C-Army-ESTIMATES-continued.

He

This was quite justifiable, and the Boers on their side had employed natives throughout the war, even in engagements.-Mr. E. Robertson (L.) asked whether the self-governing colonies would be invited to contribute substantially to the cost of the war. trusted the Govt. did not intend to follow the example of Mr. Chamberlain by grovelling at the feet of the colonies.-The amendment was negatived by 182 to 54, and the vote was agreed to.-On the vote of £18,940,400 for the pay of the Army, Mr. Whiteley (L.) moved a reduction as a protest against the treatment of the claims of members of the Imperial Yeomanry as to arrears of pay.-Mr. Brodrick stated that very few claims remained unsettled.-The amendment having been rejected, the vote was agreed to. Mar. 7.

On the vote of £8,332,000 for warlike and other stores, Capt. Norton (L.) moved a reduction as a protest against the low wages paid in Woolwich Arsenal.-Negatived by 171 to 104.-Mr. O'Mara (N.) moved a reduction, and raised a question as to the price paid for Maxim guns.-Negatived (202 to 107).-Mr. Brodrick gave_explanations on various points, and the vote was carried by a majority of 190.-On Report, votes for men and pay were confirmed, after some discussion.

Mar. 10.

Votes for engineer services, retired pay, half-pay, and other non-effective charges for officers, and for Chelsea and other military hospitals, and for rewards, were agreed to. Mar. 11.

The War Office vote of £332,000 was further discussed.—Mr. Brodrick dealt with various questions raised, and justified the steps taken to improve recruiting. Mar. 21.

L-Lord Monkswell (L.) raised further questions as to the supply of cordite ammunition provided since the Rosebery Govt. quitted office in 1895, and moved for papers.Lord Raglan replied, and the motion was negatived.

Apr. 17.

C-Votes for the Militia, Imperial Yeomanry, and Volunteer corps were passed after discussions dealing with details.-The vote for the Army Medical Establishment was discussed and passed.

July 17. In Supply, Sir C. Dilke (L.) called attention to the purchase in 1900 of 18 batteries of quick-firing German guns. in which there were defects.-Mr. Brodrick said that the guns required could not at the time be obtained in England as quickly as in Germany. The guns proved to be highly satisfactory, and a long way ahead of any other yet introduced. Lord Roberts made every attempt to obtain in this country better guns in quickness of fire, range, and accuracy, but as yet the War Office had been unable to find one. He desired to encourage the manufacture in this country of the best kind of quick-firing ordnance; but if they could not be procured here, they must be obtained elsewhere.-Lord C. Beresford (C.) who thought that in the circumstances the purchase of the German guns was justified.-The closure was carried by a majority of 89, and the vote was agreed to by 203 to 63.

See also under S. AFRICA: and SUPPLY, June 12.

July 31.

L-ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE.-A discussion took place on the disturbances at Sandhurst, and Lord Raglan gave explanations of the action taken by the Commander-inChief with a view to their suppression and the discovery of the offenders.-Lord Roberts also explained that though not favourable to general punishment, in the present case he thought it was unavoidable, if discipline was to be maintained. He would carefully inquire into each individual case.-Lord Lansdowne, Lord Rosebery, and the Duke of Devonshire took part in the discussion.

July 10.

L-MILITARY EDUCATION.-Lord Monkswell (L.) called attention to the report of the Committee on this question, and moved a resolution in favour of immediate steps being taken with a view to remedy the deplorable state of things disclosed in the report. The Bishop of Hereford said it was most important that the establishments at Woolwich and Sandhurst should be united in a great military institution, governed by a body on which the civilian element was represented.-Lord Raglan said the Secretary of State for War was engaged almost daily in discussing this question with those best qualified to give proper advice, and it was intended as soon as possible to formulate a scheme to improve the education of the Army.-After some remarks from Lord Denman and Lord Ribblesdale, Lord Lansdowne said the Govt. could not accept the motion in the form proposed, but they would agree to the resolution if modified.This was agreed to.

July 17. L-HORSES.-Lord Dunraven (C.) called attention to the question of horse-breeding in the United Kingdom, and moved a resolution that the Commission on Horse-Breeding should report on steps to be taken to encourage the same.-The Duke of Devonshire thought the whole question was one of money, and if the price allowed for remounts could be increased it would be more effective than any system of registration.--Motion withdrawn.

Mar. 13.

C-On the vote for transport and remounts, Sir A. Hayter (L.), Col. Welby (C.), and others discussed the question of the purchase of remounts.-Mr. Brodrick admitted that at the beginning of the war the Remount Department was not organized with a view to meeting sudden and exceptional demands. He hoped the Department in future would get into close touch with farmers. The vote was agreed to.

Aug. 4.

Army, The-HORSES-continued.

On the vote for provisions, forage, and supplies, Lord Stanley stated that the contract for meat would be inquired into by the War Commission.-The vote was agreed to.

Aug. 4.

*YEOMANRY AND MILITIA BILL.-In the debate on the 2nd R. of this Bill, Sir A. Hayter (L.) moved its rejection, on the ground that it would introduce changes which violated the territorial system as far as the Militia was concerned, and enabled the Minister to relax or dispense with the provisions of Acts of Parliament.-Mr. Brodrick said the Bill merely enabled him to carry out proposals which the House had already sanctioned. It would render it unnecessary in future to call up absolutely untrained men, as was done during the late war.-A motion to adjourn the debate was negatived by 90 to 60.-Mr. Brodrick then explained the Bill, which, he said, affirmed no new principles of importance. The powers conferred on him would only extend to the question of training. It was intended to bring the numbers of the Yeomanry up to 35,000, of whom 5,000 were to engage for service abroad in emergencies. He consented to defer the latter provision.-The Bill was read a second time. Dec. 9.

In Committee, Mr. Warner (L.) moved an amendment which was rejected by 107 to 34. Mr. Pirie proposed to disallow the transfer of men in the Reserve from one corps of Militia or Yeomanry to another.-Negatived by a majority of 69.-The Bill passed through Committee.

The Bill was read a 3rd time.

Dec. 11.
Dec. 12.

L-The Bill was read a 2nd time Dec. 15, and subsequently passed into law (see Statutes, 2 Edw. VII.. cap. 39, post).

C-Beer Bill.-Mr. Tomlinson (C.) moved the 2nd R. of a Bill to prohibit the use in the manufacture of beer of a less quantity of barley malt than 85 per cent. of the total saccharine-yielding materials employed.-Mr. F. Moulton (L.) opposed it on the ground that it would put unjustifiable obstacles in the way of the advance of the brewing industry.-Sir M. Foster (L.U.) explained that beer made by methods against which the Bill was directed could not be distinguished from beer made from barley malt alone, and was often superior.-Mr. Chaplin (C.) said the Bill would do a good deal to assist the agricultural interest, which was still depressed.-Sir M. H. Beach (C.), Chan. of the Exchr., speaking officially only. opposed the 2nd R., as it would cost the Exchequer a considerable sum and must largely increase the staff of the Inland Revenue. Sugar was, he said, now more costly than barley malt, and its use was necessary to produce light beers which were largely consumed. The change was not necessary in the interests of public health, and it would interfere in the development of an important industry.-The Bill was rejected by 212 to 140.

BUDGET.-See under FINANCE.

Apr. 23.

C-*Business of the House.-ASH WEDNESDAY.-The motion to defer the hour of meeting on Ash Wednesday until 2 o'clock was carried by 218 to 130. Feb. 11.

nem. con.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.-Mr. Balfour announced that the King had given his consent to the appointment of a Deputy-Chairman, empowered to act as Deputy-Speaker when required-On going into Supply he moved that Mr. Jeffreys should take the chair in the absence through illness of the Chairman of Ways and Means.-Agreed to Feb. 14. SUPPLY.-Sir M. H. Beach moved that the Govt. be empowered to take Supply on Tuesdays before Easter. He justified the motion on the ground of financial necessity. -The resolution was carried after debate by 206 to 145. Feb. 25. EASTER RECESS.-On the motion for adjournment to April 7, Mr. J. Redmond (N.) called attention to the action of the Irish Executive (see under IRELAND, ADMINISTRATION), and Mr. Brodrick gave information as to the war (see S. AFRICA).-The Amendment was rejected by 179 to 84, and the adjournment was agreed to. Mar. 25.

ASCENSION DAY.-A motion appointing 2 o'clock for beginning Committee work on Ascension Day was carried by 118 to 72.

May 7. WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.-On the motion for adjournment, various subjects were discussed, among them being incidents connected with the war (see S. AFRICA), sea fisheries, shipping combinations, and military prisoners.

May 16. OPPOSED BUSINESS.-Mr. Balfour moved the suspension of the rules requiring opposed business to terminate at midnight on four days in the week and at 5.30 on Fridays, explaining that he hoped the House would dispose of the 7th clause of the Education Bill before the adjournment on August 8, and also make some progress with the Water Bill.-After much discussion and the rejection of amendments, the motion was carried by 216 to 158. July 28.

Mr. Balfour moved to give Govt. business precedence for the remainder of the Session, which he said was prolonged for the express purpose of passing the Education Bill. One other important measure, the London Water Bill, must be disposed of, and there was some other business, including the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which must be passed; a resolution on the sugar bounties: a Bill to enable the nation to accept His Majesty's gracious gift of Osborne; a vote for the financial conditions agreed to when peace was made in the Transvaal; the new procedure

C-Business of the House-continued.

rules; the Indian Budget; and, possibly, proposals relating to the Uganda Railway. -Mr. Bryce said the Govt. would do well to reconsider their determination to proceed with the Education Bill.-Other members followed.-Mr. Balfour said that he did not pledge the Govt. not to deal with any new questions of importance that might arise. Mr. Flynn moved to except from the resolution motions relating to proceedings under the Crimes Act.- Sir W. Harcourt and Mr. J. Morley supported this, reminding the House that ten Irish members had been imprisoned, and insisting that full opportunity ought to be given for debating the question. Mr. Balfour pointed out that the subject could be debated on a motion for adjournment. The closure having been moved, an excited debate followed, in the course of which Mr. J. O'Donnell (N.) was named for disregarding the authority of the Chair, and was suspended, the vote for suspension being carried by 341 to 51.-The closure was then carried (263-148): Mr. Flynn's amendment rejected (261-150); and the main question agreed to by 262 to 145. Oct. 16.

C-*Children's Employment Bill.-Mr. Ritchie (C.), Home Sec., introduced a Bill, which was read a first time, for regulating the employment of children, and protecting them against risks in certain dangerous occupations. July 10. L-China.-WEI-HAI-WEI.-In reply to a question by Lord Spencer (L), Lord Onslow (C.), Under Sec., said the Govt. had held a careful inquiry into the advantages of Wei-hai-wei as a military and naval station, and had decided that the idea at one time entertained of fortifying it, and keeping a large garrison, should be abandoned. The administration of the colony would be undertaken by police. The position had been found to be capable of fortification only at very great expense; but it was very useful for small-arms practice and for naval gunnery experiments. It was also a healthy station, and would probably be used as a sanatorium for Hong-kong, Shanghai, and other places, and for the military and naval forces. The new administrator, Mr. Lockhart, had had many years' official experience. There was no intention to give the place up, or to return it to China, or hand it over to another power.-Lord Rosebery (L.) said the acquisition of Wei-hai-wei was announced with a flourish of trumpets, and now apparently it was to be but a second-class watering place.-Lord Goschen (C.), as having been at the Admiralty when Wei-hai-wei was acquired, said he was surprised to hear that the first opinions respecting its value could not be sustained. There could be no doubt, at the same time, as to its strategical advantage. He hoped financial considerations had not alone been taken into account.-Lord Selborne (L.U.), First Ld. of Admy., said the decision had been made on purely strategical and naval considerations. Naval opinion was strongly in favour of the course adopted.-Lord Spencer said there had been a complete change of policy, and he hoped papers would be presented justifying it.

Feb. 10.

C-A similar statement to that made by Lord Onslow was made on behalf of the Govt. Feb. 10.

Mr. Arnold-Forster (L.U.), Sec. to Admy., stated that Wei-hai-wei would still be used as a naval station for many purposes, and that the question of fortification was decided on purely strategic grounds.

Feb. 17. L-Lord Portsmouth (L.) called attention to the subject of Wei-hai-wei, and moved for papers.-Lord Goschen (C.) said the change of policy was due to a different set of men, judging from the same materials, coming to a different conclusion from that of their predecessors. When he was First Lord, the balance of naval opinion was decidedly in favour of keeping Wei-hai-wei as a secondary naval base. He had no doubt that his successors had given equal attention to the matter.-Lord Selborne said that the Govt. had reserved to themselves full liberty to decide to what extent Wei-hai-wei should be utilized. It might have been made either a primary naval base, a secondary base, or a peace base. The Admiralty were unanimous in advising that it should be retained as a peace base, and H.M. Govt. accepted their opinion. The matter had been decided on strategical grounds only.-Lord Spencer said that the question was one for the Cabinet, and upon them the responsibility of the decision must rest. On the whole, he thought that if Wei-hai-wei were held at all, it ought to be held as a secondary base.-Motion withdrawn. Mar. 18.

GENERAL.-Lord Cranborne stated that H.M. Govt. had no reason to question the good faith of the declaration of Russia, that its administration of Niu-chwang was temporary and provisional. Feb. 20.

C-On the 3rd. R. of an Appropriation Bill Mr. J. Walton (L.) directed attention to Chinese affairs.-Lord Cranborne said the policy of the Govt. as to Manchuria had undergone no change; they believed that the province would be restored to the position in which it stood before the troubles began. A reduction of European troops in Tientsin would probably take place before long.

Mar. 20. Lord Cranborne stated that a convention between Russia and China relating to Manchuria had been signed, and he understood that there was to be partial evacuation within six months and complete withdrawal within 18 months.

Apr. 10.

On the 2nd R. of an Appropriatiou Bill, Lord Cranborne explained the agreement with Russia respecting Niu-chwang, and announced the terms of the commercial treaty with China, which was in course of negotiation.

See also under JAPAN and FOREIGN POLICY.

Aug. 6.

L-Church of England.-SOUTHWARK BISHOPRIC BILL.-The Abp. of Canterbury moved the 2nd R. of this Bill, which proposed to relieve the diocese of Rochester by dividing it into two parts-one of which would be called the diocese of Southwark and would include the district of South London.-Agreed to.

Mar. 4.

The Bill passed through Committee Mar. 13, and was read a 3rd time, Mar. 18. C-Col. Stopford-Sackville (C.) moved the 2nd R. of the Bill.-Mr. Brand (L.) proposed an amendt. against increasing the number of the bishops until satisfactory assurances had been obtained from them that they would suppress the Romanizing practices of a section of the clergy.-The 2nd R. was passed by 157 to 106. CLERICAL DISTRESS.-Mr. Balfour stated in reply to a question, that while he agreed that the poverty of many of the clergy of the Church of England was severe, he could not consent at present to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

May 9.

Mar. 14.

L-Copyright.-Lord Windsor (C.) called attention to the question of musical copyright and the illegal sale in the streets and elsewhere of copyright music.-Lord Halsbury (C.), Ld. Chancellor, said that a real evil existed, but it was a serious thing to remedy a private wrong by criminal proceedings. He would consider any Bill on the subject. Mar. 14. Lord Monkswell moved the 2nd R. of a Bill to give additional and summary powers for stopping the piracy of musical works.-Agreed to.

Apr. 17.

The Bill was read a 3rd time Apr. 25, and subsequently passed the H. of Commons. (See Statutes, 2 Edward VII., cap. 15, post.) L-Cremation Bill.-A Bill to regulate the practice of cremation was read a 2nd time on the motion of Lord Monkswell (L.)

Jan. 21.

The Bill passed through Committee, Feb. 3, and was read a 3rd time, Feb. 24, afterwards passing the H. of Commons. June 13. (See Statutes, 2 Edward VII., cap. 8, post.)

Cruelty to Wild Animals.-The Bp. of Hereford moved the 2nd R. of a Bill to prevent cruelty to wild animals which were kept in confinement and released for the immediate purpose of being hunted, coursed, or shot. It would prohibit the hunting of the carted stag, pigeon shooting, and coursing bagged rabbits.-Lord Newton (C.) moved the rejection of the Bill as a piece of class legislation.-After some discussion, Lord Aberdeen (L.) suggested that the 2nd R. should not be pressed to a division. The Bp. of Hereford thereupon withdrew the motion.

CYPRUS.-See under SUPPLY, May 26.

Mar. 3.

C-Education. -*EDUCATION BILL. Mr. A. Balfour (C.) First Ld. of Treasury, introduced the Bill dealing with primary and secondary education. He gave a brief history of the objects and effect of the Act of 1870, which, he said, was passed to supplement the voluntary system. While that Act had been successful in providing additional schools, it had involved Voluntary schools in difficulties through the rivalry of rate-aided Board schools, and had thrown an unexpected burden on local finances in School Board areas. Moreover, it provided no organisation for voluntary schools, or provision for the education of the teachers, and it did not establish any organic connection with secondary_education. The first and last had been to some extent met by reforming the Endowed schools and the Act of 1897, but at present primary and secondary education was dealt with by two elected authorities, the local councils and the School Boards. Between these authorities there was necessarily rivalry. Independent endowed schools, and voluntary schools, were not organized or brought into connection with any educational authorities. The School Board system, with unlimited rating_power, needed reform, and provision must be made for the education of teachers. The voluntary schools were in many cases not as well equipped as they ought to be. It was absurd to attempt to sweep them away, as it would leave an enormous gap in our educational system. To replace the buildings alone would involve an expenditure of £26,000,000, and their continued existence was essential if the wishes of parents for denominational teaching were to be met. The Govt. considered that in future there should be but one authority for education-primary, secondary, and technical; that this authority should be the rating authority for the district; that the voluntary schools ought to be placed in a position to bear their part in national education; that, as far as possible, denominational squabbles should be avoided; and that the authority should be able to command all possible local educational skill. The Bill would provide that the education authority should be the councils of counties and county boroughs. They would work through committees appointed under schemes to be approved by the Board of Education, and a majority of a committee would be appointed by the council, the other members being selected from persons experienced in education. Wales, which had already a secondary education authority, would have the option of coming under the Bill. With regard to secondary education, county and borough councils would have a 2d. rate to work upon, and if insufficient, power would be given to raise the limit, by provisional order. Boroughs already having certain control over technical education, with a 1d. rate, would retain their jurisdiction, and might, if they chose, become the authority over primary education, and,

C-Education-*EDUCATION BILL-continued.

concurrently with the county council, for secondary education. All secular education would come under the new authorities, which would be the heirs of the School Boards, and the cost of maintenance of all schools would come out of the county rate. The managers of voluntary schools would remain responsible for using them for educational purposes, for keeping them in good repair, and making reasonable alterations. New schools might be erected under reasonable limitations, and if there was a difference of opinion as to the need for a new school the Education Department would decide, after considering the interests of local education, the burden on the rates, and the wishes of the parents. The scheme would apply to the whole country, with the exception of London, which required separate treatment. With a view to secure the co-operation of the local authorities, the adoption of the elementary education part of the Bill would be made optional, but he believed that this voluntary element in the Bill would remove many difficulties, and would not delay for long its universal operation. The Bill would largely decentralize education; it would attract to the work experienced men who would not face elections; and he hoped it would be approved by both denominationalists and anti-denominationalists.-Sir H. C. Bannerman (L.) said he realised that there was abundant room for improvement in elementary school teaching, and in the organization of secondary education, but popular control and management were of paramount importance, and he trusted that Church schools would be placed under it. Until the Bill was printed, he reserved his opinion on its merits.-Sir R. Jebb (C.) said the Bill contained the makings of a really satisfactory and comprehensive measure. He hoped that women would obtain places on the education committees. A great blot, however, was the existence of the optional clause.-Mr. Bryce (L.) said that the clauses affecting elementary education disclosed serious prospects of friction. He disapproved of the supersession of School Boards.-Other members having spoken, the motion for leave to bring in the Bill was carried by 176 to 23. Mar. 24.

Mr. Balfour explained that it was not the intention of the Bill to exclude women from educational work.

Apr. 10. On the 2nd R. of the Bill, Mr. Bryce (L.) moved its rejection. He said it was the most reactionary of the Bills of the Govt. It would abolish School Boards, which had done such admirable work, and county councils were not the best authorities for dealing with the subject. Nor did it establish unity of administration or effective control, either local or central. The local managers would be virtually independent of the education authority, and the limits of the functions of the different authorities were not accurately defined. He hoped the optional clause would be adhered to. The Bill would do little, if anything, for secondary education, and it would not promote the better training of teachers, or open the door to Nonconformist teachers. It would rivet permanently the denominational schools on to the educational system of the country. It was really a Voluntary Schools Relief Bill, which ignored the rights of the people and disregarded the principle of popular control.-Sir J. Gorst claimed that the Bill would prevent overlapping and waste of money. One authority in every district would be able to devise a plan of education suited to the inhabitants. The authority must be either the county or borough council or the School Board. The county council was chosen because it had already done good work in secondary education and was popularly elected, and because complicated legislation would be necessary to make the School Board the authority. The functions of the Board of Education would continue unimpaired. In secondary education organization was the great want, and the question of providing teachers would be one of the first duties of the new authorities. The supersession of all voluntary schools, with 3,000,000 children, was out of the question. The religious difficulty did not exist in the schools themselves, but only in the House of Commons and on public platforms. In any case, it could not be put down by Act of Parliament, and it was less likely to exist in a town council than in a School Board. The Bill would conduce to general educational progress. Sir C. Dilke (L.) said that if county authorities improved higher education it would be at the expense of primary education. The Bill would increase the cost of education without giving any security that the money would be applied in the best way.— Sir R. Jebb (C.) held that the ratepayers would have full control over education by a popularly-elected council acting through an education committee. They would be able to render all elementary schools efficient, and the central authority, if need be, could insist that this should be done. For 32 years religious and secular teaching in Board schools had been defrayed by the rates paid by Churchmen, Roman Catholics, and others who had conscientious objections to those schools. Distinctive religious teaching might therefore reasonably receive aid. The buildings of the Voluntary schools represented a capital value of 26 millions, and to replace them would cost many millions more.-Mr. Haldane (L.) said he could not vote against the Bill, though it contained imperfections which prevented him from voting for it. Those who objected to rate-aid for Church schools had themselves received large sums of public money for the maintenance of their own denominational training colleges and voluntary schools. Mr. Perks (L.) argued against the Bill as one brought in to please the clergy of the Church of England, and as introducing sectarian controversy into every