of the public-houses and licensed premises in London is much greater than in the rest of the country, but the graduation of the duty on licensed premises ceased at £700, and public-houses of an annual value of £1,000, £2,000, and upwards paid exactly the same as if they were only worth £700. Therefore it is evident that the yield from this duty is far less in proportion to the annual value of its public-houses in London than in the provinces. The average annual value of the public
130
houses in London is over three times as great as the average in the country generally, and the proportion that the Licence Duty bears to the annual value of these houses in London is less than half what it is in the rest of the country. Under the recent Finance Act of 1909–10 the limitation of the graduation of the duty on licensed premises has been removed, but the extra revenue which will be derived owing to the removal of the limitation of this graduation has been assigned to the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, the position of the London ratepayer is exactly the same. In fact, according to a recent legal decision the effect of the Finance Act will merely be to reduce: the assessable value of licensed premises,
London has, in fact, special claims on the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Her share of the Imperial contribution bears a much smaller proportion to the burden of local taxation than elsewhere. If we compare London in this respect with any of the county boroughs we find that in London, out of the heavy rates per £ necessarily levied, only 1s. 3¼d. is contributed by the Imperial Exchequer; Birmingham gets 2s. ld.; Leeds gets 2s. 4½d.; Sheffield gets 2s. 10d. In fact, if you take the ten county boroughs having the largest assessable value you will find they all compare most. favourably with London in this respect, their share of Imperial contributions bearing a much larger proportion of their burden of local taxation. But perhaps the most serious aspect of this problem is the fact that new services of a national character, as I have already pointed out, and new developments in the administration of existing services, are constantly being thrown by Parliament on local authorities. One of these services, which I have not yet alluded to, and a very important one, is education. New orders are constantly being evolved by Parliament necessitating very heavy expenditure by local education authorities. According to a return presented to the London County Council last March the extra net expenditure thrown on the council under Acts coming into force since 1904 amounted in the one year—that is, in the previous year—to over £450,000. Expenditure upon education is no doubt in a sense remunerative outlay. It equips us in an international struggle for trade and it should lead to better conditions of living; and if the increase in our expenditure upon education bore any proportion to the increase

131
in the growth of our population, nobody would question the wisdom of this outlay. The objects of such recent Acts as the Act of 1907 for the medical inspection of children in our public elementary schools, and the Act of 1906 for giving meals to necessitous children, command the sympathy of all classes, although in regard to the last-mentioned Act it must result in a diminution of the number of self-supporting families in this country, and must throw an ever-increasing burden on those families who do support themselves and who support the State as well. In may interest your Lordships in regard to this Act to know that about two years ago the Berlin Municipal Council decided to discontinue giving meals through the education department of the council, and transferred the whole matter to the Poor Law.
But, my Lords, what I really object to, and what I think every ratepayer ought to object to, are the methods by which such Acts as these are passed by Parliament without any reference or any consideration being given to their financial results, while their cost and their administration is thrown in a light-hearted manner upon the local authorities without any increase, or any relative increase, of the Government grant. This piecemeal, haphazard sort of legislation has already produced chaos in local government. In some of the poorer districts in the country it has produced what in an ordinary business concern would be regarded as a condition of bankruptcy, as I am sure the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will admit when he recalls the fact that in some districts in Scotland the rates already amount to 20s. in the £ We must also remember that the full effect of many of these Acts has yet to be felt. At the present moment we have approximately about three-quarters of a million of children in our public elementary schools in London alone. I think one might anticipate the very heavy charge which will have to be met at some future date—say, in twenty years—in carrying out the provisions of an Act such as the Act I have just mentioned —for the medical inspection of these children. The Act, it is true, only compelled the inspection of children, but it gave powers to defray the cost of their medical treatment, and it has very necessarily led to provision being made for their medical treatment. None of your Lordships would like to go to your doctor and
132
have your ailments diagnosed if no suggestion was made as to the provision of the necessary remedies, which in the position of these children you would be unable to pay for. Therefore, I think the London County Council were bound to pursue the course of making provision for the medical treatment of these poor children.
I have dealt at some length with education because it is one of the most important and the most expensive of the national services. It has been recognised to be distinctly a national service, towards the cost of which a part of the national revenue has been assigned. Now owing to the action of Parliament—I refer to the recent Finance Act—a great shortage in this revenue has taken place. In this case the Government, for the purpose of making up a deficiency in national revenue, are appropriating to the Imperial Exchequer part of the income which had been allocated to the local authorities. They are, in fact, robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think this is an argument against assigning revenues to local authorities from subjects which are also taxed for Imperial purposes, and which, therefore, must to some extent be indirectly affected by every Finance Bill passed by Parliament. The great evil of the present system really is that there is no proportion between the variation in the produce of the assigned revenues and the variation in the expenditure on national services. The expenditure on these services is always varying in an upward direction; the produce of the assigned revenues is also always varying, but frequently in a downward direction. There is no line of demarcation to show the relative responsibility which should be borne by the Imperial and local taxpayer for these services.
It is now nine years since the Royal Commission on Local Taxation issued their Report. Whatever difference of opinion may be shown by the Majority and the Minority Reports, they were unanimous in recognising the evils which exist, and they both recommended a complete revision of the system of Imperial subventions and increased aid towards local taxation. In saying this I do not wish to make any attack on the Party at present in power. The Prime Minister has expressed sympathy with the grievances of the ratepayers, and we have Mr. Lloyd George's opinion that whatever Party is in power will have to deal with this ques

133
tion next year. I therefore think that we might hope, now that the Poor Law Commission has reported making recommendations of a very important character in regard to at least one branch of this subject, that some settlement might not be long delayed. As a member of the London County Council, the position of that body in relation to London ratepayers naturally presents itself to me most urgently. Rates within the London area undoubtedly bear very heavily on London industries, and London, as I have ventured to point out, is distinctly unfairly treated by the imperial Exchequer. I need not remind your Lordships that to thousands, I might almost say to millions, of the inhabitants of London every penny added to the rates which they are called upon to pay is of very serious importance. The London County Council have made out an unanswerable case for fairer treatment by the Imperial Exchequer, and while I sincerely hope that nothing will prevent the whole question being dealt with not later than next year, as indicated by Mr. Lloyd George, I would put in a plea, if it should unhappily be found impossible to deal with the whole question of local taxation next year, that in no circumstances should the favourable consideration of the exceptional position of London be further deferred.
I am afraid 1 have trespassed unduly on your Lordships' time, but I do not intend to offer any suggestions as to the solution of this most difficult question. I might, perhaps, say that it seems to me that increased. Imperial subventions can only temporarily alleviate the position of the ratepayer. Increased grants are apt to lead to increased expenditure on the part of spending bodies, and although I think it is absolutely necessary that the Government should do very much more towards the cost of these national services which they are insisting upon the local authorities carrying out, I think it will not be a complete remedy unless the system of levying rates is so altered as to bring home to every ratepayer the responsibility of his vote. In view, however, of the discussions which must arise when this question of the readjustment of local and Imperial finance comes under the consideration of Parliament, I venture to think that the Return for which I ask, giving particulars of the position in foreign countries and in British Dominions, will not be without some value. I therefore hope that His Majesty's Govern
134
ment may see their way to grant this Return.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return giving particulars of the financial relations in the principal foreign countries and in British Possessions between the Central and the Local Governments.—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening so early in the debate, but I am, unfortunately, called away from the House, and I desire merely to make one or two general observations, leaving the specific points raised by the noble Earl to be more fully dealt with by others. But I am glad to take the opportunity of expressing a view which I am sure is shared by all members of your Lordships' House who are present—of congratulating the noble Earl upon the clearness and lucidity with which he has dealt with this most complex subject. The noble Earl touched upon certain controversial matters, and I do not profess to find myself in complete agreement with everything he said; yet at the same time he expressed his views throughout with marked moderation.
It appears to me that in lamenting, as we all do lament from time to time, the growth of national and of local expenditure, we must be careful to draw a line between expenditure which can be in any degree described as extravagant and that which is necessary and in some cases even remunerative. It is a distinction which is not always quite fairly drawn. For instance, in dealing with the expenditure of local authorities it surely is necessary, although different views may be held as to the desirability of local authorities undertaking certain local services, to differentiate between expenditure which can be at all fairly described as extravagant and expenditure upon water supply, upon lighting, and upon different forms of traction, which cannot be classified, of course, as expenditure out of pocket. On the general question the noble Earl seemed to lament our extravagance and to expect a higher measure of economy from noble Lords opposite if they were to sit on these Benches. It is not for me to foretell what might happen when noble Lords opposite return to office; but in the meantime I might remind the noble Earl that his friends are perpetually pressing upon us, urging upon us, increased expenditure in a great many branches, not merely

135
as regards the defence of the country, but also as regards those measures of social reform upon which we are accused of having spent so much.
This subject, as I have said, is one of the most extreme complexity and difficulty. The noble Lord drew a distinction which we have all been accustomed to draw at any rate ever since the publication of the Report of the Committee on which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, sat—the distinction between local and national services; and he instanced the ease of education. Education might, I suppose, in one sense be spoken of as a purely national service, but, on the other hand, it is, of course, a commonplace to observe that if that particular service is to be paid for by national funds it must be conducted under national management. If you deliberately choose to hand over to the local authorities a very large share in the administration of our elementary education system and our secondary education system as well, it follows, as a necessary corollary, that at any rate a considerable part of the expenditure must be found from local funds. I confess I was a little surprised to hear the police service spoken of so confidently by the noble Earl as being purely a national service. That is a view I should myself hesitate to take. I should have thought that the provision of local police might be compared not unfairly with local services such as lighting and others of a kindred character.
The noble Earl complained of us in one respect with regard to the allocation made under the new system of finance, of the Land Taxes to local authorities. He stated that so far as the Land Values Duties were concerned, those had always been looked forward to by urban authorities as a possible source of revenue. When there was a question of passing legislation through this House in which the local authorities would have directly obtained some of those Land Values Duties the proposition was not favourably received by your Lordships. But on the general question I should like to say this, that the more one looks into the question the more one sees that the increment arising from what are known as urban land values cannot properly be set down in its entirety to the exertions of the particular locality. It really is not the case, in the case of such towns, say, as Glasgow, Bristol, or Manchester, that the whole of the increment
136
described under the name of land values is due, although, of course, a great part of it is, to the exertions of those who live in the immediate locality. Those who trade with the locality undoubtedly contribute their share towards that increment. On this particular point I should like to add that, even though the local authorities may have been disappointed in this particular instance, yet they have got their share of such duties as the Reversion Duties and of the Mineral Rights Duty, which I imagine never entered into their most hopeful dreams. Therefore if they have lost anything over the Land Values Duty they have gained on these other taxes. I think I might remind the noble Earl and the House that, in addition to those contributions, the Development Grant and the institution of the Road Board are all steps towards relieving the local authorities to some considerable extent from duties which otherwise might, in part, at any rate, have fallen upon them.
But my real reason for rising at this moment was to give the noble Earl the categorical assurance for which he asks. I can say quite definitely that if we find ourselves next year in the position of advising the Crown we shall make an attempt to deal with the whole of this subject. The noble Earl can take it from me that that is so. Of course, whether it might be possible to conclude the whole subject during the compass of a single session, I cannot say, but we shall certainly make the attempt; and we are now proceeding to gain information and to consider the methods by which the whole subject—one of enormous difficulty, I once more repeat—may be brought before the country in what I hope may prove to be a satisfactory form.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I have no intention of occupying the time of the House at any length. I have so repeatedly had to bring forward questions with regard to the incidence of local and Imperial taxation and the hardship of national services being put upon the rates, that it would be almost an insult to your Lordships if I were to repeat on this occasion what I have so often reiterated. I rise in the first place to thank my noble friend for his very clear and admirable statement with regard to the whole of the local affairs with which he dealt. I have some experience of local affairs myself, and nobody knows better than I do the great compli

137
cation and difficulty of describing accurately to gentlemen who are not so well informed as my noble friend is the actual state of the case. I listened with the greatest interest to the noble Earl's remarks, and I certainly think he gave the House a clear exposition of the actual state of affairs.
Let me say at once that when the noble Earl claimed that national services should be paid for out of national funds, he made no unfair claim. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House mentioned, that in a question like education a considerable part of the cost naturally must be paid by those who have to administer the work locally. The whole principle of local taxation is that some part, at all events, must be paid locally, and it would not be either fair or desirable that the whole of the funds should be found out of Imperial taxation. But in connection with education an enormous increase has been put on local sources since the earlier days to which the noble Earl referred—1889, 1894, and 1895. A return which I have in my hand shows that the increase in the amount raised locally, as compared with the earlier year 1889, was, in the year 1906–7,248 per cent. Large funds have, of course, been raised out of the Imperial Exchequer for this purpose, but the amount charged against local taxation has increased beyond all bounds.
As to the general points referred to by my noble friend, there was one which I am sure we shall cordially support. He protested, as I and many of my noble friends in this House have done, against Acts being passed through Parliament without any consideration of the cost thrown on the rates. I am glad the noble Earl again laid particular stress on that point, because it is one on which I do not think too much stress can be laid. You admit that the incidence of local taxation is inequitable and unfair, but the moment you have to find money for a particular purpose you accentuate the inequity and unfairness by putting the whole of the cost on local taxation.
There was one other point in my noble friend's speech to which I wish to refer—namely, as to the proportion, when we are going to get anything out of the Imperial Exchequer, which might be due to the different branches of local taxation. The
138
noble Lord naturally thought that London had a larger claim than other parts of the country. I read in a newspaper the other day a statement with regard to county boroughs, in which the claim was made that they ought to have a much larger share than others; and, no doubt, if one went into the country one would find the country ratepayer making the same contention I have no wish to say anything about the contest as to what proportions we should get when we get anything at all. But at all events we must all join in trying to make some impression on those who have the administration of the affairs of the country, and I was happy to hear that the noble Earl, in the latter part of his speech, gave an assurance that if possible this question would be tackled within twelve months.
A deputation from the County Councils Association a few days ago went to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, fortified with figures which we thought conclusive and which we had already sent to the right hon. gentleman. On behalf of the deputation I made some remarks with regard to the incidence of local taxation and the great grievances under which we suffered. I had not spoken for more than a very few moments when I was stopped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said he cordially agreed in everything we put forward. He said that he was perfectly aware that the inequity of the present system was very great indeed, that he was conversant with all matters of local government, especially with regard to the county councils, and that all he wanted to be convinced of now was, not that some money should be given towards the relief of the rates, but how that could best be done. The right hon. gentleman admitted that it was a large question, and said that if it was to be taken up in a complete way it would require a very large sum of money; and he regretted that he was obliged to say that a farthing given here or a halfpenny given there would be of very little use. I am glad to know that he thinks the question is so important that it ought to be brought forward within the next year. But at the same time a starving man is not altogether reluctant to have a crust of bread given to him, even though he sees a very good bill of fare in front of him which he may be able to enjoy at some future date. We had a good deal of discussion at the deputation,

139
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded his remarks by appealing to the gentlemen from the County Councils Association that they should go into this matter and make some suggestion to him at a future date with regard to the way that this large sum of money should be found. That, to my mind, marks a distinct step on the part of the Government.
If the Motion of my noble friend is carried, I should venture to suggest the addition of certain words. The Motion reads—
"To move for a Return giving particulars of the financial relations in the principal foreign countries and in British possessions between the central and the local governments."
I would like added to that the words—
"and of the methods by which funds are raised in such countries for the purpose of local government."
The County Councils Association are at present sitting for the purpose of considering what steps they should take with regard to the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we should go into this question. Obviously it might be a very large inquiry, and one of the first things that it would be desirable to know is how these matters are dealt with in other countries, and how these essentially large funds are raised. Even if the noble Earl the Leader of the House is not able to give a favourable answer to the request with regard to foreign countries, I do hope that in some form or another such a Return may be furnished. It will be of great value in view of the fact that these questions are going to be discussed, not only by the Government but by other people who are interested; and I am sure the County Councils Association would be very grateful for it.
TILE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a couple of minutes. I should like to say that I do not think there will be any very serious improvement in these matters until the Government of the day, whoever it may be, and also the Opposition, get thoroughly into their heads that. some reforms may be extremely useful, but they simply have to be adjourned or put off altogether for the simple reason that the country cannot afford them. It is impossible not to be struck by the truth of what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said, only he confined his observation to this
140
House. He said that in one breath, almost, people were complaining of the high taxation and at the same time asking for further expenditure. That is no doubt what is going on all over the country. The public in general and Parliament first think that reform is very desirable, and then they set to work to find the money. In some cases that is a proper way of proceeding, for instance when providing for national defence, on which our existence depends. But when we come to other reforms we have to consider the relative merits of the case, and, I think, balance what is the best thing to do: to impose heavy taxation or go without the reform for the time being. In fact, my Lords, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. That is a lesson which I am afraid has been entirely forgotten. The rates particularly are beginning to weigh very heavily on the people, but I am not altogether without hope, although it is useless to preach economy just now, that we may in the near future come to some more sane ideas, and be able to cut our coat according to our cloth, not only with regard to local but also with regard to Imperial taxation.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I think we ought to be very grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the statement he has made, that the Government really intend to take up this question of the revision of local rating at the earliest possible date, probably next year. Our gratitude must depend, of course, on what the actual method of giving this relief to local rates is, keeping in view the grievance which local ratepayers complain of, and which I think is universally acknowledged. We hope that relief will be given in a method which will be satisfactory, particularly to rural and agricultural ratepayers.
The two chief grievances of which we complain have been constantly put forward whenever this matter has been discussed. They are, first, that we are required to pay locally a very undue proportion towards the cost of those services which are partially or entirely of a national character; and, in addition, that these rates are levied on what is vaguely termed real property, and consequently the real wealth of the country is to a very large degree exempt. That is, I think, the chief injustice of the position. The basis upon which rates are levied was pointed out very fully by the Royal

141
Commission on Local Taxation, but those grievances have been intensified since that Commission reported by the enormous increase of expenditure which has taken place since that time. Every year new duties are being placed upon local authorities, and every duty carries with it increased expenditure and consequent increased burdens upon the already hard-driven ratepayer, During the last ten or fifteen Years the subventions from Imperial 'funds have increased, but they have by no means kept pace with the enormous increase of expenditure.
The noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, in bringing forward this Motion, dealt with the enormous sums we have to pay both for local and Imperial taxation, and with the rating for all purposes. But I should like to put before your Lordships two figures to show the increase of the particular rates for what are termed national purposes, and also the amount which we get from Imperial funds to meet them. Poor-law, police, education, and main roads are, I think, universally regarded as of a national or semi-national character. The total cost for the year 1906–7, the last year for which we have the full returns, was £14,500,000. Towards that we obtained from the Imperial funds a total of £18,500,000, leaving £26,000,000 to be paid out of the local rates, a proportion which we believe to be entirely unfair. While the total cost for these particular purposes leas increased since 1889 from £17,000,000 to £14,500,000, the Imperial contribution has increased only from £4,000,000 to £18,000,000, so that we are considerably worse off than before.
But the real significance of these figures is brought out when we can show the enormous increase in rates. In 1889 the average rate for England was 3s. 8d. in the £, while in 1907 it was 6s. 1d. That means an increase of over 60 per cent., although during. that time there had been a considerable increase in rateable value; but that increase in rateable value has not nearly kept pace with the increase of the amount of money we spend. The increase in the rateable value is 37 per cent., whereas the amount we spend has increased by 60 per cent. I think that shows that in some degree at all events we are living beyond our means. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation—and I speak with some diffidence on this
142
point, because the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who presided over that Commission, is going to follow me—suggested, with regard to the increase of expenditure on national purposes, that an additional fixed giant should be given in aid of local authorities. The suggested amount was a large sum, something short of £3,000,000; and while they had a very strong case for advising that grant in the year in which they reported—nine years ago—the case is much stronger now. We have, as I have shown, made enormous strides in the spending of money, and the grant then proposed would be quite inadequate to meet the case at the present moment, and would be vastly inadequate, I am certain, in the near future.
I doubt very much whether a system of fixed grants can be in any way a solution of these difficulties. I do not think they can be regarded as a satisfactory method. I am aware that a grant varying with the expenditure is open to still stronger objections, as obviously it must lead to extravagance if the local authority can put their hands into the bottomless purse of the Imperial Exchequer. But a fixed grant has an inherent objection of its own, for while it may be adequate for the immediate purpose intended in the year in which it is given, expenditure increases so rapidly that it soon becomes quite insufficient for the purpose. We see that very clearly in the grants under the Agricultural Rates Act. They were nominally one-half of the agricultural rates then paid—I think 1s. 1d. in the £. At the present day that sum is not nearly one-half of the rates, and as a matter of fact the increased expenditure of local authorities has swept away from the agricultural ratepayer practically the whole advantage which that Act gave him.
It was proposed at one time that the taxation of the country should be raised according to ability to pay; but that was a legislative proposal which I do not think was ever carried out or could be carried out in practice. It dates, I think, from the days of Queen Elizabeth, and just as a chance it has left the rates mainly to he raised on real property. In those days real property was the chief, if not the only, source of income; but since that time the centre of wealth has shifted altogether from the owners of real property, and is

143
much more centred in the hands of the owners of personal property. While the standard of ability to pay cannot be accepted as impracticable in the working out for ordinary purposes of rating, I should like, with your Lordships' leave, to refer for one moment to the system as we now adopt it. Of Imperial taxation, for every £100 raised 17½per cent. comes from rateable property and 82½ per cent. from other sources. Now we may presume that that is a fair system. If it is not a fair system it can be objected to from year to year. I take it that it is a fair division, and one which fairly shows the different classes of rating. But in local rating the position is almost entirely reversed. From figures calculated in 1901, which probably are not seriously different now, out of every £100 raised for local rating, 71 per cent. was raised from rateable property and only 29 per cent. from other sources. If the ability to pay as taken from the standard of Imperial taxation is correct, the figures I have given for local rating show that real property for those rates is paying a sum three or four times greater than it is entitled to do. I think that shows that a real grievance exists in the matter, and that there is good ground for some change.
I do not know what solution may be in the mind of the Government when they come to deal with this question, but I do think that the system of grants in aid from the Exchequer are unsatisfactory, whether they are in the form of fixed grants or of varying grants. The only solution which I think has been put forward—I am not quite certain whether it was supported by the Royal Commission or not—is that the Government should take over the expenditure, and with that expenditure the whole or a large part of the local control of a great many of these national duties. They have done so already, I think, in the case of prisons with a perfectly satisfactory result, and I do not see why the same process should not be applied to other national duties, such as the care of lunatics, the cost of the indoor poor, the police, reformatories and industrial schools, and other things. I do not believe it will be possible to take over the control entirely of education or of main roads, but I do believe that they might take over a very much greater control of these things than is done at present, and 1 do not think
144
any strong objection would be raised to their doing so if we got equivalent relief from rates. There can be no doubt, from what has been said on this subject in this House and in the country, that the question of relief of local rates is really a burning one, and we do look to the Government to go closely into the matter and endeavour as far as possible to arrive at a solution.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, this debate has opened a very large question and has ranged over very wide ground, and it would be quite impossible in an evening's debate to touch upon all the questions raised. The noble Earl who opened the debate, though the peg on which his speech hangs is a Motion for foreign returns, allowed the bulk of his speech to have reference to the one case of London. I do not think that the House is so much interested in London as in the general question of the relation between rates and taxes. But I will say this to the noble Earl, that I think he is perfectly right in saying that London has been very badly treated in the distribution of Parliamentary aid in the relief of local obligations.
I would like to mention the operation of the Education Act of 1902. There was then an aid grant which was intended to work up to nearly, but not exceeding, 10s.per child. Owing, however, to the extremely intricate adjustment by which that grant was to be distributed, and which I will undertake not one person in this House could repeat correctly, and very few could remember approximately, London, though spending more per head on the education of its children than any other locality, was receiving nearer 6s. than 7s. per child. 'I he bulk of the country was receiving nearly 10s. a child; that is to say, the local authority, which showed the greatest willingness to conduct the education of its children on a liberal scale received a very much smaller grant per capita than those who were not so generous. I entirely sympathise with those interested in London government who protest against that unfair treatment. I am glad to see that the London County Council are congratulating themselves on the expectation of receiving very soon £200,000 a year from the operation of the Budget. They are the more pleased to welcome that accession of income inasmuch as in their pamphlets and documents which helped them to win the elec

145
tion they put it as a probable result of this tax that something, like only £30,000 would be raised from the whole country. At any rate, they must be happy that their prophecies have proved wrong in that respect.
The debate has travelled to-night to the general question of the incidence and the proper burden of rates. I think people are too much in the habit of getting hold of a phrase and thinking that it is an argument. They say that services which are national ought to be paid for from national funds. Then comes the minor premise, "This, that, and the other services we perform are national"; and the conclusion that follows is "Those services should be paid for from national funds." There is not any service rendered in this country which cannot be looked at from the national and also from the local point of view, and I do not think you get any further by using that phrase. The essence of the question of where the burden of rates should fall is, Who has the right of directing and determining the scale of the expenditure? Take education, for instance. Local authorities have wide discretion. They may settle the scale of salaries to the teachers and the class of teacher they employ; they may decide to employ a highly qualified teacher, or they may decide to employ a less qualified teacher; and it is clear if they settle the scale high or low they use their own discretion. If you had a Government system I am afraid the standard of education in the better districts would be very materially reduced, because the Government would not take upon itself the burden of conforming to the liberal idea of education that is at present carried cut in the better districts. I tremble for what would happen in Scotland, with their liberal ideas of elementary and general education, if they were subject to a rigorous Treasury which would cut them down to the standard which has satisfied a backward English county. I think you must let the people who settle the policy be responsible for the substantial payment. I do not mind the grants being Parliamentary ones if they do not injure the principle of local self-government, but I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that there is great mischief in subventions. Either the people think it is not money which they are paying and therefore it encourages extravagance, or it brings with it an excess of Governmental interference. I am not desirous of Governmental inter
146
ference from Whitehall in our local self-government. I believe in trusting largely to the local authorities, and I think every time you come to the Treasury you put a fetter upon yourselves. So much for the question of national services and national aid. I say that the test is local management and local financial responsibility, and I am not anxious to diminish the initiative and freedom of local government.
In these debates we are apt to drift into a conflict between urban and rural authorities. The noble Lord who spoke last touched on the operation of the Agricultural Rates (Relief) Act. It is perfectly true that while the Government relieved in perpetuity all agricultural land from the obligation of being rated beyond one-half its value, that was a permanent concession given to agricultural land by the ratepayer; that is to say, the ratepayer occupying houses, and railway companies and other business enterprises, had to bear the whole burden of any increase of the rate. The Government subsidy was calculated upon the then rates falling upon different classes of property. Since then we know that of the various services which have been called into existence the heaviest of all the burdens in rural districts has been the Education Act of 1902. I think I am speaking within the mark when I say that that Act has imposed from a sixpenny to a nine-penny rate throughout the country. That has been practically an entirely new rate. The effect of the Agricultural Rates Act has been to charge the house occupier, and, as I said, industrial enterprises, such as railways, docks, canals and mines, which, though connected with the land and therefore rated, are industries, with the burden of all the increase of cost. That, I think, works very hardly. I agree with the speaker who said that we ought, if we can, to consider the ability of the person who pays the rate or the tax to bear the burden. In my opinion if any person has a claim to alleviation from the burden of the rates it is the small occupier of a house—the working man. Every one in this House will agree that the real burden of the rate upon agricultural land does not fall upon the occupier; it falls upon the owner. We all agree, of course, that a farmer taking a farm asks as his first question whether the rates are high or low, and he puts the rate and the rent together as one sum that he will have to bear if he takes the farm. I may say, in passing, that the burden of the rates on the

147
farmer is very greatly exaggerated. I have worked it out very carefully, and I undertake to say that on the whole turnover of the agricultural interest in the United Kingdom the rate is not three per cent. of the whole cost of production of the agriculture of the country. It is really quite an infinitesimal quantity.
The noble Lord made one great omission in his speech. Whether the fact was not present to his mind, or whether he had not elaborated his figures, I do not know. But any one who talks of rates in this country makes the greatest mistake if he does not sever the rates in the rural districts from urban rates. The great increase that has taken place in the rates has been in the urban areas. A large amount of those rates represents expenditure in populous districts for great social improvements, sanitation, better paving, lighting, clearing of slums, and so on. Of course, even in rural districts sanitation, proper water supply for villages, and all that kind of thing, have made demands; but we know that the great increase of rates has come about generally in urban districts. Another thing you must bear in mind is that the burden of the rate on agricultural land is in substance a charge upon property and not upon industry. When you talk about shifting conditions you must recollect that it is right that property the value of which has increased largely with the industry and prosperity of this country should bear a large share of taxation for local purposes.
But the burden on industry is another thing, and if we are to legislate in the way of the relief of rates we ought to legislate in such a way as to relieve the pressure of the burden on the small people—the resident occupiers, the cottagers, the small shopkeepers, and other people of the kind who do feel the burden of the rates. I agree that even here there is a great difference between the apparent and immediate incidence and the ultimate incidence of the rate. It is perfectly clear that a Bond-street shopkeeper who pays a very high rent and a very high rate does not pay that rent and rate himself. He would not take a shop in Bond-street unless he knew that he would there find a class of customer to deal with him at prices which cover the high cost of the rent and the rates of his house. therefore in talking of these things you never can put your finger exactly on the spot where the burden ceases or on the man who pays it.
148
We are all of us trying to pass our burdens on to our neighbours; some succeed, and some fail; but he would be a hold man who could say that he could point to the first bearer who had succeeded in passing it on. When we talk of the great increase of the rates we must bear in mind that that increase has been much more urban than rural. All these questions are of the greatest difficulty and the greatest complexity, and if the Government intend to deal with them next session, I think they will need to have a session equal in duration to that of last year and consider no other business at all, for the questions raised will touch the Poor-law and go to the root of the whole of our social life. It will not be enough to give time only; it will be necessary to give a great deal of knowledge and thought also to the matter.
I have some sympathy with the noble Earl who spoke from the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer) who said we were apt to rush cheerfully into expenditure before we knew where we should find the money to meet it, and I was struck with what was said by the noble Earl who introduced this debate, by the noble Lord who represents the county councils, and by others. They spoke with censure of Parliament passing Bills involving great additional burdens on the rates without considering where the money was to come from. But, my Lords, I have recently seen these various Bills go through—Bills for police superannuation on a higher scale, for a police weekly day of rest, and all that, one of them moved, I think, from the opposite Benches and passed without a word; and I venture to say that although your Lordships have no control over finance, still you have control over legislation, and I have not heard a word of objection from the other side when these Bills putting burdens on the rates have been brought in, or any Motion that the Bill be read this day six months.
LORD WENLOCK: I opposed as strongly as I could the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) Bill on behalf of a borough.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble Lord is perfectly right, but I am afraid he met with no response. As I say, the greatest burden thrown on the rates in the last few years was the burden imposed by the Education Act of 1902. The noble Lord and his friends rushed joyfully into that expenditure, and when they went down to their

149
counties they were equally delighted to give the benefit of a large public expenditure to their friends of the Voluntary schools. You must not, therefore, complain so much now when you have been parties to the policy. I dare say some of you in your hearts do not like this policy of liberal expenditure for public objects, but the misfortune is that at the present day you dare not say openly that you dislike it. These things are popular, and it is very difficult to get any politician, on whatever side of the House he may be, to take up a strong opposition to a thing which he believes is popular. You will offend the constitutents of your relatives or your friends whom you want to get into the other House, and so you all run away. You say, "Let us associate ourselves together and not raise our voices in opposition to this expenditure." One or two noble Lords do, but they cry in the wilderness.
We are going to end this debate with a Motion for Papers which I suppose will be granted. May I say I do not think these Papers will be of any use to us? I can quite understand carefully-prepared tables of finance being of use, even from other countries, but the finance of other countries is so different that unless you go into it more deeply then any Parliamentary Paper will do you will get nothing of great profit. In Germany the local authorities get a share of the Income Tax. Whatever Income Tax is put on by the central Government, so many pennies in the pound are added, up to a certain point, for local expenditure. In America you will find that practically the whole cost of education is borne locally. In Germany, again, the bulk of the cost of elementary education is born locally. All these things are so different and require so much knowledge that really you ought to get a Royal Commission of the most dispassionate, statistically-minded, and well-informed people before you could get a Report which would be of much use. Probably the newspapers would do it better than any Government, because the newspapers pitch into one another. If one newspaper misrepresents the facts on one side, the other side will show it up; and I think from the public Press you might elaborate something useful out of the criticisms passed week by week. But I do not think this Return will do a bit of good. Still, you can turn the Government statisticians on and they will give you what you want.
LORD DENMAN: They have not said that they were going to give it.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I thought they were preparing tables. I am very glad to hear they are not going to give it; there will be fewer Blue-books thrown at our heads: This question is so intricate and difficult and involves so many Second Reading speeches, every Member of the House taking up the point in which he is interested, that I do not think we are making any material progress. We can only take one small part of the question at a time usefully and direct our attention to some particular detail. To ramble over the whole field and talk of the grievances of London people and the grievances of agricultural people is so wide and so wild that I do not think we get any great advantage.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down began his speech by commenting on the wideness of the subject we have before us, and be gave your Lordships at the end of his speech some very sound advice as to talking on one part of the subject at a time only. I am not quite sure whether his speech tended to narrow the discussion or not.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I merely followed the several speakers and criticised them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I was going to say that there has been no speech in the debate which dealt with so wide a variety of subjects or more widened the area of discussion than the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I would like, before I go further, to associate myself with the compliment paid to the noble Earl who introduced this subject. I think any one who listened to his speech must have realised that, so far as regards the part he took up, he had thoroughly studied it and learnt his case. It seemed to me to be an extremely cogent case on the point with which he chiefly dealt.
No one knows better than I do how very large and complicated a subject this is. Before I sit down I shall touch on one aspect of it and venture to hope that I shall make at least one practical suggestion. But, as I say, it is a very complicated subject, and, as the noble Lord who just sat down said, it is a subject which cannot be dealt with within the compass of one

151
speech. But, my Lords, it is a really important. Subject, and one that is worth consideration. I believe there is nothing which would be more fraught with benefit to the people of this country than that it should he studied, and studied, so far as it is possible to study this question, in an impartial spirit. With one remark of the noble Lord I cordially agree—namely, that the man who is to be mainly considered is the small man who lives in a house in a populous area. If you increase the burden upon inhabited houses by the value of the house you certainly will prejudice the poor man at the expense of the richer one.
But if you are going to relieve the humbler man, do get rid of the system of compounding. Do let the poor man know what he is paying. At the present time, by the operation of the system of compounding, he thinks that everything which he pays to the landlord is rent, and is put into the landlord's pocket. He sees the rent going up, and he thinks the landlord is selfish and grasping, and is putting a burden upon him for the benefit of himself. If there is one reform in this country more needed than another it is that, even if the rates are paid through the landlord, the sum should be gathered from the tenant in such a way as to show the tenant what he is paying for rent and what he is paying by way of rates for the services by which he is benefited. That is the one thing which I think everybody who has studied this question, whether from the imperial, local, practical, or social point of view, is absolutely agreed upon. I do hope that point will not be lost sight of if we are going into the reform of local burdens of taxation.
In the course of this discussion grievances of various kinds have been touched upon. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, was not quite accurate, I think, in saving that rating is all upon real property. I think I am right when I say that personal property includes leaseholds. Now leaseholds are rated, and, therefore, the real distinction in this matter is not between real and personal property, but between property which is movable and property which is immovable —that is practically, as we know it, property which is rateable and property which is not rateable.
There are also complaints from ratepayers in general that they are too much
152
burdened, and that too much is put upon them in proportion to those who own this non-rateable property. There are complaints also among special classes of ratepayers in the same district. There are complaints and discussions between urban ratepayers and country ratepayers, and there is also the question, which was touched upon in the course of this debate, as to the grievance between urban ratepayers and the owners of urban lands. But I am not going to enter into these topics. They are a fertile source of discussion, but I venture to think that too little has been made by some of the speakers of the distinction between various kinds of rates. One noble Lord behind me spoke of an average rate of so much, but there is nothing more fallacious than averages in this matter. You have to look at what makes up the rate. If you say that the average of country rates and urban rates is so much in the pound, it is a most misleading and fallacious statement, because in the larger sum there are a great number of services rendered and paid for which are not done for the man in the rural area. Let me give two instances which are at the extremes as between what are called national and onerous on the one side, and local and beneficial on the other. No one can say that a rate for the supply of water, or of drainage, is anything but a payment for a service rendered. On the other hand, a poor rate, is, perhaps, in its essence absolutely onerous, and though the effect of it and the amount of it are largely influenced by local policy, one can hardly say that either this or the payment for education is other than really a national service and the carrying out of national policy. You cannot, however, lay down a definite rule for all cases and say, "This service is national, that is local, this is onerous, that is beneficial." The two run into one another in such a way that you cannot form a catalogue or list of them and put on one side those which are national and those which are local. But all that is almost commonplace.
The point I want to pass to is, What is the remedy for the admittedly unfair circumstances under which we are living? May I venture to say with what pleasure I heard the announcement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that the Government really mean to take up this question. I am afraid I have not much influence, but to those who have I venture

153
to say that if those who are in power and authority in the two Parties could establish and lay down some general principle we should not have this matter discussed as a contest between town and country, between the owner of personal property and the owner of real property, between people in different parts of the country. I would like to see some sound principle laid down which would be of practically universal application. An important point, to which I do not think sufficient attention has been paid in the past, is the way in which the national contribution is to be given to the local administration of services. Everybody admits that it must be increased. But the danger is that, if those who are responsible for local administration find that the more they expend the greater will be the national assistance they will receive, a direct premium will be placed upon extravagance. That must be avoided. Personally I do not like the system of assigned revenues. I do not think it fair to the poorer localities. As to the suggestion made by one noble Lord that the Government should take over more services I do not think that can go much further than it has gone. For my part I would rather see the services efficiently conducted locally. It is much better for the locality, and infinitely more likely to tend to making ways and means meet each other, and to local needs being supplied. On account of the system under which the local revenue is raised, it is unfair to one class of property, and. I venture to say you cannot have anything in the nature of local Income Tax or anything of that kind. You must get the assistance out of the Imperial Exchequer.
My Lords, the problem is how to be fair to the locality without risk of undue extravagance at the expense of the National Exchequer. It seems to me that the only way in which you can do it is to find some way of estimating what is the necessary minimum cost of any one of these services, which are partly national and partly local, in a given locality. This is no new point. This was, I frankly say, a fad of my own, and if any one will pay me the compliment of looking at the separate recommendations which I put into the Local Taxation Commission volume he will see there in full how it is worked out. Briefly the theory is this, that the contribution which is to be given from the central authority must have considerable relation to the necessary
154
cost of the service in question. This applies whether it is poor rate, or education, or such a matter as police; and it ought also so to be given as to afford a lever to the local authorities for improving local administration, both in efficiency and in economy. The only way that I can see of effecting this is by giving block grants, not by means of assigned revenue or by a payment once for all; but by a payment set for a period of years, to be revised according to changed circumstances and to have distinct relation to the ability of the locality to bear the burden. It may be difficult to test what is the ability of an individual ratepayer, but the ability of a locality is very easily ascertained by taking together the amount of the valuation and the population. You will find, if you look into it, that this system has this curious result, that it, gives more to the poorer localities, whether they are poor because they are densely populated localities or whether they are poor on account of the sparseness of their population and the low valuation. What I suggest is that it should be in all cases found out, as can easily be done, what is the average minimum expenditure necessary in any district for the due discharge of these services. When you have found out what is the certain minimum expenditure necessary in any district and the ability of the district to hear the burden, then a. test of administration can be applied by seeing whether the service very much exceeds the average cost or not. When it exceeds the average cost there should be a less contribution from the central authority in so far as that excess over the average cost was due to maladministration.
It is, as I have said, difficult to deal with this complicated matter within the limits of a short speech, and. I would, therefore, suggest to the Government, or to any one interested in the subject, that they should look at the arguments and the calculations and the tables in the Report of the Local Taxation Commission to which I have already referred. What we all want to do is to prevent a district such as West Ham being overburdened on account of the density of the population and the comparative poverty of the inhabitants, and to take care that districts like the western isles of Scotland are not overburdened owing to the very opposite circumstances. You should see that the valuation of all districts is made upon

155
something like a comprehensive and fair scale. It is perfectly obvious that if you leave the valuation to the district itself they will lower the valuation for the purpose of showing how much higher in the pound the rate is. You can lower a. valuation to such an extent as would show that 20s. in the pound is not more in one district than 8s. or 10s. in the pound in another. So long as you have no national system of valuation you are liable to this difficulty, that you place a premium on the locality to cut down its valuation as low as it. can. No one is more aware than myself how imperfect and fragmentary the remarks are that I have made, but I am most anxious that this aspect of the question should be considered, and I have been encouraged to bring it before the notice of those interested mainly on account of the promise we have received from the Leader of the House in the course of this debate.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, there is no member of your Lordships' House who speaks with higher authority on this question than Lord Balfour, and certainly the suggestions he has made in this debate or at any other time carry the greatest weight, and I will undertake to convey the points he has raised to-day to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I much regret the absence from the Government Bench of my noble friend Lord Fitzmaurice, whose wide experience and intimate knowledge of local government naturally entitle him also to speak with great authority, and would have enabled him to make an adequate reply to the observations of the noble Lord. All that I can attempt to do myself is to give some idea of the attitude of the Treasury in this matter, and to endeavour to reply to one or two of the criticisms that have been made against the Government.
So far as I have followed the debate, it seems to me that it has disclosed a considerable measure of agreement as between both sides of the House. We are agreed for instance, that the present system is entirely unsatisfactory; we are agreed that it stands in need of revision, and that the relations of local and Imperial taxation require re-adjustment. The present system is unsatisfactory because it is a system of doles, because it is a haphazard system, because it is inequitable, and because it does not conduce to economical adminis
156
tration. For example, I am told that a penny rate on the United Kingdom would result in about £1,000,000 being raised. But supposing that a grant of £1,000,000 was made from the Exchequer our experience goes to show that that would certainly not result in a corresponding reduction of the local rates. Then there is confusion in keeping the accounts and inequalities of rating. Rich authorities with high rateable value and high local expenditure get an undue share, which ought in justice to be given to poorer ones. Then there is municipal indebtedness, to which several noble Lords have referred. I have one or two figures to show the very high rate at which this indebtedness has increased. In 1902–3 the total amount of outstanding loans of local authorities in England and Wales, other than the Metropolitan Water Board, was £370,607,493. In 1907–8 it was £455,522,578. These, I think, are rather alarming figures, and do give cause for serious and anxious consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Might I ask the noble Lord whether the figures he has quoted appear in any Return, or whether he is doing us the service of giving us original figures which we cannot otherwise obtain? I only ask because I have not got them quite accurately down.
LORD DENMAN: I am happy to tell the noble Marquess that this Return was presented a day or two ago in another place, and, if he desires, I think it can be presented to your Lordships' House. There will be no difficulty whatever in getting it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD DENMAN: The noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, in his rather interesting speech, adopted a somewhat novel way of taking the Government to task for the indebtedness of the country, because he lumped together municipal accounts and the accounts of the Imperial Exchequer and then said, "Look at what a terrible result you have arrived." But I would put it to him that we are not directly responsible for the alarming rate at which municipal debt is increasing, and I would remind him of the record of the Government with regard to the National Debt. Since

157
the Government came into office the National Debt has been reduced by some thing over £40,000,000, and there is a provision in this year's Budget for a further £9,000,000 reduction. I think that is really a. very creditable financial record for any Government to hold.
Then the noble Earl went on to attack us—it is rather a. familiar complaint—on the ground that Parliament had continued to place fresh burdens upon local authorities. I agree that Parliament has done so, hut, as my noble friend Lord Sheffield reminded the House, the Government of noble Lords opposite certainly did this to just as great an extent as, if not to a greater extent than, we have done. There was, for instance, the Education Act of 1902, which placed an enormous burden upon the rates. There was the Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905, which also placed a very heavy burden on the rates; and it would be very easy for any one more familiar with the subject than myself to quote a number of instances Where Acts of Parliament of Conservative Governments have placed enormous burdens upon local authorities. If we have been sinners in this respect, I am bound to say that the noble Earl and his friends have been criminals of the deepest dye. Against that we may fairly also say that local authorities have frequently come to Parliament and asked for fresh powers which have considerably increased expenditure on their part.
I would like to remind the House that at present the grants given by the Treasury to local authorities are very high. In the last year for which 1 have figures available, 1908, they amount to no less than £20,630,000. I could give details of how that grant is distributed, but I do not think it is necessary at this stage of the debate. The position is not quite the same as when this subject was debated in your Lordships' House some two years ago, because since then we have passed the Old Age Pensions Act. Old people will no longer be maintained by the rates, and therefore will not be a burden upon them. In England and Wales the number of paupers fell from 229,474 on the 31st March, 1906, to 196,064 on the 1st of January of this year, which shows a decrease of over 33,000, and allowing for the increase of population, including Scotland and Ireland, the actual decrease. I should say will be well over
158
40,000, which will give a relief of over £300,000 a year to local authorities in the country.
Then there are the Land Taxes, half of which have been allocated, as noble Lords are aware, to local authorities. It is true that this year an arrangement has been come to whereby the Exchequer takes the yield of half of the Land Taxes that would have gone to local authorities and has given local authorities a sum of money slightly larger instead. It is also true that this year, and possibly for the next year or two, the yield of the Land Taxes may not be very high, but in years to come, when the increment value duty has fairly got into operation, this will yield a very considerable source of income, and I think the local authorities will enormously profit thereby.
One or two remarks have been made about the particular case of London. I could go into that in some detail, but I will spare your Lordships at this hour. I will only say that London has one-seventh of the population of England and Wales' and has one-fifth of the rateable value, so that the rateable value per head is nearly fifty per cent. higher in London than elsewhere, and there is little doubt that there is a corresponding different taxable capacity. That shows an advantage to London in this matter, if the circumstances of the particular cases of England and Wales and London were comparable, there might be some case for giving London the extra grant for which the noble Earl asked this afternoon. But I maintain that the circumstances are not at all comparable, and I do not think the Treasury would be justified in giving this concession. The fact has been ignored that the Government contribute considerable sums, as much as £10,000 to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, £100,000 to the Metropolitan Police, and other contributions in lieu of rates in respect of Government property in London, and London has the further advantage of being the seat of Government in this country and practically the centre of the Empire, by which, I think, London indirectly benefits.
The noble Earl has a Motion on the Paper in which he moves for a Return. I am informed that it would he very difficult indeed to give the particulars he wants with regard to foreign countries. That is the information I have from the Foreign Office. Lord Belper also asks for information, but

159
as he did not put his request on the Paper, I am unable to give a definite reply. I will, how ever, refer the matter to the Foreign Office, and I will certainly undertake to obtain the information if the Foreign Office are able to give their assistance in the matter. Then the noble Earl moves for another Return giving the financial relations in British possessions. As to that I have to say that there are great difficulties in the way of giving the returns for which the noble Earl asks with regard to the Crown Colonies, but my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will communicate with the Dominion Governments and will ask them whether they are able to furnish the information desired, in which case, of course, it will be laid on the Table.
Speaking generally, I think already there has been a good deal of discussion of this question, but it has not yet reached an acute stage like some of the controversies in which we have been engaged in the past two or three years. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, suggests that both sides should endeavour to come to some agreement in this matter. I seriously hope that they may be able to do so, but I am bound to say I do see difficulties ahead. I think it is fairly obvious that pretty well every local authority in this country—all the spending authorities: county councils, town councils, district councils, and boards of guardians—will approach the Government. with a demand or request, as the case may be, for relief. It seems to me, if I may say so, that the taxpayer is a person who is entitled to a great deal of consideration in this matter. So far as I can gather from the remarks that most noble Lords have made, they all contend that burdens should be taken off the rates and placed on the Exchequer. The noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, appeared to think that ratepayers will have no opportunity of making their voices heard in this matter. My own opinion is exactly the contrary. It seems to me that ratepayers would bring pressure to bear upon Members of the House of Commons who would naturally urge the Government to do something for particular localities all over the country. I think very often it is the case that the ratepayers feel the burdens more acutely because a great many of them pay their rates in cash, while a very considerable number of taxpayers in this country pay their taxes in indirect taxation, in commodities like tea, sugar, coffee, and similar articles. It does seem to me,
160
therefore, that when a settlement of this question is in sight the claims of the ratepayers will be urged with even greater force than those of the taxpayers.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, in the course of his very interesting remarks, suggested that certain charges should be transferred from local authorities to the Exchequer. I am bound to say that I think it will be necessary to approach any proposal of that kind for any sweeping transference of a charge hitherto borne by the rates to the Exchequer with the utmost caution; and I think, whilst a comprehensive survey of what are local and what are national charges must necessarily be undertaken, that above all it will be necessary for this Government or any Government that may deal with this matter to endeavour to hold even the scales as between the ratepayers and the taxpayers of this country.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, although I do not think we shall agree with quite all that was said by the noble Lord who has just sat down, we cannot but congratulate my noble friend who opened this debate with so admirable a speech on the announcement that has been made by the Government. There is a substantial grievance, and the Government tell us that they propose to deal with the whole subject next year, and that in the interval they are willing to furnish us with all the information they can. We attach great importance to that, because I am sure it will be felt on all hands that the advantage of to-night's debate has been to show a great deal of common ground between the two sides and no sharp division of opinion as to the rival merits of the ratepayers and the taxpayers; and so far as we can get the information for which my noble friend has asked, we shall certainly be advancing towards more common ground in the consideration of the question.
I have ventured to press upon your Lordships one point which I would mention again. I do think that all parties in this country are bound to use their influence, as far as they can, to arouse those who are responsible for electing public representatives to a realisation of the enormous expenditure which they are forcing on those representatives. Whether it can be done, as Lord Balfour proposes, by bringing home to individuals that they are paying rates, or whether in so doing we shall revert to a system which

161
means an increased cost of collection, I cannot say; but I believe the noble Earl, who served longer than I did on the London County Council, will be of my opinion, that the enormous increase which goes on and which is not confined to one Government or to another is to be deprecated and that it is absolutely necessary that in agricultural districts some powers should be given, which I think are not now possessed in a good many county councils, to enable those responsible for the finance to check the otherwise perfectly legitimate demands, which conjointly mount up to so enormous a sum, by the various committees.
I have not risen to make a speech, but I do feel that the whole of this subject, just as with regard to the subject of national expenditure, is absolutely slipping out of our hands, and that economy has gone to Saturn and Jupiter, as Mr. Gladstone was accustomed to say, and I feel that local expenditure is following suit For example, may I say that three hours ago when I was sitting on the Finance Committee of the London County Council we were approached with three schemes from different committees between them amounting to a million of money. Not one of the three committees had any idea that another committee was going to raise so large a question, and not one of the three, until it was pointed out to them, seemed to think it necessary that some authority should weigh what would be the charge on the ratepayers for the next fifteen or twenty years if the adoption of all those schemes was sanctioned. They considered they were all admirable, and that each of them ought to be carried out in some form or another. I mention that because the subject is getting far beyond ordinary ken.
I want to make one reservation with regard to the speech of the noble Lord opposite. He pointed out that all Governments are guilty of throwing these charges on the ratepayers. I think there is a great deal of difference, if I may say so, between a large scheme deliberately thrown on the ratepayers with the full assent of Parliament, such, for instance, as the Education Act of 1902, and this constant frittering away of money with small Acts to which no attention is drawn. I cannot help hoping that your Lordships will set the example to the House of Commons by insisting on all Bills which do throw a charge on the ratepayers having some dis
162
tinguishing mark on that particular portion of the Bill which creates the charge. That is no unreasonable demand, and it would have very considerable effect in rousing such guardians of the local purse as my noble friend, Lord Helper, and others, and it would call your Lordships' attention to what we are engaged upon.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to express my gratitude at receiving the assurance which the noble Earl the Leader of the House was kind enough to give us in regard to the intention of the Government to deal with this question not later than next year. I trust that when His Majesty's Government do take up this matter they will very seriously consider the proposals put forward by Lord Balfour to-night, and which are contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. I remember some two years ago studying his system of block grants for the relief of local expenditure, which had the merit of taking into consideration the ability of the district, to pay for the services required, and which is the only system I have ever studied which seemed to me to encourage economy in the local body and at the same time relieve districts in proportion to their ability to bear the burden. I do not wish at this period of the evening to enter into any of the rather controversial questions which Lord Denman raised, such as the reduction of the National Debt, which is largely an automatic reduction owing to the process of the Sinking Fund. In initiating the discussion this evening I pointed out that I did not wish to make a Party question of this, or to make any attack on the Government for their delay in dealing with this matter. After what the noble Lord has said I will not press my Motion. I am quite content to leave it in the hands of His Majesty's Government to give us all the information, as I am sure they will do, that is in their power.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.
NORWICH CHARITIES (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

YEOMANRY RIFLE BUCKETS AND AMMUNITION.
LORD LAMINGTON*LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War why Yeomanry regiments are not equipped with proper buckets for the new rifles, and whether the allowance of blank ammunition cannot be increased.
The noble Lord said: I rise to ask the Question that stands in my name. The matters referred to therein have, I think, been the subject of representation to the War Office, and I should like to hear what answer can be given by His Majesty's Government on the subject.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I am afraid that the question of the ammunition, as far as I can trace it, is not one that has been referred to us. This is the first we have heard that the allowance which is given at the present time is supposed to be inadequate. Twenty-five rounds per man are issued, and an extra ten rounds when the Territorial is manœuvring with Regulars. We do not feel inclined to increase that if we can possibly help it, because it is an expense, and although it is a necessary expense it is one of those things that we like to keep down as low as we possibly can. With regard to the question of the rifle bucket, we are issuing instructions for the adaptation of the present rifle bucket to the short rifle. The bucket, of course, was designed for the long rifle, and I know there is some difficulty in carrying the short rifle with it; but if certain alterations are made, if the straps are shortened, we do not think that there will be any particular difficulty in carrying the rifle in the same way as the long rifle was carried. We are not disposed at the present time to consider providing the other bucket which has been asked for—namely, the
164
bucket which the Cavalry have—because, among other things, we do attach great importance to the Yeoman and his rifle being attached to each other, so that if he gets separated from his horse he will always have his rifle.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am not officially informed, but I understand that there was a representation from Scotland as regards the insufficiency of the blank ammunition. It is a serious deficiency. You cannot with twenty-five rounds carry out all the field days, five or six in the course of training, and consequently these field days will lose half their value. It is impossible to understand how operations are to be conducted without having at least thirty or forty rounds per man, and I certainly understood that a. representation was made from Scotland last year for a grant of 200 rounds a year per man. That, I know, is considered by various commanding officers as the absolute minimum, and I know of one commanding office: who had to buy ammunition for one squadron of his regiment, this training or last training, to supply this want. With regard to the rifle buckets, if the Cavalry find it necessary to have these buckets it seems only reasonable to suppose that the Yeomanry also require them. I am glad to hear that some attempt is being made to improve matters, but certainly the present bucket is bad both for the horseman and rifle. If the present bucket can be adapted, well and good, but, if not, undoubtedly in the interests of all there should be a new bucket supplied. I also hope that the noble Lord will consider having a larger amount of blank ammunition. I am sure other representations will be made on the matter.
House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.