To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that over 70 per cent. of the female prisoners in the gaols of this country have been previously convicted, he will consider the desirability of augmenting the lectures given by lady visitors last winter by practical teaching in laundry, cookery, and hygiene, which would fit the prisoners on leaving to earn their living; also whether he would again consider the advantages to be gained by the appointment of a female prison inspector. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The industries carried out under skilled instruction as a part of the regular prison routine for female prisoners furnish practical teaching in laundry work and cooking, and with regard to "hygiene," as much as is possible is done by including "sanitation" as one of the subjects of a course of lectures which have now for some months past been delivered by lady visitors to female prisoners in the Metropolis according to a regular and approved plan. It is hoped to extend, in due course, the good work that is being done by lady visitors in London in this respect to other prisons throughout the country. As regards the second paragraph of the Question. I have seen no reason to differ from the adverse view expressed by my predecessor in answer to a similar suggestion from the hon. Member on the 31st January, 1902.†

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the practice of some boards of guardians of refusing to allow their officers to dispense non-resident out-door relief on behalf of other unions, he will take such steps as may be necessary to make it obligatory on all unions to distribute such relief. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There are certain objections to the system of non-resident relief, and I am not prepared to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member. If a board of guardians refuse to distribute non-resident relief, it is open to the guardians who desire to grant it to make arrangements for its distribution through some other channel.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether figures recently furnished by the Board of Trade, showing the value of the exports of British produce and re-exports of foreign and colonial produce, include the freights to ports of destination; if not, can he furnish an estimate of what such freight would amount to in each of the periods, and how much of it was earned by the British ships; and would he also say whether such freight, where earned by British ships, should be regarded as an export from this country. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) As stated in the official trade accounts, the recorded values of our exports of British produce and of re-exports of foreign and colonial produce are the "free on board" values, and consequently do not include the cost of freight from United Kingdom ports to the ports of destination. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. In my opinion, the earnings of British shipping must be

† See (4) Debates, cii., 28.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the amounts received respectively by our colonies from duties on imports in the years 1882, 1892, and 1902, and their population at those periods. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The information as to revenue from import duties only cannot be supplied at short notice, but the hon. Member will find particulars of the Customs revenue of the various colonies for a period of years in Table 8 of the Colonial Abstract [Cd. 1325–1902]. In some cases a relatively small proportion of this revenue represents receipts from export dues. The figures for 1902 are not yet available.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount deposited in the savings bank per head of the population in the following countries: Great Britain, France, Sweden, Austria-Hungary, United States of America, Belgium, Australia, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The preparation of these figures would entail a considerable amount of labour, and the result would give a very incomplete indication of comparative thrift in the countries named, owing to the omission of friendly societies and other thrift agencies not included under the title of savings banks.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the increased exports for the first six months of 1903, compared with the figures of last year and for the periods 1873–1882, 1883–1892, and 1893–1902 is due to coal and coke; and how much have been the increases of the same class of exports to British possessions. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The increase of the value of the exports of coal and coke during the past six months, compared with the corresponding period of last year, was £388,870. The rest of the Question cannot be answered without longer notice.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can say what were the all-rail export rates for wheat per 100 lbs from Chicago and Milwaukee, during 1900 and 1901, to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal and Baltimore. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The average "all-rail" freight rates for wheat per bushel from Chicago to New York during 1900 and 1901 are stated by the New York Produce Exchange to have been 9·98 cents and 9·92 cents respectively. I have no information as to the rates to the other ports mentioned.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he can say why the scheme for filling clerical duties in the Dublin and other offices by competitive examination amongst the members of the staff recommended by the Tweedmouth Commission has not been carried out; and can he see his way to bring the scheme into force at the earliest possible moment. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The scheme mentioned in evidence before the Tweedmouth Committee was not adopted, so far as the clerical offices in Dublin and Edinburgh are concerned. The sorting clerks and telegraphists in Dublin are, in common with other officers of the Post Office, eligible to compete for clerkships in several of the London offices.

To ask the Postmaster - General if he received two petitions some time ago from the staff of the telegraph office in Dublin dealing with the management of the male dining-room; if so, can he state why the decisions bearing his signature were not shown either to the staff or committee of club. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Two memorials, dated respectively the 4th of March and the 18th of April last, were duly considered, and the decision upon them was communicated to the staff through the usual channel. Only the second of these petitions, dated the 18th April last, was addressed to me, and my decision upon it was communicated to the petitioners in the usual way early in May.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the arrangements made by the telegraph authorities to cope with counter duty in the Dublin Office were inadequate on the Sunday previous to the Gordon-Bennett motor race; and, seeing that a number of French tourists were expected to arrive in Dublin on that day, can he explain why arrangements were not made to cope with the extra pressure, and why a junior member of the staff, who had no previous experience of counter duty, was employed at the Dublin telegraph counter during portion of the Gordon-Bennett week. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) At one period of the day on Sunday, 28th June, there was considerable and unforeseen pressure at the counter of the Dublin post office, owing to the unexpected arrival of a special steamer conveying a number of French motorists. Arrangements were made to meet the exceptional pressure with as little delay as possible. An officer who had had no previous experience of counter work was employed at the Dublin telegraph counter on Monday 29th June, and performed the duty satisfactorily; but, as the following days were likely to be busy, he was replaced by an experienced officer after that date.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that an official of the Board of Trade has stated that the average weekly cash wages of ordinary agricultural labourers employed on certain farms in different parts of England and Wales increased by over 50 per cent. between 1850 and 1900, concurrently with a fall of over 30 per cent. in the price of wheat; and whether he has any official information tending to show what the agricultural wages generally in England and Wales have been during the past fifty years. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) We are aware of the statement to which the hon. Member refers. There are, unfortunately, no official records of the course of agricultural wages during the last half century to which reference can be made. The statement was therefore based upon information relating to particular farms and does not cover a sufficiently large area whereon to found a confident conclusion that it accurately represents the movements of agricultural wages generally.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether notice of the motion to change the venue and fix a special jury in the case of the Crown against Stapleton, Delaney, and Carroll, of Borrisoleigh, Tipperary, was served on the defendants; and whether it is proposed to exercise the right of unlimited challenge in selecting the jury before which the accused are to be tried in Cork. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham). No notice of the application was given because none is required to be given, but the copy of the order when made was served on the accused as provided by the statute. It is intended to use such powers as the Crown possess, when necessary, to secure an impartial trial.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government formed the opinion that a fair trial by a special jury in the case against Stapleton, Delaney, and Carroll, of Borrisoleigh could not have been had at the recent assizes held at Nenagh; and, if so, will he state upon what grounds that opinion was based. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Attorney-General, with all the materials before him, formed the opinion that a more fair and impartial trial could be obtained in Cork than in Tipperary, and in exercise of the powers vested in him by statute made the application for a change of venue and a special jury. The grounds on which that opinion and belief were formed cannot be stated, the more especially as the trial is proceeding.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, under Paragraph 5 of the Army Order, dated 22nd June, 1903, relative to the management of regimental institutes, General Officers commanding Army Corps are forbidden to make district contracts for beer supplies to regimental institutes; and, seeing that other supplies for the Army are made under contract, and that the system of district contracts which has been in force during recent years has admitted of soldiers being supplied with malt liquors of improved quality at a reduced cost, will he state under what circumstances the new Order has been made, and whether he can arrange to have it re-considered. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This alteration was advisedly adopted after full consideration of the evidence taken, and the unanimous recommendation of the Military Authorities was in favour of the abolition of district contracts. I fear I cannot undertake to reconsider the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for War can he explain why, on 8th July, at the review of the 1st Army Corps by His Majesty, the 2nd Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers were not wearing the King's South African medal, although this battalion was one of the first to proceed to South Africa, where it remained throughout the war. Have the medal rolls been sent in by the Corps; and, if so, when, and what is the cause of delay. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The medal rolls of this battalion were sent in on 26th March, 1903, but it has not yet been found possible to dispose of them, as only a certain number of rolls can be dealt with at a time, and it would not be equitable to take those of this battalion out of their turn.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if the Committee on the Army Veterinary Department finished its sittings last February; what its recommendations are; and when they will be brought into force. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This Committee did not complete their Report until the 8th April. The recommendations are being carefully considered.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland, will His Majesty's Government consider the desirability of appointing a similar Commission for England and Wales, or take steps to introduce into all national elementary schools a system of scientific physical training. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) This question is engaging the attention of the Government, but the particular form which an inquiry should take is one which cannot be determined without further consideration. I may refer the hon. Member to statements made on this subject by the Secretary to the Board of Education in this House,† and by the Lord President of the Council in another place.‡

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why young officers are sent out to join their regiments in India for the first time during the summer months; and whether the same consideration can be extended to commissioned officers as exists for the rank and file, who only embark during the trooping season.

It has been decided to send young officers to India during the trooping season only.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, while private employers of labour in Aberdeen have responded to the appeals made to them to allow their employees leave of absence for fourteen days in order to go to camp with the 1st Volunteer Battalion Gordon Highlanders, who have been selected to form part of the 34th Field Army Brigade, leave of absence to attend this camp has been refused to all volunteers in this corps employed in the General Post Office in Aberdeen; and whether, as the latter form an important part of the corps, he will grant them the leave of absence required.

I have no in ormation upon this subject and no complaint has reached me from the staff in regard to it; but I will make enquiry into the facts. I am anxious to afford all the facilities in my

† See page 246.

‡ See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 1346.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the number of persons in receipt of wages at Devonport Dockyard and at Portsmouth Dockyard on the 1st July last, as compared with the 1st July, 1902, and the 1st July, 1901; what number of slips on which a first-class battleship or armoured cruiser can be laid down are vacant in Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards, or will be vacant before 1st January next, with regard to which there is no present intention on the part of the Admiralty of laying down other ships before that date.

The number of persons in receipt of wages at the Devonport Dockyard on 1st July, 1901, was 8,116; 1st July, 1902, 8,528; and on the 1st July of the present year it was 9,475, an increase over 1901 of 1,359. The corresponding figures for Portsmouth Dockyard are:—1st July, 1901, 9,756; 1st July, 1902, 9,896; 1st July, 1903, 10,282, an increase over 1901 of 526. No slip on which a first-class battleship or armoured cruiser can be laid down is vacant at Portsmouth. There is one such slip now vacant at Devonport, and a second will become vacant on the launch of the "King Edward VII." on the 23rd July. It is proposed to lay down a new ship in each of the three principal Yards in April next.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in what respect the powers of compulsory purchase conferred on the Admiralty by The Naval Works Act, 1895, were announced to be defective; and what was the estimate of the cost of providing by that method in the case of Rosyth.

I am not aware that the powers referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question have been announced to be defective for the purposes for which they were granted by Parliament. It does not, however, follow from this that these powers could have been enforced over the whole area which has now been acquired by the Admiralty at Rosyth. It is obvious that no accurate forecast could be made of the sum an arbitrator might have awarded under the compulsory purchase clauses supposing them to have been enforceable, but the Admiralty were advised that it might probably exceed the amount agreed to by private treaty.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the total annual cost of Portsmouth Dockyard.

It is not practicable to give the approximate cost of Portsmouth in 1902–1903 with any approach to accuracy without considerable labour. If the hon. Member will refer to the Dockyard Expense Accounts, which is issued as a Parliamentary Paper, he will find there, on page 197, the cost of the establishment and incidental charges at Portsmouth for the past ten years, the total for 1901–1902 being £362,253.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Attorney-General, on 17th June, stated in the Transvaal Legislative Council that the Government of Lord Milner had framed the Precious Stones Ordinance with a view of keeping the diamond mines of the Transvaal as much as possible under one control, on the ground that the policy of the late Mr. Rhodes saved the diamond industry by limiting the output of diamonds, he will say, in view of the fact that the price of diamonds is artificially maintained by the De Beers Company 500 per cent. above their natural value, if he will cable to Lord Milner that he cannot assent to legislation having as its object the creation of artificial prices to benefit a monopolist syndicate of financiers.

I do not know what the natural price of diamonds is—I should not have thought they had any—and I do not believe that the object of Lord Milner is to benefit a monopolist syndicate of financiers. I am not prepared to prejudge the questions raised by the proposed legislation, and I propose to wait till I receive the Ordinance in its final form together with Lord Milner's observations before I form or express any judgment upon it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from Lord Milner, Sir A. Lawley, or any other Transvaal official, any despatch, report, letter, or any communication whatsoever relating to the new Diamond Ordinance.

I have telegraphed on the subject to Lord Milner, and I am awaiting a full report by mail.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received the Report of the Inquiry into the Excise administration in Assam; and, if not, whether he will be in a position to give the House information as to the general results of the inquiry before the close of the session.

I have ascertained from the Viceroy that the Report on the Inquiry has not yet been received from the local administration, and that it therefore cannot reach me before the close of the session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state what steps have Austria and Hungary taken to meet the demand of the other signatories to the Brussels Convention that the legislation of the empire and kingdom should be altered; what modifications, if any, has the Permanent Commission agreed to make in the charges to be levied on Russian sugar; what are the reasons for any such modification; whether the Government have decided to publish the proceedings of the Permanent Commission; and, in view of the inconvenience to trade of further concealment, when will the resolutions be published, and Papers laid.

I am not aware that the countries referred to have taken any steps to alter the legislation to which the hon. Member alludes, but it is to be presumed that the requisite measures will be adopted. The answers to the Questions as to the charges on Russian sugar will be found in the Papers which I hope will be in the hands of the hon. Gentleman this week.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay before the House annually a statement of accounts of the Uganda Railway in the same form and detail as those published by English railway companies, and in addition showing ton mileage and passenger mileage as shown by American railways; whether during the construction of the railway or since it was opened for public traffic any members of the Railway Committee of the Foreign Office have visited the line; if so, did they submit a report or reports to the Secretary of State, and can copies of any such report or reports be furnished to the House.

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The statement of account, corresponding in form and detail with those published by English railway companies, and ton-mileage and passenger-mileage figures will be found in the Reports on the Uganda Railway presented annually to Parliament. The following members of the Uganda Railway Committee have visited the line: Sir Clement Hill in November and December, 1900; Colonel Gracey before he joined the Committee, from December, 1900 to February, 1901; Sir Francis O'Callaghan March and April, 1902; and Sir John Kirk in January, 1903. Reports were submitted by Colonel Gracey and Sir Francis O'Callaghan, and that by the former was presented to Parliament as Africa, No. 6, of 1901.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state when the Memorandum of the comparative statistics of population, industry, and commerce in the United Kingdom and some leading foreign countries, prepared by the Board of Trade for 1903, will be issued to Members.

The Memorandum in question is not an annual publication, and it would not be advisable to prepare a Memorandum in continuation thereof during the present year.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what were respectively the average prices per quarter of 480 pounds of wheat in France and in the United Kingdom for the five years ending the 31st December, 1882, and for the five years ending the 31st December, 1902; and what was the amount of duty per quarter on imported wheat imposed in France during each of these periods.

The average price of wheat per quarter in France in the five years 1878–1882 was 49s. 10d., and in the five years 1898–1902, 37s. 3d. The Gazette average price of British wheat in England and Wales in the first period was 45s. per quarter, and in the second 28s. 3d. During the five years 1878–1882 the French import duty on wheat was at the rate of 0·60 fr. per 100 kilogs (1s. 0½d. per quarter), and in the five years 1898–1902 7 frs. per 100 kilogs. (12s. 2d. per quarter)

Is the price given for France the official price?

Yes.

I hope this answer will be circulated in the Press.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the large quantity of fresh caught fish annually destroyed owing to lack of facilities to secure prompt transit and ready sale, more especially at the week end, will he consider the expediency of calling for the opinion of experts as to the practicability of establishing cold storage chambers for fish at our leading fishing ports and on steamers employed in the fishing trade; and will the question of devising any other than the present means for the preservation of fresh caught fish be also considered.

I am in communication with the Fishmongers Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question. That body takes great interest in the subject referred to, and exercises important functions in relation thereto. The provision of cold storage chambers is, of course, a matter for private enterprise; but I understand that a large proportion of the fish which is destroyed in hot weather is of little value, and is of such a nature that it could not be advantageously dealt with in the way suggested.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state where the rules relating to the conduct of medical inspectors under the Local Government Board are laid down; and will he say whether these inspectors have power to threaten vaccination officers with dismissal.

The medical inspectors visit different parts of the country and carry out the particular directions given to them. There are no fixed rules on the subject. As regards the last part of the Question, the inspectors report to me as to the manner in which vaccination officers carry out the duties of their office, and, in certain cases where it is found that important duties are wilfully neglected, they have been instructed to point out to the officers that similar neglect has been considered by the Department a reason for requiring the resignation of the officer concerned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the land cases of tenants residing at Kilbaylet, Kilcoagh, and other districts in West Wicklow, which were to be heard when the Carlow list was gone through two months ago, will be taken up by the Commissioners; and can he explain the cause of the delay in regard to these cases which were entered for hearing eighteen months ago.

All applications received from this district, prior to 1st May, 1902, have been disposed of. Applications received since that date will be listed at the first opportunity.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what he intends doing with the £50,185 lying to the credit of counties in Ireland in which little or nothing has been done under the Labourers Acts; and whether, considering the needs of the labourers for better houses and more land, and the extent to which certain councils have taxed the ratepayers for this purpose, he would consider the advisability of distributing this sum amongst the counties which have used all the available Exchequer contribution.

No portion of this amount could be diverted in the manner suggested, without an amendment of the law. The question of its re-allocation could be raised in any fresh legislation dealing with labourers' cottages.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister if we may take it as settled that Friday will be devoted to the Report stage of the Irish Land Bill, and whether in the improbable event that that stage is completed that day, he will take the Third Reading on Monday. I see a statement was made in another place that the Third Reading is not to be taken till the 27th, and I may say that such a long interval would be a source of the greatest inconvenience to the Irish Members.

I propose to take the Report stage of the Irish Land Bill on Friday. If that stage is disposed of then I will consider whether I can take the Third Reading of the Bill on Monday next. There are obvious difficulties in the way, but I will do my best to make an arrangement as convenient to the House as I can.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to state the date upon which the Indian Budget will be discussed; and whether, having regard to the limited opportunities hitherto afforded this session for the discussion of Indian questions, he will arrange for this debate to take place at as early a date as possible.

I am afraid I am not in a position to name the date, nor am I in a position, in view of the general position of business, to promise an earlier day than is customary for this subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government propose, on strategic grounds alone, that the question of a ship canal between the Firths of Forth and Clyde should come before the Committee of Defence; and, if so, has it been considered by that Committee; and, seeing that Colonel Exham is shortly to report on Rosyth as a naval base, whether, on national public grounds, he will cause him to include that question in his Report.

The Admiralty are perfectly clear, so far as they can form a judgment, that the strategical advantages would not be commensurate with the cost. The inquiry cannot be undertaken at the present moment while much more pressing matters require attention.

Is that the view of the right hon. Gentleman only, or is it the view of the Committee of Defence?

It is the view of the Admiralty and my view, shared, I believe, by the Committee of Defence.

The right hon. Gentleman has not stated if the matter has been before the Committee of Defence?

I do not know that it should be regarded as a matter of course that I should say what has or has not been before the Committee of Defence; that was the only reason why I refrained from answering.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when Mr. Exham goes to Rosyth to report as to the works to be constructed there, he will be instructed to consider the feasibility of a canal being made between the Firths of Forth and Clyde, with a view to his reporting to the Committee on National Defence; and, in the event of the reply being in the affirmative, whether Arrochar or Dumbarton should be chosen as the junction of the canal on the west coast.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the secretary of the Patriotic Fund has sent out an invitation to the various committees throughout the country, formed for the purpose of collecting money for the benefit of the wives and widows of the soldiers during the late war, to attend a conference in order to discuss a proposal for entrusting the money raised by these committees to the Patriotic Fund Commission or to a new central organisation; whether the Government intend to pass the Bill this session dealing with the Patriotic Commission which was promised in His Majesty's gracious speech at the opening of Parliament; if so, when do the Government propose to proceed with the Bill.

My attention has not been called to the action of the secretary of the fund. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty will introduce the promised Bill on Monday next.

And will every effort be made to pass it?

I have every hope that the Bill will prove an uncontroversial measure, as it has no Party aspect, and that it will meet with general approval on both sides of the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government has determined to give the public the whole facts, statistics, and information collected by His Majesty's Ministers with regard to the inquiry now being undertaken by them.

I cannot give the pledge the hon. Gentleman desires.

May I ask whether any information that is published will be selected independently, of whether or not it supports the divergent views of—

Order, order!

My Question has no been answered.

The right hon. Gentleman has answered, though, perhaps, not to the hon. Member's satisfaction.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government can arrange to take the evidence of representatives of the great co-operative societies in the fiscal inquiry which is now being carried on.

Any observations that representatives of co-operative societies may furnish to His Majesty's Government will be most carefully considered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the proposed inquiry into the fiscal policy of the country will include the question of the desirability of retaliating upon colonial tariff's upon British goods whenever those tariffs are as high or higher than the tariff's levied by foreign countries.

If any hon. Gentleman desires to make any proposal for retaliatory duties upon colonial tariffs he will have ample opportunity for doing so before any practical steps are taken for carrying out a change in our fiscal policy; but I believe no such proposal will emanate from any Gentleman on this side of the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of a possible change in the fiscal policy of the country, and the consequent importance of raising, in the United Kingdom, as large food supplies as possible, will he state what steps the Government propose to take in order to secure the cultivation of a larger area of land.

I do not see quite clearly the connection between the fiscal inquiry and steps to secure larger cultivation of land.

The policy as a whole.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain?

was understood to say that he did not refer to the general fiscal inquiry which was to be held.

I will put down another Question.

I rise to ask my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury a Question on the business of the House, of which I have given him private notice—whether before the close of the session he will afford an opportunity for the full discussion in this House of the changes proposed by the Colonial Secretary in the fiscal policy of the country, in order that this House may aid the country in that inquiry and discussion to which it has been invited by His Majesty's Ministers, and whether he will do this by granting facilities to my right hon. friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse) to bring forward the Motion which he has placed on the Paper. Perhaps I may, in explanation of the reasons for my Question, remind my right hon. friend that the discussion of this most important subject was precluded by our rules on the Finance Bill, and that Motions for adjournment cannot be held to afford an adequate occasion for the discussion of a matter of this importance.

In answer to my right hon. friend I have to say that I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the discussion which he desires to initiate or see initiated—a discussion which would be addressed to no particular Motion on which a vote of Aye or No would carry any direct relation to the subject of debate, and which, therefore, apart from the speeches with which the Motion was accompanied, would not be of much guidance or value to the country. As regards the speeches, I may remind my right hon. friend that, though no doubt it is true that observations on this question on the Second Reading of the Budget were to a certain extent, and in some cases, hampered by the rules of debate, no one can say that the subject was not dealt with in the lengthy two days' discussion which we had on that subject; and in addition to that we had a debate upon the rising of the House for the Whitsuntide holidays and a subsequent debate on the Motion for the adjournment of the House. These were all occasions on which hon. Gentlemen had an opportunity, and used the opportunity—[Cries of "No, no"]—and used the opportunity—[Cries of "No"]—for making their opinions heard; and I really do not think anything would be gained by adding another to the abstract discussions we have already had on this subject.

Are we to understand that the Government do not wish to afford an opportunity to the House for that full discussion—full discussion—of the whole subject to which they were, in express terms, invited by the Colonial Secretary—a subject also which the right hon. Gentleman himself has said has no Party significance; and is the Government of opinion that those absolutely partial and inadequate opportunities to which he refers are all that the House of Commons deserves or will obtain?

What I said was that I did not think that an abstract discussion directed to no specific Motion would have any practical results, it is always in the right hon. Gentleman's power to see that it is directed to a specific Motion, and if he chooses to take steps to that end I will make it my business to second his efforts.

I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether he means by a specific Motion a Motion which can be construed as a Vote of Censure, and whether he considers that that is a form in which a Motion should be put down by his own supporters who desire a discussion on a subject which he has himself assured us is not to be made a test of Party loyalty.

I never suggested that my right hon. friend should put down a Vote of Censure, nor can I conceive it possible that he could ever contemplate such a course. I made the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

May I ask will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the discussion of a Motion condemning the imposition of a protective tax on the food of the country?

May I ask my right hon. friend what is meant by the invitation to the House "to discuss and inquire" into this subject? We are accepting that invitation.

Perhaps my noble friend will read out the terms in which the invitation to the House was made?

It was made on the Motion for the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide holidays by the Colonial Secretary in express terms.

I can relieve the mind of the Prime Minister by reading the exact terms of the invitation. The words of the Colonial Secretary were these—

"It is because it is of immense importance that I ask the House to join eagerly in the discussion."

May I now ask for an answer to my Question?

I was waiting until the enthusiasm which the Question has aroused had ceased. As I understand the matter, that was stated on the Motion for the adjournment on the holidays. There have been many days' discussion since then. I see no reason to abandon the views I have already taken as to the proper course of conducting the business of this House during the short remainder of the session.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on a question not so large as that with which we have been dealing what opportunity he suggests that the House should have, or may have, for discussing the correspondence which has been placed on the Table relating to the fiscal concerns of Canada and Germany?

I do not wish to give an opinion on a point of order, but I should imagine that it would be germane to some of the Votes which we have still to discuss.

If we are not to discuss this fiscal matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay before this House the same information which has been already promised to the House of Lords?

Yes, of course.

When?

The two Houses will not be treated differently in this matter.

reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, Mr. Haldane; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Munro Ferguson.

moved to leave out "Provided also that," and insert "but." He added that it was a purely drafting Amendment.

, on behalf of the hon. Member for East Nottingham, moved to leave out all the words after "that" and insert "not less than one-third of the managers appointed by each appointing authority shall be women." He said he thought this Amendment better than the one he had himself put on the Paper. This question had been discussed several times, and there appeared to be a general consensus of opinion, from which the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not dissented, that there should be some security provided in the Bill for a considerable proportion of women to be members of the Managing Committees. At the present moment, of the 1,700 managers, 550 were women. It was important to secure that a large proportion of women should be appointed to the boards of management. Not only were two-thirds of the teachers women, but two-thirds of the children were girls and infants who should come under the care of women managers. Some statutory provision was all the more necessary by reason of the fact that certain local bodies had interpreted the Act of last year to mean that one woman member only was necessary.

supported the Amendment. He said it was a proposal of a practical character; and had the strong recommendation that it would perpetuate the existing state of things. The London School Board had been in existence for thirty-three years, and under it there had grown up a system of management in which about one-third of the managers were women. It was most essential that that state of things should be preserved. During his official experience he had always thought that the number of women engaged in the management of schools was far too few. A large proportion of our so-called schools were not schools at all, but nurseries in which the children of the poor were taken care of and amused, and a certain amount of intellectual exercise was given to them. The care of those nurseries was essentially women's business, and they would not allow a state of things to prevail—as did now in some cases—in which these poor little children of three, four or five years, were put through a course of reading, writing and arithmetic much more suitable for older children. The House ought also to consider the case of girls' schools, which were presided over almost entirely by women teachers. There were various things in connection with those schools, such for instance as sanitation, with which only women managers could properly deal Certainly in girls' schools it was most essential for the superintendence of the schools and the wise spending of money that they must insist on a considerable number of women being appointed as managers. On all these grounds, he hoped the hon. Baronet would give a definite answer to the proposal to insert in the Bill some provision which would secure a definite number of women on the boards of management.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had been preaching to the converted. There was no question in any part of the House as to the desirability of securing the presence of women on the boards of management. He, however, objected to any fixed proportion or number being put into the Bill. The number of one-third as a minimum would almost inevitably become the maximum, and one-third might turn out to be extremely inconvenient. Something had been said as to the impossibility of women being chosen by the local educational authority, but it was a very different matter to ask women to attend meetings of the Education Committees of the County Council where they would have to make periodically long journeys. The conditions were so different that no conclusion could be drawn as to the number of women who should be placed on the boards of management of Borough Council schools. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to perpetuate the existing system. He desired to do the same thing, and they would better attain that purpose by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester. In the case of any difference between the two local authorities reference could be made to the Board of Education. There was no compulsion on the School Board to appoint women, and no one would deny that the School Board made very fair and reasonable provision for women being on the boards of management; and was there any doubt that the London County Council would not do the same? He, himself, had no doubt whatever. The old practice would go on, and if there was a difference of opinion — he thought that the local education authority would be more insistent than the Borough Councils on having women on the boards of management—an appeal could be made to the Board of Education which was now, and always would be, in sympathy with the idea that women should be largely represented on the boards of management, and which would give them the necessary guidance. He would oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar and support that of the hon. Member for South Manchester.

said he regretted the decision of the hon. Baronet. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman's arguments, when examined, would be proved to be sound. The hon. Gentleman began by asking, "Why not give the same latitude to the local authorities as was given to the present School Board?" But it should be remembered that the School Board had always had women as elected members, and elected members had a position of authority and a status which co-opted members never had. Moreover, the number of elected women members had tended to increase, which showed how necessary and efficient was the system. They could not have the same reliance on a body like the Borough Councils, which contained no women, securing the due presence of women on the boards of management, as they had had in the case of the School Board. Therefore, there was a very clear and strong distinction between the experience of the past, to which the Parliamentary Secretary appealed, and the case of the future. Then, the hon. Baronet said that a reason why women would not be appointed more frequently on the boards of management was because of the long journeys they would have to make; but surely that was a question for the women themselves to decide. When, after all the pious expressions of opinion last year as to the necessity of women being on the boards of management, they found that so little had been done by the County Councils and the Borough Councils in that direction, that was the strongest proof that they should have something far more than the Board of Education proposed to give them. The House should remember that as two-thirds of these managers would be chosen by the Borough Councils, and as the Borough Councils would have no women upon them, there was far less chance now of women being appointed. He did not like the suggestion that it should be left to the Board of Education to impose compulsion on the two local authorities. Suppose one authority did not want any women, and that the other authority said they wanted so many, why bring in this bone of contention between the two authorities, and between both of them and the Board of Education? He thought it was far better for the House to lay down an irreducible minimum: and no one could say that the minimum proposed in the Amendment was too large. He could not for a moment accept the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary, and he hoped the hon. Member for Poplar would divide on the matter. It ought to be put on record that they were not satisfied with what was suggested by the Government.

said he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen South. His experience of the working of last year's Act rendered it necessary that there should be something more in the Bill than was proposed by the hon. Member for South Manchester. They knew that the schemes sanctioned by the Board of Education simply resulted in one woman being appointed on a board of forty or sixty persons. It should be remembered that the great proportion of the new managers would be appointed by the Borough Councils. The Borough Councils were excellent bodies in their way, but they had strenuously resisted any women being admitted into their ranks. He remembered the hard fight for the admission of women into the Borough Councils in the debates on the London Local Government Act a few years ago, when it was decided in the other House, and afterwards accepted in this House, that no women should be put on the Borough Councils. If women had been admitted to these Councils it would not have been found nearly so necessary, in the present circumstances, to press for a minimum number of women being made school managers. He would remind the Parliamentary Secretary, who was so sympathetic on this subject, that there would have to be consultations between the two local authorities, and there would not be the least difficulty in their arriving at a conclusion as to which of them was to put the women on the boards of management. He did not feel so strongly in regard to the exact proportion; but if no substantial concession was made by the Government, he should be bound to vote for the Amendment, which embodied the principle that women should be, in the future as in the past, managers. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had said, many of the schools were nurseries, and a large proportion of the teachers were women, and it was far better that the women teachers should bring their grievances to a woman than to a man.

said he ventured to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the facility and case he had acquired in giving Ministerial answers in the negative. The hon. Baronet preferred an Amendment by tire hon. Member for South Manchester which did not specifically mention women, but which gave the Board of Education the right to interfere in cases where women were not elected. The Act of last year expressly mentioned women, but, as had been shown, the Board of Education in their schemes only approved of one woman.

said that although the schemes only mentioned one woman as necessary, there were generally various other persons whose sex was not mentioned. There was, therefore, no reason to suppose that the presence of women was not desired by the Board of Education.

said that although there were two women on several Committees, and three on others, and even as many as five on some, still it was a very small proportion out of a total number of sixty or seventy. Having regard to the fact that the bulk of the teachers belonged to the sex they were now discussing, the bulk of the managers ought to belong to the same sex. But for business and other reasons that could not be obtained, and therefore the House ought to lay down in set terms that there should be a minimum proportion of women Every attempt in this direction in the past had failed, because the matter had been left to the good sense of the appointing authority or the overruling powers of the Board of Education. If the Parliamentary Secretary was anxious—and he believed he was—that women should be represented, he did not see any good reason why he should not now say that a certain proportion of the managers should be women.

said that he had put an Amendment on the Paper making the proportion of women one-third of the managers, because he was informed, and he believed correctly, that the women on the boards of managers under the London School Board were about one - third of the whole number. He thought one-third was not at all an undue proportion. On the one hand it would enable them to render the services they very efficiently could, and on the other hand it would satisfy the natural desires of those who had been associated with work of this kind to continue to take their proper share in the work. Having regard to the services rendered by them in the past to the School Board, it would be a good thing for the education of London if it were made quite plain in the Bill that there should be a due proportion of women managers in the future. The hon. Baronet said that the proportion of one-third would be a minimum which might become a maximum; but he ventured to think that women would be satisfied with it, and would not be likely to ask for more. If any other proportion than one-third were suggested he would be prepared to consider it. Unless, however, a fixed proportion were provided in the Bill, a great deal of red tape would be introduced. He thought the House was much too regardless of the effect of the legislation which it passed. For himself, whenever he got an opportunity, he was always anxious to put things as clearly as possible; and in that way to avoid the supererogatory work which indefinite legislation brought about. For that reason he preferred that a definite proportion should be specified; and he hoped his hon. friend would be able to accept the Amendment.

said he hoped the Government would see their way to respond to the appeal which had been made in regard to this question. The feeling was strongly shared on both sides of the House that women should have a definite sphere of work assigned to them. Unless some proportion were definitely mentioned in the Bill, he was afraid that women would not be able to obtain that share in the work of education to which they were justly entitled. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would be dangerous to put in a precise proportion in the Bill; but it would be equally dangerous to leave it out. When the Act of last year was in Committee, he moved an Amendment providing that at least one member of the local managing body should be a woman; but that was opposed by the Prime Minister, principally on the ground that it might as well be proposed that at least one member of the managing body should be a man. They, however, knew, as a matter of fact, that the proportion of women on the Local Education Committees was disgracefully small; and in some cases women were excluded altogether from the management of the schools, although one-half of the scholars were girls, and a considerable proportion of the boys were infants. Men understood very little about the education of infants; whereas, women were entitled to the consideration of the House for the share they had already taken in the educational work of the country. Women were better workers in the educational field than men. They attended the meetings better, and did their work more conscientiously. He had obtained statistics to support that view. The average number of the attendances of the women members of the London School Board in 1901 was 163, the average attendance of the male members being 115. At the thirty-four meetings of the Board the attendances of the nine women members were thirty-four, thirty-four, thirty-three, thirty-two, thirty-two, thirty-two, thirty-three, twenty-nine, and twenty-four. That showed that the lady members of the Board paid very close attention indeed to their work. The House had decided that a certain number of members should be appointed by the Borough Councils. But the Borough Councils had not that experience with reference to the educational work of women which the London School Board and the London County Council had; and a considerable amount of prejudice would exist, with the result that a small number of women would be appointed. He thought it was absolutely necessary, in such circumstances, that the House should lay down a definite proportion as to the number of women to be appointed.

said he was surprised that most of the hon. Members who had spoken had addressed the greater part of their arguments to the necessity — it was more than expediency—of having women on the boards of management. No one objected to that; and, therefore, the only question before the House was how the object which they all desired could be best achieved. The point at issue was whether it was necessary, or even advisable, to lay down a hard and fast rule. He submitted that it would not only be not advisable, but would be extremely inadvisable, to fetter the local education authority by any scheme obliging them to appoint a certain proportion of women members, and not allow them full liberty of choice in a matter about which, he believed, no apprehension need be entertained. His right hon. friend the Member for East Somerset said that it would be advisable to support the Amendment in order to secure the perpetuation of the existing system, and he had apprehensions about women being appointed on the ground that the Borough Councils would be disinclined to act in that direction. He felt bound to protest against that groundless reflection on the Borough Councils.

said that the statement was based on the action of the Borough Councils in the country.

said that the Borough Councils in the country might have imperfectly discharged their duties; but was that any reason for making a statement concerning the Borough Councils of London based, not on past neglect, but on possible future neglect? There was no body so directly interested in the managerial machinery of the schools of their own district as the Borough Councils, and the House need not be apprehensive that their action would be against the presence of these women; their influence would be in the exactly opposite direction. The influence of the Borough Councils in this matter was the most perfect guarantee they could have in favour of securing this provision. The hon. Member for South Manchester seemed to think the London Borough Councils would not have the same view as the London County Council as to the value of these women, but he was quite sure that they had a perfect conviction of the necessity of the presence of women on these bodies, and as regards experience the London County Council and the Borough Councils stood in identically the same position. Whatever doubt might be entertained as to the Borough Councils, the same doubt must be entertained with regard to the London County Council. He thought, in the interest of the people, the provision with regard to the presence of women ought to be left to the free and unfettered discretion of the Borough Councils.

was unable to see, if the Borough Councils were such extraordinarily enlightened bodies, and if they agreed to the proposition that women should become members of these Committees, why they should not be tied down to the terms of the Amendment. Those who supported this Amendment were very disappointed with the number of women who were put on these Committees under the Act of last year, and they desired to amend that point so far as London was concerned. The question they had to consider was, whether a hard and fast line would be better than that an inadequate number of women should be on these boards. He did not think, if this matter was left to the discretion of Borough Councils, an adequate number of women would be put on, and therefore he desired to have a hard and fast line. He did not care very much what the proportion was; if "one-third" was too much let them make it "one-fourth." He objected to a new bone of contention being thrown down for the Board of Education to decide. The hands of the Board of Education were pretty full already, and he did not know why they should be so greedy of having points to decide which might be very well dealt with by this House. He heartily supported the Amendment.

said there was no difference of opinion between the different speakers on the main question as to the advantage to be derived from the presence of women on these boards. The only question was, whether they should leave it to the local authority to elect women, and as many as they thought fit, or whether they should be compelled to elect a statutory number. It was suggested that one-third of these bodies should be women. That seemed to be undesirable from two points of view. What they wanted to do was to get a fair proportion of the most experienced and best women available for the whole area. As it was undesirable to prolong the debate, he would suggest as a compromise that instead of being one-third of each of the appointed bodies, they should be one-third of the Committee as a whole. As a matter of drafting, he thought it ought to come a little lower down in the clause. The Government would leave it to the House to say whether the number should be fixed in the Bill, or left to the discretion of the Borough Councils.

thought that such a suggestion could be agreed to without going to a division.

said the next Amendment was only a verbal one. He begged to move.

said the last word of the clause was now "managers," and he desired to insert after managers, "and members chosen from the existing body of managers." He hoped the Government would accept this, as it was consonant with the frequently expressed desires of the Government.

thought the object of the hon. Member would be better met by the Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for South Manchester.

said that if the hon. Baronet preferred the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for South Manchester, he would withdraw his Amendment.

thought it unnecessary to detain the House by speaking in support of the Amendment of which he had given notice, and therefore formally moved.

thought it possible that a deadlock might arise in certain cases unless some such proviso as he suggested were inserted. He therefore moved.

hesitated to accept the Amendment, as it would put an inducement before the authorities not to bring the provisions of the Bill into operation as quickly as they might. There would be no difficulty in preparing before the appointed day to appoint bodies of managers, nor was there any danger of a deadlock. However, if the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, he would undertake to look carefully into the matter, and if such a danger existed, to see that words were inserted.

thought there was a possibility of difficulty arising, unless such a proviso as was suggested by the Amendment were inserted. If people were not ready it would be a reason for making the appointed day later.

, in view of the hon. Baronet's promise, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved to omit Sub-action (2). He thought it would be much better to drop the sub-section than to attempt to amend it. The Government evidently thought it was not in a satisfactory condition, as the hon. Baronet had a substantial Amendment on the Taper in reference to it. The Borough Councils had their share of authority in the appointment of managers; why then should they be brought into the question of the selection of sites? It was a most difficult matter, and one that should be carried on secretly, so that there was no chance of jobbery; consequently it was very undesirable that it should be discussed between several bodies. He believed the consensus of opinion was against the sub-section, and he hoped the Government would agree to drop it.

thought the sub-section with the Amendment he would subsequently propose could do no harm, and might do a considerable amount of good. There was no doubt that the question of sites excited a great deal of interest, but if the hon. Member read the clause carefully he would see that there was no possibility of jobbery such as he had suggested. All that was required was that a site should not be determined upon until the Borough Council had been consulted, and that in the case of compulsory purchase if there was difference of opinion the Board of Education should not make an order authorising the purchase unless they were satisfied that the concurrence of the Borough Council should be dispensed with. He thought this was really a matter in which the opinion of the locality ought to be consulted, though it did not necessarily follow that that opinion would carry the day or be accepted by the local authority or the Board of Education.

regretted the decision of the hon. Baronet. This proposal was part of the original scheme under which the local bodies were to have the management of the schools, and under such circumstances there was much to be said in favour of the Borough Councils having a considerable voice in the selection of sites. But the Councils were no longer in that position, and the reason for them having a voice in the matter had disappeared. He hoped, therefore, the Government would agree to drop the sub-section. The acquisition of sites involved large expenditure, and the School Board by private negotiations had frequently been able to secure sites at 20, 30, or 50 per cent. less than they would have had to pay had their intentions been publicly announced. If the Borough Councils had to be consulted secrecy would be impossible, and the knowledge that a certain site was wanted would certainly enhance the price. The London County Council were in touch with the Borough Councils, and, in the event of any dispute as to a site, could invite local members to attend the Committee privately, and thus avoid the matter becoming public. Unless this sub-section disappeared from the Bill there was every probability of the ratepayers being mulcted in a much larger sum than would otherwise be the case.

said he hoped the Government would adhere to this sub-section. He thought the Borough Councils should be consulted in regard to the selection of sites for new public elementary schools. This subsection certainly made it clear that in a matter of this kind in which local knowledge was of great importance the site should not be determined upon until alter consultation with the Borough Council

said that as the Bill originally stood the Borough Council had to select the site, but the Government saw that would be unworkable, and they provided that the Borough Council should be consulted and in case the Borough Council disagreed with the education authority the Board of Education had power to substitute any other site proposed by the Borough Council. What the hon. Member for Chelsea put forward as reasonable was done at the present time. Since the existence of the Borough Councils there was not a case where they had not been consulted as to the best place for erecting a school. There were, however, words in the last part of the hon. Baronet's proposed Amendment which he did not quite understand and which he was afraid would lead to interminable delay. The words he alluded to were—

"And in such a case shall make a special report to Parliament, stating their reasons for dispensing with that concurrence."

thought the hon. Member for North Camberwell was quite right in saying that there had been communications with the Borough Councils in all cases in reference to the selection of sites since the Councils were called into existence. He wished to say, however, that he had not found that kind consideration for the wishes of the locality indicated by the hon. Member opposite, because in his constituency the School Board had ridden rough shod over the Borough Council, and they had selected sites which were of the greatest importance for the accommodation of the poor people when others might have been chosen. It was quite right that the Borough Council should have some voice in the matter.

said that in regard to sites, all sorts of communications passed between the central and the local authority, but the matter was dealt with by the various committees and. the Council knew nothing about it until it was practically settled. He did not attach much importance to the proposed Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education, because it was only a matter of machinery. He thought, however, that the local authorities ought to be consulted.