Commons Sitting of 20 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of MR. Speaker from this day's Sitting owing to indisposition.
Whereupon MR. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
Petition from Northampton, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND; ACT, 1899.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th December; MR. Sinclair]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 390.]
  HIGHER EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; MR. Birrell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 391.]
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th December; MR. John Burns]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 392.]
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st May; MR. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 393.]
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto, [ordered 1st May; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 394.]
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence between His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS 1875 TO 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 17th December, 1906, approving of an amended Regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1906, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 395.]
  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th October; MR. Rose]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 396.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts); Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; MR. Griffith, Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 397.]

  2. Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks); Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; MR. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 398.]

  MUNICIPAL TRADING (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Address for "Return showing for the London County Council, the Corporation of the City of London, the Council of each Metropolitan Borough, the Corporations of the Municipal Boroughs of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Bradford, West Ham,

  1675
  Newcastle upon-Tyne, Kingston-upon-Hull, Nottingham, Salford, Leicester, Portsmouth, Bolton, Cardiff, Sunderland, Oldham, Croydon, Blackburn, Brighton, Derby, Preston, Norwich, Birkenhead, Gateshead, Plymouth, Halifax, Southampton, South Shields, Burnley, East Ham, Huddersfied, Swansea, Wolverhampton, Stockport, Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Blackpool, and the Corporations of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, the nature and extent, and, for each of the last four years for which figures are available, the financial results of reproductive municipal undertakings, including for each undertaking separately a short description thereof, date and terms of original acquisition or establishment or subsequent extension, how managed, capital employed and how obtained, value of the undertaking, capital paid off and outstanding, loan charges, provision for depreciation, gross income and expenditure, net profit or loss, how profit is allocated or loss met, amount of relief or burden to rates, number and salaries of the chief paid officials, number of workpeople, rate of wages paid in chief classes of labour, and prices charged for products or services supplied or rendered."—(MR. Chiozza Money.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Great Northern Railway—Deansgate Works—Dangerous Occupation.
  MR. KELLEYto ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the hours worked by the hydraulic crane-drivers and capstan rope-runners employed by the Great Northern Railway Company at their goods station, Deansgate, Manchester; whether he is aware that those so employed are boys of sixteen years of age and less; that the rope-runners are constantly working amongst moving wagons on the lines, thus making their occupation especially dangerous; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) No representations on this point have reached the Board of Trade, but, if particulars are furnished on behalf of the employees
  1676
  concerned, the matter will be dealt with under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893.

  Wages at Appledore.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, according to the terms of contract, the Dublin firm is bound to pay the trade union rate of wages ruling at the port, while the wages at Appledore are below the usual trade rates, and the workmen there are not recognised by the Shipwrights' Union; and, if so, whether he will arrange that the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons shall be carried into effect in the Appledore shipyard.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The general lighthouse authorities insert in their contracts a stipulation that competent workmen are to be employed, and that they are to receive such wages as are generally accepted as current for their respective trades in the locality where the work is done. The Appledore firm, to which a contract was recently given, accepted this condition. I understand that there are no branches of shipwrights' or boilermakers' trade unions in the vicinity of Appledore.

  Long Hole, Bangor.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say if the Long Hole at Bangor, county Down, is Crown property; whether his Department will co-operate with the Department of Agriculture in Ireland and the county Down County Council in giving facilities for the provision of improved harbour accommodation for the Bangor fishermen and boatmen; and whether he can state why the gates of the new pier are kept closed, and the old right of way for the fishermen barred.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The solum of the Long Hole at Bangor is primâ facie the property of the Crown. The Board of Trade are always ready to give facilities, so far as lies in their power, for the construction of improved harbour accommodation. As regards the new pier and the right of way referred to by the honourable Member, I will make inquiry and communicate the result to him.

  Welsh Coal Districts.
  MR. HASLAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is felt by members of the Chamber of Commerce and the coal exporters of Newport, Mon., because, in accordance with the Mines Inspection District Regulation Order of 12th October, 1901, districts were allotted to Cardiff and Swansea, and named the Cardiff district and the Swansea district respectively, while Newport, which is a more important coal shipping port than Swansea, was included in the southern district, which includes not only the coal fields of Monmouthshire, for the production of which Newport is the natural shipping outlet, but also includes the practically non-coal-producing counties of Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Wilts, Hants, London, Sussex, Kent, and Surrey; and whether, seeing that the name of a port being associated with the coal shipped from it is considered a valuable asset as an advertisement, and that the preponderance of the weight of coal in the southern district is produced in the neighbourhood of Newport, he will take steps to alter the name of the southern district so that it shall be described as the Newport district, or allot a distinct district, to be named the Newport district, as in the case of Cardiff and Swansea.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The division of the country into districts for the inspection of mines and quarries must depend on the distribution of metalliferous mines and quarries as well as on that of coal mines, and the determination of the boundaries of those districts and the choice of their names must depend upon questions of administrative convenience. I will, however, consider the representation which has been made to me as soon as the Royal Commission on Mines has presented its Report.

  London Immigration Board.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the procedure of the London Immigration Board; whether he is aware that there is no power to administer
  1678
  an oath to witnesses; whether it is possible for alien immigrants to be represented by legal men should they so desire; whether he is aware that the immigration officers consider that it is not within their duty to inform relatives and friends of immigrant appellants that they should appear at Blackwall, and that as a consequence the Board has come to a decision on the uncorroborated testimony of the inquiry agent; and whether, seeing that MR. Vallance, the chairman of the Board, on Friday, 7th December, gave it as his opinion that the officers should render all possible assistance to the relatives of immigrants to insure their attendance as witnesses, and that the procedure is due to regulations drawn up by his Department, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the working of the immigration boards with a view to secure efficient and uniform administration.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) An immigration board is not a court, and has no power to administer an oath. The Board has an absolute discretion as to the persons whom it will hear; but there are obvious objections to establishing anything like court proceedings, e.g., counsel, legal evidence, etc., before a body which has not the powers of a court. It is no part of the immigration officers' duty to secure that relatives attend the Board meetings, and at the time when preliminary inquiries are being made the day and hour of the meeting is often not known. When they are known they are communicated on application, and in any case any person who is really interested in an alien immigrant can always obtain the necessary information, by inquiries of the master of the ship on which the immigrant is or otherwise. Attention is paid to the working of the regulations which govern the procedure of immigration boards, and they can be altered if experience shows it to be necessary, but full information on that subject is always at my disposal, and I have no need to appoint a committee in order to collect it.

  Bee Keeping at Dornoch.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can say how many of the fifty-two swarms of bees supplied by the Congested Districts Board to the parish of Dornoch,

  1679
  Sutherland, now survive; and whether, seeing that the matter has been a failure, any further trials are contemplated.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) On the first part of the Question I have no information. There is no reason to suppose the experimental supply of hives in Dornoch has been a failure. If further applications from this district are received they will be considered on their merits.

  Scottish Land Legislation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Prime Minister, in view of the urgency of land legislation for the Highland crofting counties, if he will undertake that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill shall have an early place in the legislative programme for next session.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I cannot say anything as to the order in which Bills will be taken next session.

  Railway Administration.
  MR. MONTAGU: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the general management of railways in this country, and to compare systems which have been adopted or are proposed for adoption abroad, with a view to their possible adoption in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am taking steps to obtain information as to the systems of railway management in other countries and their practical working. I think that this method of inquiry has, in this case, advantages over a more formal investigation by a Royal Commission.

  Report of the Departmental Committee on Railway Rates.
  MR. MONTAGU: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the Report of the Departmental Committee on Railway Rates, appointed by the Board of Agriculture, has caused disappointment; whether he is aware of the difference of opinion as to the meaning of the terms of reference among the Committee; whether he has noticed that the
  1680
  representative of the Board of Agriculture signed a separate Report; whether he will confer with the Board of Trade as to the appointment of a new Inter-departmental Committee with clear terms of reference; and whether he will see that agricultural interests are adequately represented on the Committee, and that the railway experts serving shall not be necessarily railway directors or managers.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) It is the case that a difference of opinion existed in the Committee as to the interpretation of the phrase "preferential treatment" in their reference, and that dissatisfaction with the Report of the Committee has been expressed by agriculturists in consequence. It does not appear, however, that any restriction was placed upon the reception of evidence, and the views of the minority were very fully and ably set out in MR. Haygarth Brown's separate Report. In these circumstances my noble friend scarcely thinks that further inquiry by a new Departmental Committee is necessary, but he will be glad to confer with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on the subject. In the meantime our inspectors will use every opportunity of collecting further information, and they will investigate any specific complaints which may be addressed to us.

  Sligo Technical School.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that MR. T. P. Gill, Secretary to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education in Ireland, addressed a letter last week to the Sligo Technical Education Committee, in which he stated that at some future date it may be found expedient to erect a new technical school building in Sligo, and that a new technical school building is urgently needed in Sligo at the present moment, can he state approximately the future date when the Department will be in a position to advance money for the purpose; is he aware that owing to want of sufficient accommodation in the present technical school in Sligo pupils seeking admission are turned away, and that the only suggestion the Department has been able to make to meet the difficulty is to establish overflow classes; and will he say

  1681
  what steps does the Department propose taking to assist in procuring adequate accommodation and to obviate the inconvenience and expense of overflow classes.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Local authorities may at present obtain funds to erect buildings for technical schools by loans raised on the security of the rates. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have no fund from which to make grants for the purpose; but they have brought the question of providing funds for building technical schools to the attention of the Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Department. The matter will doubtless be dealt with in the Committee's Report. I may add that a deputation which addressed me on the subject some months ago convinced me that further funds for building technical schools are much needed.

  Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico.
  MR. JENKINS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that complaints have been lodged by the Army Clothing Tailoresses' Association regarding bolts protruding from the forms tearing their dresses and aprons; whether he is aware that the manager of the factory has given orders for the bolts to be removed; and can he state when such order was given and how much of the work has been done during the past fortnight.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A deputation of the Tailoresses Association drew attention to this matter on the 23rd ultimo. A general overhauling of the forms is now being made, and, so far, twenty have had to be remedied.

  Royal Army Clothing Department.
  MR. JENKINS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to remove the police lodge from the south-western gate of the Royal Army Clothing Department; if so, what are the reasons for so doing; and will he say whether, in view of the fact that the Building
  1682
  Works Department has no money in hand, it is intended to save the cost incurred by such removal by reducing the number of employees.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Answer is in the negative, but, even if the removal of the lodge had been decided on, the cost would not have been met in the manner suggested.

  Natal Mounted Police.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Natal Mounted Police were precluded from attending the King's birthday parade with Imperial troops; that the Minister of Justice, in reply to a Question asked in the Natal Parliament, stated that, though Ministers desired this force should take part in the parade to demonstrate their loyalty to their Sovereign, they withdrew their request owing to questions of military etiquette having been raised; and will he say who was responsible for raising these questions of military etiquette, seeing that the Natal Mounted Police have, except when fighting, always attended the parades in honour of the birthdays of the late Queen Victoria.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Nothing is known of the matter in this Department, but the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief has been asked to furnish a Report upon it.

  Sleeping Sickness.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in reply to Lord Elgin's letter of 18th May, 1906, the Commissioner of British Central Africa reported that any special preventive measures were required against the spread of sleeping sickness; whether the Commissioner maintained his opinion that it was not necessary that one of the medical staff of the Protectorate should visit Uganda far the purpose of studying

  1683
  the question; and whether any local medical officer possessing experience of this disease will be available to co-operate with the two special officers sent out by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Commissioner of the British Central Africa Protectorate, in replying to Lord Elgin's despatch, proposed that the medical staff of the Protectorate should be increased, with the view of carrying out preventive measures as recommended by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine; he also inclined to the opinion that it would be well to send a medical officer of the Protectorate to study the disease in Uganda. The highest medical authorities in this country doubted whether any object would be gained by at once introducing preventive measures, having regard to the Governor's Report that no foundation exists for the rumoured occurrence of sleeping sickness on the border of the Protectorate; and the new phase which the matter took was that the Liverpool School proposed to send out their mission of inquiry. With this mission the local officers will certainly co-operate cordially, though it cannot be said that any local medical officer possesses experience of the disease.

  Australian Colonies and the Colonial Conference.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any protests have been received from the Australian Colonies against the exclusion from the Colonial Conference of representatives of the individual states of the Commonwealth; whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Premier of New South Wales that any resolutions arrived at by the Conference concerning State matters would be ignored as worthless if passed behind the backs of the representatives of the Australian States; and whether the scheme of representation at the Conference has been finally deter-
  1684
  mined so as to exclude the separate states in the Commonwealth.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State desires me to say that representations have been made by the Governments of the Australian States to the effect that their Premiers should be invited to the forthcoming Colonial Conference; but His Majesty's Government have been unable to reconsider their decision that the next Conference must be constituted in the same way as the Conference of 1902, at which the Australian States were not represented, and that it will rest with the Conference itself to consider whether any such change as is proposed is desirable. As regards the statement of the Premier of New South Wales, referred to by the hon. Member, there is no likelihood that the Conference will pass resolutions on subjects appertaining to the State Governments.

  Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what length of time has elapsed since the contemplated reorganisation of the Colonial Audit Branch was first considered; whether the scheme of reorganisation is yet decided on; and, if not, when may a decision on the matter be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna). The scheme for the reorganisation of the Colonial Audit Branch, under which it will be amalgamated with the Exchequer and Audit Department has now boon generally settled after full consideration by the various departments concerned. It is intended that the Estimate for 1907–8 of the Exchequer and Audit Department will be framed on the new basis.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. NAPIER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the
  ,
  1685
  Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the introduction into Great Britain of the fungus disease known as the American gooseberry mildew, which threatens to destroy the culture of the gooseberry in this country, and to the need of taking stops to arrest the further progress of that disease; and what course the Board of Agriculture will be prepared to adopt with that object.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board have given much attention to this matter, and have issued broadcast a notice warning importers and others of the danger, and advising them of the stops that should be taken if the disease should unfortunately appear. I am sending my hon. friend a copy of this notice, which will, we hope, be successful in preventing the establishment of the disease in this country. If, however, we come to the conclusion that further powers are necessary we shall not hesitate to ask Parliament to grant them.

  Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEto ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will state the number of local authorities that have applied up to the present time for powers to enable them to put The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, into operation; whether any who have so applied have boon refused; and, if so, will he state what authorities have been refused and the grounds of such refusal.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Act required that distress committees should be established in seventy-five boroughs and urban districts outside London. This has been done. It also enabled distress committees to be established in certain boroughs and urban districts if the borough or district council made application for the purpose to the Local Government Board, and the Board consented. Fifty-four such applications
  1686
  have been made. In fourteen of these cases distress committees have been established, in ton the application has not been proceeded with by the local authority, and in one the matter is at present under consideration. In the remaining cases no sufficient reason appeared to the Board to be shown for setting up a distress committee, and their consent was, therefore, not given.

  Licensing Statistics.
  MR. F. E. SMITHto ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in view of the declared intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Licensing Bill next session, he can see his way to expedite the issue of Licensing Statistics, 1906, in continuation of Licensing Statistics, 1905 [Cd. 2961], issued in May, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My Department has already made preparations for bringing out the volume of Licensing Statistics for 1906 at the earliest possible moment; but it has to be remembered that a great deal of the work on the volume cannot even be begun until after the end of the year. The work will be expedited as far as possible.

  Motor Bus Accidents in London.
  MR. BAKER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now supplement the information given by him relative to the number of accidents caused by motor omnibuses in the Metropolitan area in July, August, and September, by giving similar information for the months of June October, and November respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I append a complete statement of the street accidents known to the Metropolitan Police to have happened in each of the three months mentioned in the Question.

  June, 1906.

  Horse drawn Omnibuses.

  Other horse drawn vehicles (excluding tramcars).

  Tramcars.

  Motor Cars (including Motor Cycles).

  Motor Omnibuses.

  Total.

  Remarks.

  Horse drawn.

  Mechanically propelled.

  Number of accidents caused by

  280

  2,006

  80

  331

  559

  390

  3,646

  Number of accidents shown above in which personal injury resulted, caused by

  47

  617

  26

  109

  178

  80

  1,057

  Number of cases in which the injuries proved fatal, when caused by

  1

  21

  —

  2

  4

  3

  31

  October, 1906.

  Horse drawn Omnibuses.

  Other horse drawn vehicles (excluding tramcars).

  Tramcars.

  Motor Cars (including Motor Cycles).

  Motor Omnibuses.

  Total.

  Remarks.

  Horse drawn.

  Mechanically propelled.

  Number of accidents caused by

  215

  1,757

  62

  373

  373

  512

  3,292

  Number of accidents shown above in which personal injury resulted, caused by

  44

  571

  23

  138

  123

  118

  1,017

  Number of cases in which the injuries proved fatal, when caused by

  1

  4

  —

  1

  2

  3

  11

  November, 1906.

  Horse drawn Omnibuses.

  Other horse drawn vehicles (excluding tramcars).

  Tramcars.

  Motor Cars (including Motor Cycles).

  Motor Omnibuses.

  Total.

  Remarks.

  Horse drawn.

  Mechanically propelled.

  Number of accidents caused by

  158

  1,496

  72

  336

  324

  434

  2,820

  Number of accidents shown above in which personal injury resulted, caused by

  43

  497

  15

  118

  88

  81

  842

  Number of cases in which the injuries proved fatal, when caused by

  —

  17

  —

  1

  3

  2

  23

  NOTE—Any one accident can only be shown under the head of one of the classes of vehicles

  Invergordon Higher Grade School.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether at Invergordon higher grade public school, Standards I. and II. have been placed in charge of an uncertificated pupil teacher, who is permitted to administer corporal punishment; and, if so, whether he will take measures to put a stop to this irregularity.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Scottish Education Department has no information on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, but will make inquiry as to the circumstances.

  Assam Labour Inquiry.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will place in the Library a copy of the Assam Labour Inquiry Committee's Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Report has not yet been received. When it comes I shall hope to be able to comply with the wish of my hon. friend.

  Madras Estates Land Bill.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Madras Estates Land Bill, in addition to giving tenants occupancy rights, protection from enhancement of rent and from unjust eviction, and customary claims to communal grazing, and to waste and cultivable lands, also deprives the landlords of various customary rights and privileges, such as the right to increase the area of their home farms, the right to enter into contracts with their tenants for the cultivation of any lands at any other than the fixed rate of assessment, the right to receive rents in kind where such a custom exists; that the landlords strongly object to such provisions; that such landlords are not descendants of farmers of the revenue but of ancient and princely families who have possessed the privileges of which it is now proposed to deprive them from time immemorial; and that they hold that they and their lessees should not be put in a legal position inferior to that of their tenants; and whether he will, in view of the feeling entertained on the subject, direct the Government of Madras to hold such further inquiry as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The neccessity for legislation to declare and protect the rights of the cultivators in the permanently settled estates of the Madras Presidency has long been recognised, and the Bill at present before the Madras Legislative Council is the result of prolonged inquiries. I am not prepared to admit that its provisions will have the effect attributed to them in the Question. I understand that they have been extensively modified by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred, and that concessions have been made on various points to the landlords. As at present advised I am not disposed to take the action suggested.

  Sub-Target Aiming Apparatus—Indian Tariff.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Government, having made an order dated September 20th, 1906, admitting the sub-target aiming apparatus free of duty as educational apparatus, when imported direct by any unit of His Majesty's regular forces, have now prohibited the importation of an essential portion of the machine, namely, the rifle attached to it; and whether he can take steps to facilitate the importation of this machine, having regard to the fact that the rifle attached to it can be made useless for any other purpose than the practice of aiming.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no information as to the facts stated in the Question, but I have no doubt that the Government of India will consider any representation made on the subject by a regiment desiring to import the apparatus as part of their regimental equipment.

  Chinese Opium Traffic.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to give the House any further information as to communications between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government in reference to opium.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Minister at Peking has informed the Chinese Government that His Majesty's Government appreciate

  1691
  the probable benefits to the Chinese from the effective control of the production of opium and from a diminished consumption of the drug, and that they are prepared to consider in a sympathetic spirit any specific proposals which the Chinese Government may wish to make with regard to the importation and taxation of opium. Proposals have since been received from the Chinese Government, which are under consideration.

  South Westmeath Evicted Tenants.
  MR. SULLIVAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of tenants who were evicted in South Westmeath during the years 1904, 1905, and for 1906 up to the 1st December; and how many of those or others who were evicted previously were reinstated during these years either by the landlords or through the action of the Irish Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the number of tenants who were evicted in South Westmeath in the years mentioned, but, as regards the entire county, they have received applications from six persons evicted in 1904, and from two evicted in 1905, but none from persons evicted in 1906. Two of the persons evicted in 1904 have been reinstated by the landlords. Four persons who were evicted in previous years have also been reinstated by the landlords, and one has been provided by the Commissioners with a farm in another county.

  Royal Canal, Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is within the province of the Board of Control of the Royal Canal to use the power vested in them by statute to prevent the Midland Railway Company closing the Broadstone section of the canal, or by their default, in not dredging it, allowing it to become silted up, and thus prevent loads being conveyed by lighters on it; and whether he is aware that at present only about twenty ton loads can be carried, whereas, if kept in order, full loads of fifty tons could be conveyed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) As the hon. Member is aware, the Midland Great
  1692
  Western Railway Company have applied to the Board of Trade, under Section 45 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, for a warrant to abandon the Broad-stone branch of the Royal Canal, and the Board of Trade have deferred the consideration of this question in view of evidence on the subject to be given before the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways. If it should be decided that the branch is not to be closed, it will be within the province of the Board of Control to see that the railway company put it into proper condition for traffic. The Board of Control are aware that it is not at present in proper condition.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who are the members of the Board of Control of the Royal Canal; and whether they hold regular meetings and make any attempt to use the powers vested in them by statutes to compel the Midland Great Western Railway Company to carry out their obligation imposed by 8 and 9 Vic, s. 36, c. 119.
  (Answered by MR. Bryce.) Up to August, 1906, the Board of Control consisted of the three Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, Sir George Holmes, MR. Stevenson, and MR. Hanson, and at that date two unofficial members, MR. Nooney and MR. Ross, were added. I am informed that the members of the board then conferred together and agreed upon action which they are taking by letter, and otherwise, to put pressure on the railway company to carry out its statutory obligations. Future meetings will be held quarterly to consider the quarterly report transmitted by the railway company, and oftener if there should be occasion.

  Dismissed School Teachers in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of national school teachers of twenty years service and over who have been dismissed for inefficiency since the inauguration of the system of wire-bending and paper-folding, and whose service before was highly commended by the inspectorate.
  (Answered by MR. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they are not aware of any such case.

  Irish Quit Rents.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, where lands liable to quit routs in Ireland are sold under the provisions of the Land Act of 1903 on what terms is quit rent extinguished, to what purpose are moneys obtained by the extinction of quit rent applied, and is the interest of moneys paid to the Treasury from the sale of lands in Ireland liable to quit rent devoted to any Irish purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Quit rents payable for lands sold under Irish Land Acts are redeemed out of the purchase money at a price which is equivalent to twenty-five years' purchase. The purchase moneys become part of the capital of the Land Revenues of the Crown, which, under the Crown Lands Acts, has to be applied in purchasing lands for the Crown in the United Kingdom, or in redemption of charges and incumbrances on Crown lands. As I have explained on several previous occasions, the surplus annual revenue from the Crown lands is paid into Exchequer annually in accordance with the Crown Lands Acts, and is not set apart for any special porpose.

  Rosegarland Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FFRENCHto ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners acknowledged the receipt of an application on the 7th July last from Patrick and Mrs. Colfer for restoration to their homes on the Rosegarland Estate; whether any progress has yet been made in this case; and, if not, can he explain the cause of delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have now received their inspectors' Report upon the application for reinstatement lodged by Patrick Colfer, and will take the case, with others of a similar nature, into consideration in due course.

  Teachers' Increments.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  1694
  Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails amongst the Irish national teachers regarding the vagueness of Rule 104a, which it is believed may retard promotion and receipt of increment; whether there are office regulations that may have the same effect, the nature of which have never been explained to teachers and managers; if the inspectors' Reports have any bearing on these matters; what is the precise character of the Reports which would entitle teachers to increments in Grade III., Grade II., and Grade I. (2), respectively, and which would entitle teachers to promotion from each of these grades to the next higher.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Rule 104a is as follows:—104a. Promotion from a lower to a higher grade, and from the second to the first section of the highest grade, depends on (i.) training; (ii.) position in school; (iii.) ability and general attainments;(iv.) good service; (v.) seniority. The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there are no office regulations on the subject. They say that, of course, the inspector's Reports on the efficiency of the teacher have an important bearing on the teacher's promotion, but the question of promotion is not determined on these Reports alone. The other matters referred to in the rule are also taken into account. To warrant promotion to the first grade a higher standard of efficiency must be shown than would warrant promotion to the second and similarly in the case of good service increments within the grades.

  Rathkeale Labourers Cottages.
  Captain CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that 386 labourers cottages have been built in the Rathkeale rural district at a total cost of £62,922; whether he can state how many are unoccupied, and how many applications for further cottages in that district have been lodged; whether complaint was made by nine of the largest ratepayers in the district on the grounds that several of the district councillors had a pecuniary interest in the erection of labourers cottages; whether, as a result of such complaint, two Local Government Board inspectors held a sworn inquiry in October last; and whether he will publish the result

  1695
  of the inquiry, or state whether any of the officials or members of the rural district council were implicated, and, if any, give their names and state the extent.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The figures contained in the first part of the Question are correct. The Local Government Board have ascertained from the clerk of the rural district council that three labourers cottages are at present unoccupied, and that applications for ten new cottages have been received. A complaint to the effect stated in the Question was received by the Local Government Board, and an inquiry on oath into the matter was held in October last by two of the Board's inspectors. The inspectors' Report is at present under the consideration of the Local Government Board, and the result will be communicated to the rural district council as soon as possible.

  Royal Hospital, Chelsea—Out-Pension Office.
  Sir CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, the Government having frequently stated that officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates are to be employed whenever practicable, and that it is advisable to find employment, if possible, for ex-soldiers, he will consider whether this could be done at the Out-Pension Office of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, where at the present time some thirty-five War Office civilian clerks are employed on purely military work, two of whom have been given quarters in the Royal Hospital, which was founded absolutely for the sole benefit of officers and soldiers who have deserved well of their country.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The number of clerks employed at Chelsea Hospital is twenty-seven, of whom three are boys, and the others are nine civilians and fifteen ex-soldiers. The posts held by the civilians are filled through Civil Service competitive examinations, which are open to ex-soldiers; those held by the ex-soldiers are filled without resort to competitive examination. The assistant secretary and one senior clerk occupy unfurnished quarters, which have always been assigned to these officials, as their duties require them to live on the premises.

  Comptroller and Auditor General.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Prime Minister, whether, with reference to Section 6 of The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, the position of Comptroller and Auditor General, with a salary of £2,000 per annum attached to it, is a patronage appointment in the gift of the Crown; whether the appointments for some time past have been in the nature of selections by the Treasury from amongst permanent Civil Servants; and, if so, whether, having regard to the nature of the duties performed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the independent position of the office, the selections for future appointments will be made by the Government and independent of the permanent officials of the Treasury.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Answer to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative. The selection for any future appointment will be made by the Prime Minister for the time being, who will, I am confident, use his best endeavours to secure the services of the person who happens to be most suitable for discharging the duties of this important post.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the position of Comptroller and Auditor-General has never been occupied by an Irishman, and that all the Irish public accounts are audited by this official, the Government will in future consider the claims of Irishmen as well as those of Englishmen and Scotchmen in making appointments to this post.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell Bannerman.) I know of no reason why an Irishman should be debarred from applying for this position, nor can I suppose that his claims and qualifications would receive the less consideration because of his nationality.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Disturbances at Portsmouth.
  MR. CLYNES: On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received a Resolution passed at a meeting of

  1697
  ex-service men held on Saturday, 8th December, at the Chandos Hall, Charing Cross, in connection with the sentence passed on Stoker Moodie; whether he would take into consideration the refusal of Lieutenant Collard to answer questions, with a view of having the whole proceedings quashed; and whether he would consider the advisability of abolishing Courts-martial in times of peace.
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (MR. Edmund Robertson, Dundoe): So far as I am aware this Resolution has not been received. In accordance with the principle that a witness cannot be compelled to make any statement incriminating himself, Lieutenant Collard was warned that he need not answer certain questions. The same warning was given to the witnesses for the defence. All the circumstances of the case were taken into consideration by the Admiralty when the Minute was promulgated. As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke on Monday last.†
  MR. MYER: Arising out of the Answer may I ask if it is intended to substitute mechanicians for engine room artificers?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That does not arise out of the Answer.

  Stokers in the Navy.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the number of men who enlisted in His Majesty's Navy as stokers per month during the first eleven months of this year.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The number of men entered as stokers in His Majesty's Navy during the first eleven months of this year, as nearly as can be given from the weekly Returns, is as follows:—January, 518: February, 361; March, 381; April, 240; May, 254; June, 298; July, 346; August, 302; September, 361; October, 269; November, 295.

  Election Leaflets at Portsmouth.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary
  †See Col. 981.
  1698
  to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Board of Admiralty has been drawn to certain leaflets that were distributed on the lower deck of all the ships at Portsmouth on the eve of the general election; whether he has any reports showing that the recent disturbances at Portsmouth were in any way due to the effect produced by those leaflets; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the distribution of such leaflets in the future.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My attention has been called to this matter by the hon. Member's Question and by a letter from him. The Admiralty have no reason to believe that these leaflets had any connection with disturbances which took place eleven months afterwards. As there is no evidence to show how the leaflets were in fact distributed, it is impossible to make any regulation on the subject.
  MR. HICKS BEACHasked whether it was not a fact that these leaflets contained misstatements of a remarkable kind; whether they were not in the nature of an incitement to insubordination; and whether it was not desirable that some steps should be taken to prevent in the future the distribution of leaflets of this kind.
  MR EDMUND ROBERTSON: Nobody knows how they came to be distributed.
  Captain HERVEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain the opinion of the commanding officers at Portsmouth as to whether these leaflets had anything to do with the disturbance. He understood that in their opinion they were directly responsible for it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should like notice of that Question.
  *MR. BRAMSDONasked whether it was not a fact that the only possible effect this innocent leaflet could have had was to convince members of the lower deck that they should vote for the present Members, and thus conduce to the great victory they had won.
  [No Answer was returend.]

  Admiralty Contractors and Fair Wages.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. Thorneycroft, Government contractors, Southampton, have sub-let some painting work on their new torpedo boat and on the trooper "Reiva"; whether the Admiralty countenance the sub-letting of contracts; and whether, seeing that these subcontractors are not paying the trade union rate of wages for the district, he proposes to take any steps to secure the observance of the fair wages resolution.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This Question only appeared on the Paper yesterday morning, and inquiries will be necessary before an Answer can be given.

  Bricklayers' Wages in Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the maximum rate of pay for bricklayers in Chatham Dockyard, namely, 33s. per week, is 1s. per week less than the maximum obtaining at Portsmouth Dockyard, he will have the maximum at Chatham raised to the same as that at Portsmouth.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich—Christmas Day's Wages.
  *MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a notice has been posted at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, informing the workmen employed there that they will not be paid wages for Christmas Day; whether, seeing that for many years past wages have been paid for this holiday, he will say whether the above-mentioned notice was posted with his sanction; and whether he will take steps to continue the custom that has prevailed for so many years.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This regulation applies to casual labour, but if wrongly applied at Greenwich will be withdrawn.

  Stirlingshire Volunteers.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War
  1700
  whether, seeing that there is a deficiency of forty-two men and sixteen officers in the Stirlingshire Volunteer Battalion compared with 1st November, 1905, and that this deficiency is due in great measure to the scarcity and inconvenience of rifle ranges, and seeing that all the landlords who have been asked to sell or let ground for rifle ranges have refused, he will take steps to increase the number of rifle ranges, and, in the event of landlords unreasonably refusing to sell or let the necessary land, he will warn them that, under The Militia Act, 1882, they may be displaced from their Deputy-Lieutenancies.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddington): I have dealt very fully in my Answer to the hon. Gentleman on the 3rd instant with the question of rifle ranges. As regards the last part of his Question, the Militia Act, 1882, provides that a Lieutenant shall displace a Deputy-Lieutenant whenever His Majesty may think fit to signify His pleasure, but I am not prepared on present information to issue any warning such as the hon. Member suggests.

  Piershill Barracks.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is not the fact that the report recently made by combined military and civil medical men upon the condition of the Piershill Barracks, Edinburgh, expresses their concurrence in the following statement made by the: Director-General of the Army Medical Services—that "it is difficult to express in moderate language the conditions under which these officers are accommodated"; whether the report upon the men's accommodation was not also most unsatisfactory, and whether the following general statement was not also made, that the absence of actual cases of illness does not indicate freedom from grave danger, and whether in these circumstances he cannot see his way to make without delay some temporary arrangement in order to avoid the serious risks to which under existing circumstances both officers and men are undoubtedly exposed.
  MR. HALDANE: These reports confirm me in the opinion that as soon as accommodation elsewhere can be provided

  1701
  the cavalry should be removed from these barracks. As I have already said in reply to a supplementary Question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman on the 17th instant,†we do not regard the risks of the regiment remaining a little time longer to be substantial, and he will realise that the hasty adoption of temporary arrangements, especially at this time of the year, might lead to more serious results than those which he wishes me to avoid.

  North Western Indian Frontier.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will have a map of the North Western Frontier of India printed and circulated amongst Members of the House showing the statutory border of British India, British garrisons, railways (military and otherwise), and the physical character of the country lying between British India and the nearest Russian outposts.
  *The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (MR. Morley, Montrose Burghs): The requirements of the case seem to be sufficiently mot by the map of the North West Frontier Province published with the Moral and Material Progress Report of 1900–1 which of course has been presented to Parliament. All the information that can be made public will be given in the maps of the forthcoming Gazetteer which will show the administrative border, the districts beyond it under direct British administration and "Native States" territory. But these maps will not be ready until the autumn of next year.

  Education in Assam.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it has yet been found possible to provide additional facilities for the education of children employed on the tea gardens in Assam and other Indian provinces.
  MR. MORLEY: The Question is still under the consideration of the Government of India. I will inquire how the matter now stands.

  St. Paul's School. Darjeeling.
  MR. LAIDLAW: beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  †See Col. 1014.
  1702
  India if the Government of Bengal has given, or is about to give, special financial aid to St. Paul's School, Darjeeling, which is not available to other denominational schools.
  MR. MORLEY: I have no information on the subject, but if the hon. Member will communicate to me the information upon which his Question is founded, I will make inquiry.

  Garrison Church at Colaba, Bombay.
  MR. J. D. WHITE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, what was the cost of the Government garrison Church at Colaba, Bombay, and by whom it was paid; what is the annual cost of maintaining that church, and by whom it is paid; whether the Presbyterian soldiers of the regiment of Royal Scots, and soldiers belonging to other non-episcopal denominations, have been refused the use of the church at hours which would not conflict with the present services; if so, on whose authority such leave was refused, and on what grounds; and whether steps will be taken to ensure something approximating equal opportunities for soldiers of all denominations in those garrison churches in India which have been built and are maintained by public money.
  MR. MORLEY: The cost was mot by private subscription and public revenues combined; it is maintained at the expense of the State. I do not know the actual amount. As to Presbyterian and other non-Anglican soldiers, I gave an Answer to a similiar Question on Monday.‡Permission to use the church regularly for Presbyterian services was withheld by the Bishop of Bombay, with whom the decision is held by law to lie, on the ground that a Presbyterian church was available during the cold weather. Arrangements have now been made, as to India generally, which will ensure in future adequate church accomodation for soldiers of all denominations.

  Labour Recruitment in Portuguese East Africa.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware
  ‡See Col. 1266.

  1703
  that the neighbouring British Protectorates are dependent to a considerable extent upon Portuguese East Africa for labour; and whether he will arrange that the requirements of such protectorates are not overlooked when the interests of individual groups of mines in the Transvaal are represented to the Administration of Mozambique.
  The UNDER-SECRETAEY of STATE for the COLONIES (MR. Churchill, Manchester, N.W.): The Secretary of State is aware that Portuguese native labour is employed in the neighbouring British Protectorates; he does not anticipate that the proposed arrangements with the Portuguese authorities would affect that supply; but he will take care that the Administrations of Protectorates likely to be interested have an opportunity of making any representations they may desire.

  Chinde Foreshore.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the need for action in respect of the fast-disappearing foreshore at Chinde, he can make any statement as to what the Government proposes to do before Parliament rises.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government is awaiting a reply from the Government of Portugal as to the matter, and it will be impossible to make any statement pending the receipt of the reply.

  Primary Education in Ceylon.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to take steps to carry out the recommendations of the Commission on Primary Education in Ceylon, appointed in January, 1905, especially as regards the provision of adequate facilities for the education of the children of Indian coolies employed on the plantations in Ceylon.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that the draft Ordinance for extending educational facilities in the country districts of Ceylon is still under the consideration of the Colonial Government and Legislature.

  Grievances of Natal Natives.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a memorial, sent through the Governor of Natal, from MR. Joseph Baynes, a colonist of over fifty years standing and a member of the Legislative Council of Natal, anent certain grievances affecting the natives; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any action in connection therewith.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received such a document calling his attention to disabilities from which the natives are suffering and more particularly to the Game Law Consolidating Act, 1906. The Act in question is in operation and Ministers have pointed out that it contains no material alterations of the previously existing laws which, they say, have never been found to bear hardly on the native. The Secretary of State is not prepared to advise His Majesty to exercise his power of disallowance with respect to the Act. In regard to the other matters, MR. Baynes holds a seat in the Natal Parliament and has had and will have the opportunity of bringing his views before it. They are not matters in any respect outside the competence of that assembly.

  East Indians in this West Indies.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum, if any, is set apart by this Government in assisting the importation of East Indian indentured immigrants to the West Indies.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No money is spent by His Majesty's Government in asssisting the importation of East Indian indentured immigrants into the West Indies.

  Newspaper Censorship in the Soudan.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received answers to the inquiries with reference to an order of the Soudan War Office prohibiting admission of the Cairo newspaper Al Minbar into the Soudan; and whether that order has now been rescinded, and, if not, upon what grounds is it maintained.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Cairo reports that the Governor-General of the Soudan exercises a discretionary power as to the newspapers which are allowed to circulate in that country, and that the circulation of Al Minbar and some others is prohibited. As regards the question raised by the hon. Member on November 15th last as to whether the Soudan is still under martial law,†I would refer him to Article 9 of the Anglo-Egyptian Convention of January 19th, 1899, which runs as follows:—"Until, and save so far as it shall be determined by Proclamation, the Soudan, with the exception of the town of Suakin, shall be and remain under martial law." This Article has not boon repealed, but it is of course only intended to be put into operation in exceptional cases. Laws and regulations, approved by His Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt, and enforced through regularly constituted tribunals, are in vigour throughout the whole of Soudanese territory.

  British Trade at Newchwang.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the complaints made by the British mercantile community of Newchwang as to the injury done to British trade by the evading by the Japanese of duties collectable by the Chinese Government on goods passed through the leased territory of Liaotung and across the northern boundaries of Manchuria, and by preferential railway rates; if he proposes to take any steps in regard thereto; and whether he is in a position to give any information as to when Newchwang will be evactuated by the Japanese.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government understand that the establishment of a Customs station at Dalny depends upon the simultaneous establishment of a Customs station for goods entering Manchuria from the north, as to which negotiations are at present proceeding between the Russian and Chinese Governments. His Majesty's
  †See (4) Debates, clxv., 100–101.
  1706
  Government have no reason to believe, from inquiries they have made, that Japanese goods receive preferential railway rates on the Chinese Eastern Railway, as compared with other goods carried on the railway, but if they are furnished with any evidence to that effect further investigation will be made. The Japanese Consul at Newchwang notified his colleagues on the 5th instant that the military administration at that port would be withdrawn on the 6th.

  British Teacher in Berlin Asylum.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the alleged compulsory detention of MR. George Duncan, M.A., late teacher of English at the Royal Staff College at Berlin, in the lunatic asylum at Buch, near Berlin; and whether he will direct immediate inquiries to be made into all the circumstances, with a view to his liberation or return to this country, of which he is a native.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The matter is before the Lunacy Commission, who are waiting for a translation of the judgment given by the German Court. If the hon. Member desires it, I shall be glad to let him see the translation and the medical opinions on MR. Duncan's condition.

  Gold Reserve.
  MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of legalising the issue of £1 bank-notes, under certain restrictions, so that the gold reserve would be increased and money would be at a less rate than is the case at present.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.): The permanent effect of an issue of £1 note son the gold reserve is a question upon which there is much difference of opinion. I cannot at this moment commit myself to any of the conflicting views; but, as I have said before, the question of gold reserves in all its aspects is engaging my careful attention.

  Adulteration of Coffee.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is

  1707
  aware that the export trade in coffee and the duty collected on coffee have largely declined; that the General Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce has recorded a resolution to the effect that the requirements of the present Food and Drugs Act, in reference to forms of label, are not sufficient for the protection of the public; and that the law as to admixture and the declaration to the purchaser need to be greatly strengthened in the interest of the retail seller and the consumer of coffee; and whether he will introduce legislation requiring the use of a label specifying the proportion of coffee and of inferior substances in every admixture offered for sale as coffee.
  I beg also to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the consumption of coffee has largely decreased; that the admixtures sold by retail tradesmen as coffee contain from 70 to 90 per cent. of chicory; that the value of this root per pound is 3d. to 3¼d., as against 1s. 0½d. per pound for the berry: and whether he will propose legislation at an early date for the protection of coffee, coffee planters, and coffee consumers.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know quite what my hon. friend means by the export trade in coffee.
  MR. REES: Re-exports.
  MR. ASQUITH: As regards the Customs import duties, I do not trace any systematic decline, and the figures for 1906, so far as they are available, do not appear to be appreciably below the average of the past ten years. I have not seen the resolution of the general committee of the London Chamber of Commerce on this subject, but the question of the protection of the consumer against food adulteration is not one with which it is my duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal. The Inland Revenue labels are merely stamps denoting uniform rates of duty, irrespective of the quality of the mixtures to which they are affixed. I do not know what is the relative proportion of coffee and chicory in the admixtures sold by retail tradesmen, and, so long as the duties upon the two ingredients are practically equal, the matter does not directly concern the Exchequer. From the point of view of
  1708
  the revenue I see no reason for introducing legislation.

  Collection of Taxes in Scotland.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the notices to pay the income-tax are issued in Scotland from two to three months earlier than they are issued in England, and that a considerable number of persons in Scotland pay the income-tax early in November, some weeks before the notice to pay is issued to the tax-payers in England; and whether he will give instructions that notices to pay be issued on the same date in England as in Scotland.
  Me. ASQUITH: It is true that the notice of assessment in Scotland also serves the purpose of the first demand note, while in England the notice of assessment is sent separately and the first demand follows at a later date. In each case, however, the demand is issued before 1st January, and makes it clear that there is no obligation to pay before that date. The subsequent demand notes, which are served before any proceedings are taken in cases of default, are issued at the same date in both countries. It appears to be not unusual in Scotland for the taxpayer to pay on receipt of the first notice and before the date on which the tax is legally exigible; but as I have said, there is nothing in the terms of the notice to suggest that he is under any obligation to do so. I need not say that I am most anxious that Scotland should be treated at least as well as any other part of the United Kingdom, and I believe that whatever grievance there may be has arisen from the superiority of the Scottish system, and from the greater promptitude and punctuality of the Scottish people in discharging their obligations.
  MR. MORTON:I beg to ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that with regard both to the sending out of notices and collection of taxes Scotland should be treated as fairly as other parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. ASQUITH: So far as pressure by the Revenue officers is concerned and the dates at which various degrees of pressure are exercised, the practice in the two countries is now absolutely identical.

  1709
  There is, it is true, a slight difference of procedure as regards the sending out of the notices of assessment and the first demand, on which I would refer my hon. friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh.

  Beer and Lunacy.
  MR. FELL: On behalf of the hon..Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the percentage of recoveries in the Three Counties Asylum, Arlesey, where 32,800 gallons of beer were consumed last year, was larger than in any asylum in London or in any other part of England; and whether the cost per patient was also loss than in London or in any other part of England.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The percentage of recoveries in the Three Counties Asylum in the last year was 31·4 per cent., while in the London asylums (excluding the epileptic colony) it was 38·8 per cent., and in the asylums of England and Wales generally it was 37 per cent. The total average weekly cost of maintenance in the Three Counties Asylum was 9s. 6½d., while in the London asylums (excluding the epileptic colony) it was 11s. 3d., and in the asylums of England and Wales the average cost was 10s. 4d. But in the case of more than one-third of those asylums the cost of maintenance was less than at the Three Counties Asylum.

  Fatal Accident at Dakin's Warehouse, Lambeth.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of Richard William West, aged fifteen, a porter employed at Messrs. Dakin and Co.'s tea warehouse, Cornwall Road, Lambeth, through putting on a driving belt while the machinery was in motion, and, in consequence of the jury expressing the opinion that the accident was the result of culpable negligence on the part of the firm in not having proper supervision of the whole
  1710
  of the work of the department, whether he will consider the possibility of taking criminal proceedings against the management of the firm; and whether, in view of the custom prevailing in all factories for driving belts to be put on the shafting wheels whilst the machinery is in full speed, he is prepared to issue an order to factory owners against allowing such a practice.
  Notice had been given also of the following Question:—
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the inquest held at Lambeth, on 15th December, on Richard William West, aged fifteen years, when the coroner's jury expressed the opinion that death was the result of culpable negligence on the part of the Dakin Tea Company, and that more safeguards ought to be provided for the machinery, and when the coroner, MR. Troutbeck, commenting on the case, said that the deceased boy, who was described as a foreman, had had no training and no experience, that it was a case of child labour, and that the circumstances were such as to invite accidents; if he will state upon what dates in the past two years His Majesty's factory inspector, visited the Dakin Tea Company's warehouse; and what reports were made by the inspector as the result of his visits; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer with this the Question of my hon. friend the Member for North Paddington. I have received reports with regard to this accident, from which it appears that it was caused by the deceased attempting to fix a belt on the pulley of some overhead shafting while in motion. It was not due to any want of fencing or other breach of the Factory Act, and no proceedings are possible. The work was in my opinion such as a boy of fifteen should not have been allowed to perform, and I understand the firm have now arranged that the engineman shall have sole charge of the machinery. Visits were paid to this factory by inspectors in May, 1905, and in September and October, 1906, and instructions

  1711
  given with respect to the fencing of the machinery. I am not satisfied that proper supervision was exercised or proper precautions taken in this case, and I am making further inquiries.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYinquired if it was the case that the factory inspector for this district had no acquaintance with practical engineering?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will ascertain.

  Privilege Cabs in London Stations
  MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Select Committee on Cabs and Omnibuses, the railway companies still refuse to open their London stations to other than privilege, cabs; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a short Bill in the next session of Parliament to compel them to do so.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am taking action in this matter, but I fear I cannot say more at the present time.

  Laundry Workers.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the International Convention signed at Borne in September last applies to the night-work of women generally; whether, in addition to the two instances mentioned in the Memorandum, it extends to women employed in laundries; and, if so, whether this occupation will be included in the Bill to be presented to Parliament.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Convention applies to night-work in industrial undertakings. The definition of "industrial undertaking" is left to each State to settle, but it must in every case include mines and quarries and industries in which articles are manufactured or materials transformed. The Convention imposes no obligation in respect of the hours of work in laundries. I propose to deal with that subject in the Bill which I hope to introduce next session to regulate the conditions of employment in laundries, and not in the Bill which
  1712
  will be introduced to fulfil the requirements of the Berne Convention.

  Shop-closing Hours.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the prosecution, before the Accrington magistrates, of a boot and shoe retailer, under the Shop Hours Act, for selling his wares by public auction after the hour at which the boot and shoe shops must close under the local Order, and that the magistrates decided that he was entitled to carry on business by public auction unaffected by the Closing Order; and will he consider some amendment of the law which will prevent such breaches of the spirit and purpose of the Shop Hours Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I had not previously heard of the prosecution referred to; but I will obtain full information and consider carefully the point raised by the hon. Member.

  Crewe—Discharge of Railway Workmen.
  MR. CLYNES:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the- Home Department, in reference to the stoppage of workmen, at the North Western Railway works at Crewe, whether he is aware that the works manager stated that old workmen of very long service were dismissed in their own interest, inasmuch as they might meet with accidents because of age; and whether he can take any action to protect men from dismissal whose age is considered to involve risks for compensation or make other provision for suck men by railway regulations.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen the newspaper report of the statement referred to, but I am afraid that I have no power to take any action in the matter.

  The House of Lords Veto and Plural Voting Bill.
  MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, owing to the action of the House of Lords in throwing out the Plural Voting Bill, which dealt solely with the representation of the people in the House of Commons, he will take steps to bring in further legislation dealing with the question of plural voting, and also the principle that the Commons

  1713
  should be the authority to decide how they should be elected.
  MR. GLADSTONE (for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I do not think that this is the most convenient moment for making a statement on this Question though I can quite understand the motives of my hon. friend in asking it.

  Importation of Canadian Cattle.
  MR. WATT:I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that statistics show that Canadian cattle are the healthiest cattle in the world; and whether, in view of this, along with the knowledge that the majority of Liberal Members of the House have pledged themselves to free trade in this matter, he will promise legislation for the free importation, but with adequate inspection, of Canadian cattle.
  MR. GLADSTONE (for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend the promise he desires. The House of Commons, in whose hands the Question was left, have decided against the view entertained by my hon. friend and a large number of other hon. Members on this side of the House. There the matter must remain until by another vote the House think proper to revise their decision.

  The Death at a Convent.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the inquest held at Kensington on Miss E. Tibworth, who died in a convent at Notting Hill on Friday; whether the coroner said it was important to know something of the inner working of this place, which was more or loss outside the law; and whether he intends to take any steps to obtain such information.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid his attention had been drawn to the case, and he thought the hon. Member had correctly quoted the words of the coroner, who made an exhaustive inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the death of this lady. According to the medical evidence the death was due to syncope, and there was no sign of poisoning, and the jury returned a verdict in accordance
  1714
  with the medical evidence. Therefore he saw no reason to make any inquiry.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND:I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been called to the evidence of the doctor, who was not a Roman Catholic, but who bore testimony to the charity of the members of this congregation and to the good work they were doing; and that the coroner himself said he was delighted to hear it.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had only got the Report which he held in his hand. The inquiry was of an entirely satisfactory character.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTpressed the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he intended to take any action on the coroner's words that these institutions were more or less outside the law.
  MR. GLADSTONE:replied that he would be guided by the verdict of the jury.

  Merthyr Official Receiver.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been arrived at by his Department anent the office of the official receivership in bankruptcy in the Merthyr district.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (MR. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs): As the hon. Member has already been informed privately, the Board of Trade, having regard to the convenience of the North Glamorganshire Bankruptcy District as a whole, have decided that the new official receiver must have his office at Pontypridd.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he left the decision of this matter in the hands of the Inspector General in Bankruptcy.

  Easingwold Railway Fatality.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death by accident of a boy named Robert William Gill, aged fourteen, who was killed while

  1715
  engaged in shunting operations on the Easingwold railway; and if he can take steps to prevent young persons being employed on railways in dangerous work such as stoking or shunting.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This sad accident has been notified to the Board of Trade by the Railway Company concerned, and I have ordered an inquiry to be held by an officer of the Department.

  Hull Signalmen's Grievances.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the rearranged hours of duty of the gate signalmen at the St. George's Road and Hawthorn Avenue Level Crossings, Hull, North Eastern Railway, are for all men engaged at those cabins seven turns of twelve hours on night duty and six turns of twelve hours on day duty each week, without any clear Sunday off duty; whether he is aware that at the St. George's Road cabin there is one home, one distant, and one repeating signal on the up line, and a home and a distant signal on the down line, that at Hawthorn Avenue cabin there are home and distant signals on up and down lines, that gates are worked from each cabin, that bell signals are repeated through both cabins and have to be observed and obeyed, that an average of 200 trains pass in the twenty-four hours, and that between 5,000 and 6,000 people cross the lines each day; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter by one of the inspecting officers of his Department with a view of bringing about a reduction of the hours worked.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that the regular hours of these men are as stated by the hon. Member, and that in changing from day to night duty or vice versa they have an interval off duty of twenty-four hours. I have no detailed information in regard to the particulars mentioned in the second part of the Question. In view, however, of the representations conveyed in the Question that the hours worked are excessive, I will cause full inquiry to be made in accordance with the Railway Regulation Act, 1893.

  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway—Guards' Hours of Duty.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade,
  1716
  if his attention has been called to the case of a goods guard at Wigan, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, who worked twenty hours on the 13th instant, and another who worked twenty-two hours and ten minutes on the same day; whether he is aware that another who had worked over twenty-one hours was reprimanded because he refused to come on after only eight hours' rest; and whether, in view of the hours prevalent on this line, he will take special steps in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir. Upon the representations contained in a letter received from the hon. Member on the 15th instant I am causing careful inquiry to be made.

  British Flag on Foreign Owned Steamers.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreement is in existence authorising steamers belonging to English companies, which have been purchased by the International Mercantile Marine Company, and which are therefore foreign-owned, to fly the British flag; and whether, in view of the provision in the law that the burden of proving a title to the use of the British registry shall lie upon the users, he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Article 2 of the trilateral agreement signed on the 1st August, 1903, between the Government and the International Mercantile Marine Company and certain British shipping companies stipulates that the British companies included in the Association shall continue to be British companies qualified to own British ships, and that a majority at least of their directors shall be British subjects. No agreement, however, would enable any ships to fly the British flag if it did not comply with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether they are really British owned?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As long as they comply with the conditions of the Merchant Shipping Act I see no reason to do that.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: Does this apply to foreign owned trawlers?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Grants to Distress Committees.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has sent a letter to any of the distress committees stating that no money will be granted after March next from the £200,000 set aside by the Government last July for the relief of the unemployed; whether the whole £200,000 will all be granted between now and then, seeing that only £29,450 had been granted up to last Thursday evening, the 13th December; to eleven distress committees and whether grants have been refused to any distress committees who have made application for assistance.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The sum of £200,000 has been granted by Parliament to defray charges which will come in course of payment during the financial year ending on 31st March next. It will not be practicable that payments should be made out of it after that day, and I have so stated in a letter to the West Ham Distress Committee. I anticipate that I shall find it necessary to distribute the whole of the share of England and Wales in the grant by the end of the financial year, although, of course, I cannot at present state definitely that this will be the case. There have been instances in which I have not felt able to comply with applications of the kind referred to in the last part of the Question.

  Powers of Local Distress Committees.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the many cases coming before distress committees of applicants who have received temporary poor relief (other than medical relief) for their families when some member of the family was weak through prolonged privation, not knowing that thereby they became disqualified for relief under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, he will take into consideration the expediency of restoring to local distress committees and the Central (unemployed) Body for London the discretionary powers
  1718
  they possessed of making exceptions in such cases under sub-division (1) of Article II. of the Regulations (Organisation for Unemployed), 1905, as amended by the temporary Regulations (Organisation for Unemployed), 1905 and 1906.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The discretionary powers referred to enabled assistance to be given under the Act in suitable cases to persons who had received Poor Law relief during a limited period. This period expired generally on 1st January last. The object was to meet cases in which hardship might have arisen from excluding persons who were compelled to have recourse to Poor Law relief before the Act was passed, or the distress committees were in a position to receive applications. The considerations which led to the temporary powers being given have now ceased to apply, and it does not appear to me that they could properly be extended as suggested. I may add that the Act was intended to deal with a class of persons who would not ordinarily come within the operation of the Poor Law.

  Women as Local Government Inspectors.
  Dr. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, as the majority of persons detained in workhouses, sick asylums, and parochial schools are women and young children, he will consider the advisability of appointing women as general inspectors of the Local Government Board.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The general inspectors have important duties besides those in which the classes referred to are: concerned. I could not give any undertaking to appoint women to these inspectorships; but I may point out that there is an assistant lady inspector who visits Poor Law institutions in the Metropolitan district with special reference to women and children and to the sick.
  DR. COOPER: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that women are as competent as men to carry out the other duties?

  Local Government Auditors.
  Dr. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board

  1719
  what are the conditions governing the appointment of an assistant auditor of the Local Government Board; whether the appointment is by nomination; whether it is required that the person appointed shall have passed any examination in or possess any special knowledge of accounts; whether an assistant auditor is paid, and at what rate; and whether he will consider the advisability of requiring in future that all candidates for this position shall have passed some examination in accounts before appointment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The existing conditions for the appointment of an assistant auditor are that the applicant shall be a chartered or incorporated accountant, or a barrister or solicitor, or have undergone a course of training with a district auditor, or have served in the Department of the Local Government Board. Appointments are made by the Board from persons who satisfy these conditions, and appear to t hem to be in other respects suited for the office, but no nomination is necessary. Nor is the passing of a special examination required; but I will take note of the suggestion that such a requirement should be made. The salaries of the assistant auditors range from £300 to £450 a year.

  Private Bill Legislation.
  MR. BRIGG:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider the desirability of introducing a Bill in the next session of Parliament to comprise the various clauses allowed during the sessions of 1904, 1905, and 1906, by the Police and Sanitary Committee in improvement Bills promoted by municipal and sanitary authorities, so as to enable local authorities without incurring the expense of promoting a Private Bill, to adopt all or any of the powers conferred by those clauses in the same manner as has been allowed by Parliament in the case of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act and the Public Health Amendment Act of 1890.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will give early consideration to the suggestion, but I cannot make any promise as to the introduction of a Bill next session.

  County Council Register of Motor Cars.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the registers kept by county councils containing the names of the owners of and the numbers of motorcars are open to the inspection of the public; and, if not, will he, in the public interest, take steps to make such registers open to inspection on payment of a nominal fee or on compliance with reasonable regulations.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The registers referred to in it are not open to the inspection of the public, but a person can have a copy of the entries relating to any specified motor-car on payment of a fee of 1s., if he shows that he has a reasonable cause for requiring it. The point whether the registers should be open to inspection was considered by the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, but they did not think that sufficient cause had been shown for amending the regulation on the subject in the direction indicated. I will, however, note the suggestion.
  In reply to further Questions,
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was aware of the fact that the police sometimes had considerable difficulty in getting the names of owners, and, in his judgment, the police ought to have equal access with the public, under proper safeguards, to these registers, if there was real cause for looking at them. He was aware, too, that under certain circumstances owners of motor cars might be subjected to considerable annoyance, and perhaps intimidation, through their names and addresses becoming known to advertising touts if these registers were open without any qualification. The Royal Commission had that aspect of the question before it.

  Ramsey District Council and Allotments.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the urban district council, Ramsey, Hunts,, has given any explanation why the council has declined to apply for permission to put into operation the

  1721
  Parish Councils Act of; 1894, so that the council may acquire land by compulsory powers for allotments.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I communicated with the urban district council on this subject. They appear to have considered that the grounds on which it was desired that they should obtain the powers of a parish council under Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1894, with regard to allotments, were, firstly, that more than one acre of land could then have been let to an applicant, and, secondly, that the lands could have been hired compulsorily. They point out, however, that if lands were hired compulsorily the council could only have allotted to an applicant either four acres of pasture land or three acres of pasture and one acre of arable land. But they say that there is no pasture land in many districts where the applicants reside, neither is there a desire for any, and that the result of the compulsory powers would have been that the applicants could have obtained one acre of arable land. This they can do now. It is further stated that the council are quite certain that lands taken under compulsory powers would be at a considerably higher rent than they now are, that wherever lands have been asked for they have been granted, and that more land has been offered to the council than they had applicants for.

  Compulsory Purchase of Land for Allotments.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will, at the earliest opportunity, bring in a Bill for the purpose of amending the existing law of allotments by extending the compulsory power of purchase.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Local authorities can already purchase land compulsorily for allotment purposes. I presume, however, that my hon. friend desires that the law should be amended so as to confer on urban district councils in all cases the power which a parish council possess of hiring land compulsorily for allotment purposes. As he is aware, an urban district council can now obtain this power on application to the Local Government Board. I will take note of his suggestion, but I cannot
  1722
  promise to introduce a Bill on the subject.

  Local Government Loans—Wrexham Inquiry.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is the practice of the Board to decline to sanction in a loan for a permanent improvement any sum paid as wages to corporation workmen engaged on the work, while no such deduction for wages is made if the work be done by private contractors; if he is aware that at a recent inquiry at Wrexham the inspector of the Board was unable to give any reason for such a practice, and that the borough accountant said he had never been able to understand on what principle the rule was based; and whether, in view of the discouragement to direct employment by this rule, he will withdraw it.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The view taken by the Local Government Board is that the wages of workmen permanently employed by a local authority should not be paid out of borrowed money, and consequently it is their practice to exclude from the amount to be borrowed for works to be executed by the authority any sums which would be paid in respect of such wages. I have no information as to what the inspector said on this subject at the inquiry at Wrexham, but I understand that in that case the sum proposed to be borrowed did not include any sum to be paid to the regular staff of the town council. There docs not appear to me to be any sufficient reason for altering the rule in this matter. My hon. friend will observe that the rule only applies where the workmen are permanently employed by the local authority, and does not prevent the authority from carrying out works themselves by means of men engaged for the purpose.

  Beer for the Tredegar Guardians.
  MR. T. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to an admission by the chairman of the Bedwellty Board of Guardians that he and several other members of the Board regularly sent casks of beer to the Tredegar workhouse for the use of the guardians at their

  1723
  meetings, and that although he had supplied nine barrels he understood that his turn to send one had again arrived; and if he will at once take steps to prevent a continuance of this practice.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has not previously been called to this matter. I will make inquiry with regard to it.

  Postal Servants' Duties at Gainsborough and Bournemouth.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Gainsborough and Bournemouth skilled telegraphists have been compelled to perform the sorting of letters owing to Christmas pressure; whether he is aware that married women who have been telegraphists, and whose husbands are in constant employment in the postal service, have been given temporary employment to perform telegraph work; and whether, in view of the amount of unemployment among ordinary workpeople, he will direct that the telegraphists should be sent back to perform their own duties, while the requirements of the Post Office for letter-sorting can be met by the employment of casual labour.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I will have inquiry made into the matter.

  Chorley Postman's Promotion.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a postman at Chorley, Lancashire, with fifteen years service, has been promoted to position of senior postman over the heads of other postmen who have over twenty-six years service; and whether he can state the reason why this man was promoted in preference to those men with longer service.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No promotion has yet been made. But in any case the most suitable officer will be selected for the vacancy.

  Lavender Hill Post Office.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at the district office of Battersea, at Lavender Hill, there
  1724
  is no copy of the register of telegraphic addresses; and that there is no copy obtainable nearer than at the office at South Side, Clapham Common, which is at least one mile distant from the Lavender Hill office; and whether he will take steps to rectify this omission in order to prevent the inconvenience at present occasioned to persons using the Battersea district office for telegraphic purposes.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Registers of telegraphic addresses are not supplied officially for the use of the public at any post office. The copy at the sub-office the hon. Member refers to is no doubt the private property of the sub-postmaster, who allows his customers to consult it.
  In further reply,
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was not sure that those who had registered addresses would care to have them thrown open to the public.

  Manchester Post Office Engineers' Wages.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that men between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-six years are employed in the engineering department of the Manchester Post Office who only received 17s. to 21s. per week; that some of these paid below £1 are reservists; and whether he can take any steps to increase their pay.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will have inquiry made into the matter.

  School Nomenclature.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the Board's circulars in November last to local education authorities, to the effect that after 15th December, 1906, the appellation of National will be omitted altogether from the official list of schools, and suggesting for that term the epithet Church of England should be substituted, he will substitute for the nomenclature of National, British, or Church of England, the name of Non-provided, associated with the village or township in single-school areas or the street in districts where there are two or more

  1725
  schools, in order that denominational control may not be emphasised; and whether he will delay the publication of the new official list of schools for such a period as will enable local education authorities to give due consideration to the recommendation of their district sub-committees upon the subject.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (MR. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The hon. Member has, I think, slightly misunderstood the purpose and the effects of the changes proposed in the circular. In the great majority of cases the excision of the word National from the title of the schools will not necessitate the insertion of any other phrase—Church of England or anything else—in its place. It is only in the small minority of cases, where the excision would cause confusion between one school and another, that a new distinctive term of some kind is required; and there are certain advantages, while our present system continues, in letting the name of the school indicate plainly to the parents of the children what is the nature of the school's religious instruction and of its management, since this facilitates both the parents' choice of a school and also their use of the conscience clause. I am aware, however, that there are some disadvantages as well as advantages in the arrangement; and I will give careful consideration to the point suggested by the hon. Member, though I doubt whether the precise method suggested by him would be feasible in large numbers of rural and semi-rural cases.
  *MR. CLOUGH: May we have an Answer to the second portion of the Question? Can the right hon. Gentleman postpone the publication of the new official list?
  MR. BIRRELL: No; I do not think I can postpone the new official list, but it will be of a temporary character, and I shall be quite open to consider the objections of the hon. Gentleman, and shall be happy to consider any objections submitted to me.

  Swansea Schools.
  Lord R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, how long the legal question connected with the teachers in Swansea
  1726
  schools has been before the law officers, and whether he will be able, before the end of the session, to make any statement upon a question affecting the livelihood of a number of those employed in those schools.
  MR. BIRRELL: This is, I think, the eighth or ninth Question that the noble Lord has put to me, in the last few days, on this case. My Answer must be the same that I gave on the seventeenth and on the tenth of this month, viz., that I am not yet in a position, nor can I yet say when I shall be in a position, to say by what date I shall be in possession of the legal advice I must have before I can determine judicially the question referred to by the noble Lord as to teachers' salaries. I may add that I understand the local authority is continuing to pay in full the same salaries that these teachers have been hitherto receiving in these schools.

  Discharge of Workmen in London Parks.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the first Commissioner of Works whether a number of men have recently been discharged at the central parks, the reason assigned being that the work they were engaged upon is now finished; whether he is aware that one of the men has been employed regularly for three years; and whether the paying off of men at this time of the year can be obviated, as is the case at several of the other parks.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale): Some casual labourers recently employed for short periods in the parks have been discharged on the completion of the work for which they were engaged, such as road repairs and the cleaning of the lake in St. James's Park. One labourer thus discharged had enjoyed a succession of jobs for three years; the other men had only been employed for a few months. I endeavour to arrange that as much work as is practicable shall be done in the winter, and I have spared no pains to obviate the misfortune of discharges at this time of year.

  Licensing Compensation.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to a

  1727
  case decided on 1st November ultimo, by a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, under which it was held that certain hotels at Bedford having drinking bars with a rateable value over £25 were not entitled to claim any reduction in the compensation charge under the Licensing Act, 1904, which had been granted to them by the Bedford justices; whether he has any information showing in how many cases such a reduction has been allowed; and if he will take steps to see that where such exceptions have been granted in error the payments due shall be recovered.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (MR. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The Board of Inland Revenue inform me that they have received no full Report of the proceedings or judgment in this case, although they have observed certain references to it in the newspapers. In these circumstances it is difficult to say as yet what cases mayor may not be analogous to it—or how many of them there may be. In any event I understand it is extremely doubtful whether it would be possible to recover charges not paid in full in past years; although of course care will be taken to insist on full payment in future.

  London's Meat Supply.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture has been directed to the shortage in the supply of cattle and sheep in the metropolitan markets and the consequent increase in the price of fresh-killed beef and mutton; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing the existing prohibition against the importation of cattle and sheep for immediate slaughter from Holland and Denmark, both of which have been officially declared to be free from foot-and-mouth disease.
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: My hon. friend is unfortunately not correctly informed as to the freedom of Holland from foot and mouth disease, for two cases of that disease are reported to us officially as having occurred at Helden on the 1st inst. My hon. friend, will, I think, see that this fact affords another illustration of the danger
  1728
  of assuming that because any particular country is free from disease at any particular moment no danger attaches to the importation of animals therefrom into this country. Our information is not very precise as to the extent of any shortage of supply and advance of prices, but any failure on the part of the Board adequately to discharge their statutory duty under the Diseases of Animals Acts would, we are satisfied, speedily have the contrary effect to that which my hon. friend desires.
  Dr. COOPER: In view of the heavy rise in price of both beef and mutton, will my hon. friend consent to admit cattle and sheep from countries officially declared free from disease?
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: I can add nothing to my reply.
  Dr. COOPER: Is this a Free Trade Government on general policy, but strongly Protectionist in regard to agricultural matters?
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: It is a Free Trade Government.

  House of Commons Menus and Waiters.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid. Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he can see his way to grant a retaining fee to the waiters of the House during the Christmas recess.
  Sir JAMES JACOBY: I regret the funds at the disposal of the Kitchen Committee prevent them adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: In the same connection, may I ask whether an English translation of the menu-cards will be provided?
  Sir JAMES JACOBY: I do not think it would be desirable to alter the cards, but if it will meet the convenience of my hon. friend I will undertake that a French dictionary is provided.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the hon. Member provide a French dictionary for the waiters, in whose interests I put the Question.
  MR. MORTON: Will he at the same time have the menu printed in Gaelic?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Clyde bank Licensing Court.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the recent licensing court for the Clydebank division of Dumbartonshire one of the magistrates who assisted in granting six licences had signed a petition in favour of one of the applicants, and that this petition was actually presented in court whilst the magistrate occupied a seat on the bench; and whether he proposes to inquire into the validity of a licence granted under such circumstances.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (MR. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The Secretary for Scotland has made inquiries on the point raised by the hon. Member and is informed that "No magistrate sitting in the Burgh Licensing Court signed any petition in favour of any of the six licenses granted in the court" to which the hon Member refers.

  Cahirciveen Pier.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have received resolution, adopted by the Cahirciveen Ratepayers' Protective Association on the 3rd instant, urging that a grant should be given towards improving and enlarging the Cahirciveen Pier, seeing that Trinity College has been required by the Board of Trade to carry out some little improvements there in lieu of encroachments for building purposes made by that body; and whether effect will be given to this resolution by the Congested Districts Board.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (MR. BRYCE, Aberdeen S.): I am informed that the resolution in question has been received and will be considered by the Congested Districts Board at their next meeting on 11th January.

  Dr Bird's Kilcrohane Estate.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland
  1730
  whether the Congested Districts Board have discontinued improvement works on the estate of Dr. Bird, at Kilcrohane, county Cork; and, if so, whether, in view of the bad crop of potatoes in that district, he will suggest the works be recommenced to mitigate the sufferings of the small farmers.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that their improvement works on the Bird estate generally are completed, but some further work has to be done in the town-lands of Eskeragh and Ballyeiragh, and this will be put in hand as soon as possible after Christmas.

  Labourers Allotments on the King-Harman Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a number of representations have been made for sites and allotments for labourers on the King-Harman estate; whether an inquiry is now pending on the scheme; and, if so, whether care will be taken that the land is not otherwise disposed of till the result of the inquiry is made known.
  MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are aware that a number of representations have been made for sites for labourers' cottages on the estate mentioned. The Board's Inquiry cannot, however, be held for some time to come, as additional representations may be lodged up to the 1st February. The Estates Commissioners have received communications from the rural district council in respect of sites for labourers' cottages on this estate, and will consider the council's views in the matter upon the allocation of any untenanted land still undisposed of.

  Boyle Rate Collector.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of MR. M'Dermott, rate collector, Boyle, who has been forced to pay out of his own pocket the full amount of certain un-collectable rates in his district; and whether anything can be done to relieve him of the burden.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that under the terms of the bond entered into by MR. M'Dermott he is required to lodge to the credit of the county council within each half year the whole amount of the rates assessed in his district in respect of such half year. Having done so he can be refunded such portion of his lodgments as may be shown to the satisfaction of the county council and the Local Government Board to be irrecoverable. In addition to irrecoverable rates, there are some rates on buildings which though not legally irrecoverable are practically uncollectable, and in these cases the Local Government Board are prepared at the end of the financial year to consider recommendations by the county council for the refund of such rates to the collector, where it has been proved that he has used every effort to collect the rates, but has failed to do so.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to make any further statement as to the progress of the work of re-instatement of evicted tenants in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: I am glad to be in a position to inform the hon. Gentleman that progress has been made in this matter since the discussion in this House on 23rd October. Since that date the Estates Commissioners have received reports from their inspectors in 683 additional cases, and in the same period 129 additional claims have been rejected by them as being untenable. Thirty-five additional evicted tenants have been re-instated, namely, twenty-two by landlords with the aid of grants made by the Commissioners, and thirteen by the Commissioners themselves. This brings the total number of evicted tenants re-instated, or provided with new holdings, up to 577. In addition, arrangements are in progress, and will, it is believed, soon be completed, for the restoration of a large number of evicted tenants upon the Massereene estate in counties Louth and Meath; and arrangements have also been made for the re-instatement of thirty evicted tenants on the Vandeleur estate, county Clare. Both of these were Plan-of-Campaign estates. In sixteen further cases in
  1732
  which the owners have intimated their willingness to accept the price offered, the evicted tenants will, the Commissioners understand, be re-instated at an early date. The total number of evicted tenants re-instated, or about to be re-instated, is thus 623, exclusive of those on the Massereene estate. The landlords who were referred to on the former occasion as being unwilling to allow an inspection to be made of 444 evicted farms in their possession, are again being addressed by the Commissioners, and up to the present landlords have expressed their willingness to allow an inspection in the case of forty-six of these evicted farms. The Commissioners hope and believe that the majority of the landlords in the remaining cases will also consent to allow an inspection. If it should be thought that the results so far obtained, though substantial, are not as large as might have been desired, it must be remembered that until recently six inspectors only had been engaged upon the work of furthering the re-instatement of evicted tenants. Within the past week the twelve additional recently appointed inspectors have taken up duty in this matter, making eighteen in all now engaged. The Commissioners have reason to believe that with this additional staff the investigation of all outstanding applications of evicted tenants will be completed in six months.

  Irish Primary Education Proposals.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he intends to make any proposals in connection with primary education in Ireland in accordance with the unanimous demands made at several public meetings recently held; if so, can he indicate the nature of, and the probable date on which such proposals will be made; and will he say if there is at present sufficient funds to comply partly with such demand to the credit of Irish education in the Development Grant and otherwise; and whether he can give any guarantee that such money will not in future be used for any other purpose than education.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education have submitted proposals on the subject of primary education in connection with the forthcoming Estimates for the next financial year, and

  1733
  these are now under consideration. I am not at present in a position to say when it will be possible to make a statement on the subject. The Ireland Development Grant has already borne certain charges in connection with education, and future Estimates will contain further provision for education. I am not in a position to give the assurance asked for in the concluding part of this Question, because, as the hon. Member must be aware, the funds available under the Ireland Development Grant have already been largely hypothecated by the Land Purchase Act of 1903 for non-educational purposes. It is impossible for me to say what action the House may take upon the Ireland Development Grant Estimates which will be submitted to it in the future.

  Ballymacelligot Tenantry.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the number of future tenants in the parish of Ballymacelligot, county Kerry, and the request made at recent public meetings to afford them some relief from the payment of their present rents; and whether he proposes to take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to deal with such cases.
  MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission have no information as to the number of future tenants in Ballymacelligot or elsewhere. As regards possible legislation, I would refer to my Answer to the similar Question of the hon. Member for North Westmeath on 11th instant.†

  Royal Hibernian Academy.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolution adopted by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland with reference to the majority Report of the Commission on the Royal Hibernian Academy; and whether, in view of the expression of hope therein contained that the voice of the artists of Ireland may not be stifled by recommendations based solely on the evidence and suggestion of department officials, and that no action by the Government, conceived on the lines of the majority Report, may result
  † See Col. 142.
  1734
  in what would undoubtedly be the extinction of the Academy, he will say whether it is proposed to take any, and, if so, what action in the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: My attention has been called to the resolution in question. The majority and minority Reports are now under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to announce any decision. I should add, however, that my hon. friend appears to be mistaken in supposing that the recommendations in the majority Report were based solely on the evidence and suggestion of department officials.

  The "Midland Tribune."
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE:I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether be is aware that the Post Office Act, 1870, does not require that the English translation of the Gaelic title of a supplement shall appear at the top of every page; and whether he will give directions that there shall be no interference with the circulation of the Midland Tribune, merely on the ground that there is no translation given of the title of its Irish supplement.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am advised that a publication bearing a title different from that of the paper of which it professes to be a supplement cannot, under the Act of 1870, pass as a "supplement." The object of the limitation is to protect the revenue and has nothing to do with the question of a Gaelic title. But in the particular case of the Midland Tribune a little alteration would regularise the title; and I should be glad if the hon. Member will speak to me on the subject.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill: That they have agreed to the Amendment made by this House to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill; they do not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and have made an Amendment in lieu of one of the said Amendments to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Order for Consideration of Lords Reason read.
The PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I beg to move that this order be discharged. It is not very long since we had these Amendments among us before; and now they return to us again, after a somewhat difficult career in another place. We sent them up en masse to the other place, and there has been no small display of real or simulated indignation on that account in the other place. There has even been some talk of our action being unconstitutional. But, Sir, I hold that the course to be taken by the House of Commons in dealing with Amendments coming from another place is a question for the House of Commons, and for the House of Commons alone. This House may be guided by rule and precedent. If so, it will be its own rule and precedent; or, if circumstances require it, the House will exercise its own discretion in following a course of procedure, which may be novel, according to the dictates of its own common sense. I imagine that in saying this of the House of Commons I say no more than would be true of the House of Lords also. In fact, imagination need not be brought into play, because although we were so blamed for sending up the Amendments en masse, we find the compliment is paid us of our example being followed by the other place. They refused to go seriatim through the Amendments which were suggested on the part of the Government in another place, and they have sent these old Amendments back in the lump. Surely, it cannot be that that in the Lords is but a choleric word which in the Commons is flat blasphemy. We are accustomed to this mock heroic. But we are not alarmed by it, whether it comes from the House of Lords itself or from some one sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. I ask the House to recall the debate in which we dealt with these Amendments when they were before us. What was its chief characteristic and note? Surely it was the desire evinced in all parts of the House, among supporters of His Majesty's Government, among the leading members of the free Protestant Churches, among
1736
the Leaders of the Irish Party—nay, even among some members of the regular Opposition—the desire for negotiation, conciliation, and peace. That desire was, as we all know, a faithful reflection of feeling in the country. Who can doubt that a sense of weariness, and nausea, and a dislike of clerical and sectarian squabbles have spread from one end of the country to the other? We were all for conciliation. There was at the close of the debate but one jarring note. One Member—whose absence from among us to-day we deplore, especially for the reason of it—and but one Member, unfortunately raised a jarring note, and his sentence, at least—as on a memorable occasion in poetry—was for open war. I do not know whether it was dictated by any part of the spirit that seems to have lost for him the paradise of the Treasury Bench; but I am sure of this, that it is not by the exhibition of that spirit that paradise will be regained. The Government in that debate, by mouth of more than one Member, declared its willingness to make material and generous concessions for the sake of peace. The only complaint made was that they were not sufficiently definite in describing them. Yes; but that complaint has at least been put an end to now, because Lord Crewe, whose praise is in everyone's mouth, placed on the Paper of the House of Lords the very words of the Amendments we were willing to accept. Be it remembered that these were not—as some not well acquainted with the facts of the case would have imagined—the first concessions. The Bill as it left this House—aye, the Bill as introduced to this House—was packed full of concessions, concessions that put a heavy strain on the conscientious convictions of many of our friends both in this House and in the country, and a strain which we should never have put upon them had we not thought it necessary. And why did we put that strain upon our friends? And why have we gone on accumulating the intensity of the strain upon our friends? Because of the deep realisation that we had of the urgent importance of securing such a settlement as would bring into play the national forces which are necessary to secure for the childhood and youth of our country that full and sound measure of education which ought to be their birthright. We made

1737
many and great concessions. But let me say this. After all I do not think it too much to say that when a Government deliberately introduces a great measure, carefully designed and contrived to accomplish a certain purpose, especially when that purpose has quite recently received the approval of the electors of the country, some regard at least in the consideration of the measure, and in the attempts to amend it, should be paid to that purpose. If those who criticise a measure in either House do not approve of the purpose, let them vote against the Second Reading; but, if they do not vote against the Second Reading, let them at least make some decent show of homage to the main purpose of the measure. Now I ask the House to consider for a moment how the matter stands in the latest phase with which we have now to deal. There are two conspicuous clauses in this Bill, Clauses 3 and 4. I speak of them alone to save time in going over others. Those clauses do not cohere very closely with some of the other parts of the Bill. No one can pretend that you can deal with an illogical and somewhat inconsistent system of education such as we have, except in a measure which is in itself on that account somewhat illogical and inconsistent; but those clauses were introduced to meet exceptional cases and demands, which we thought not unreasonable demands, with the view of obtaining a settlement. The Amendments which Lord Crewe described to the House of Lords and placed upon the Paper were designed and calculated to give reality and fulness to the concessions already made in those clauses. The details of what we were willing to do were placed on the Paper in defiance of tactics. It was bad tactics to put them on the Paper, but we thought it only right there should be this last chance, and that we at any rate should not stand in the way of its success. Why were the Amendments rejected? I wish to turn the attention of the House especially to that. They were rejected because of demands made which they would not fulfil. And what were these demands? The demand was solemnly avowed that in the hitherto denominational schools, the non-provided and the transferred schools, according to the nomenclature of this legislation, specific.sectarian religious teaching should con-
1738
tinue to be given by all the teachers, if willing, in every school, large or small, in town and country alike, irrespective of the assent of the local authority. That is a plain description of the demand. Now what is this but the perpetuation and extension and consolidation of the very system which our Bill was designed on the whole to put an end to? And these demands are not more persuasively commended to us by the fact that this new, aggravated, and consolidated denominationalism is to be accompanied by rent paid by the State for the use of the schools which it is obliged to support. The same teachers are to teach the same things to the same little children in the same schools, whether the local authority like it or not, and the public purse is to pro vide a rent for the schools which they now enjoy rent free. Sir, I say that is enough. For such a Bill—to use the everyday, but very good expression of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education—we have no use. Why have we no use for it? Because our aim is, on the other hand, to secure a national and not a denominational system, public and not sectarian, on the general basis of a common Christianity instead of a sectional Christianity, to make our educational system the handmaid of the community and not the handmaid of any church or sect, and to prevent the common schools of the country, which are maintained out of the public purse, from being provided and worked with two doors, as we heard in the last Parliament—and I hope we shall never forget it—one bringing in the poor little children from the streets, and the other ushering them into a particular church. Well, Sir, the contrast between these two ideals is enough to show the real inward character of the Amendments, and as they involve an absolute perversion of the whole purpose of the Bill, and as, in spite of attempts at conciliation and negotiation, they are persisted in, the discharge of the Bill from our Order-book becomes a mere necessary formality. It is a formality consequent on the action of the House of Lords, who destroyed the Bill, and of one in this House who incited them to do it. The Motion means no more than that the dead body of this measure which they have left at our door may be carried away out of the sight of men.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: Hear, hear.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I thank the hon. Member for his kindly cheer. Now the question we have to ask ourselves is—Is the general election and its result to go for nothing? I turn here from the educational to the general question. This education question has been before the country since 1902, and even earlier. It has been discussed and re-discussed. The Act of 1902 has been the cause of intense bitterness and dissatisfaction. The grievance created by it and the flaws in its administrative structure in many respects are such that there can be no peace, no settlement, no ordered progress in the work of education until the law is altered from its present condition. No one denies it. No one denies that that was the opinion which helped to return the great majority sent by the constituencies this time last year. No one denies the strength of the reflection of that opinion in this House. Who could deny it, when these very Amendments were returned to the House of Lords but a few days ago by a majority of 309? Well, Sir, at the bidding of a Party which was condemned at the general election, condemned as no Party was ever condemned before, the House of Lords has obliterated all this. I desire to speak with perfect moderation and calmness, but it is difficult to reconcile such action on the part of the other House with that calm and impartial revision of hasty legislation which is assumed to be the greatest merit of that Assembly. Perhaps it is even harder to see how that action justifies the claim that they are the true interpreters of the feeling and desires of the people of this country. But even if it were so, what is the good of maintaining a representative system? It is not as if this House of Commons were old, stale, and worn out; if that were so, there would be some reason we could understand in the argument; but there is no reason in the argument to-day. It is plainly intolerable, Sir, that a second Chamber should, while one Party in the State is in power, be its willing servant, and when that Party has received an unmistakable and emphatic condemnation by the country, the House of Lords should then be able to neutralise, thwart,
1740
and distort the policy which the electors have approved. That is the state of things that for the moment—for the nonce—we must submit to. A settlement of this grave question of education has been prevented, and for that calamity we know, and the country knows, upon whom the responsibility lies. But, Sir, the resources of the British Constitution are not wholly exhausted, the resources of the House of Commons are not exhausted, and I say with conviction that a way must be found, a way will be found, by which the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives in this House will be made to prevail.
Motion made and question proposed, "That the order be discharged."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that with the opening remarks of the Prime Minister all would agree, and no one more heartily than himself, in which reference was made to the absence of his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in his expression of regret for that absence and the cause. Following that, it was to be regretted that the Prime Minister had found it necessary to attack his right hon. friend, to refer to his speech upon the last debate on this subject as the only jarring note, and to say that his right hon. friend alone had declared for war. He reminded the House that what his right hon. friend said on that occasion was what had been said by more than one speaker on that side of the House—namely that anxious as he was that there should be peace, he would rather have war than peace in the shape of the Bill as it was sent to the other House. The charge made against his right hon. friend, without qualification, was that he preferred war. The Prime Minister had now told the House that the one object they ought to have worked for was to secure peace, and that the Government were anxious to make very large concessions to arrive at peace; but what guarantee was there from evidence at their command that if the concessions had found their way into the Bill there would have been peace after the passing of the Bill? The history of the Bill had been remarkable. It had gone through many

1741
difficulties, and there had been many explanations of its intention; but in the speech of the Prime Minister they now heard the object of the Bill frankly declared. He had frankly, plainly stated, without leaving room for doubt, that the object of the Bill was anti-denominational. He (MR. Long) asked the House to think of the debates they had listened to, of the assurances given on behalf of denominational teaching, of the assurances given from time to time that Clauses 3 and 4 would be made really effective and would, as it was said, leave denominational teaching in a better condition than it had been, and what became of those assurances in the light of the latest declaration that the real object of the Bill was anti-denominational? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill in its general provisions had been approved by the country. But what Bill? What was the Bill upon which the country had been consulted and of which the country had approved? Was it the Bill as originally brought in? Was it a Bill upon which the President of the Board of Education made his opening statement which was not borne out? Was it the Bill as it left the House? Was it the Bill as it would have appeared after the Amendments had been introduced to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred? They had been told that there would have been peace with the passing of the Bill, but he did not believe that in his funeral oration the Prime Minister had one sincere mourner behind him. The concessions referred to by the Prime Minister were not real concessions, and they were worse: they seemed to offer concessions to one or two great denominations but to the exclusion and injury of another. What was the reception given to those concessions; were they welcomed by hon. Members behind the Government? By those entitled to speak for the feeling in the country they were stated to have strained the allegiance of the followers of the Government. It was said the Bill would not be worth having. He was entitled to assume that the Prime Minister in his remarks was referring to the Bill as it would have been with the amendments affirmed by the Government imported into it. That was a
1742
Bill which had no genuine support, and they were asked to believe that it would have produced peace and have established national education on a satisfactory footing. He did not believe that the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who knew as much about the education question as anybody in the House, would be prepared to say that the Bill in its amended form would have settled controversy and maintained peace in the future. It was idle to charge the Opposition with having failed to secure peace. There must first be held out reasonable indication that peace would have been secured before the Opposition were blamed for not sharing the Government view and for preferring the view expressed by the Amendments made in another place. The Prime Minister said that Clause 3 was a real concession with which the Opposition ought to have been satisfied. Throughout the whole of the debates in the House there was no subject upon which there was more general agreement, no subject that had a larger body of opinion in its support, and which found expression in an Amendment introduced in another place, than that Clause 3 should be made a reality and effective for the purpose for which it was intended. But the Government insisted upon provisions in connection with the teachers which took away the only means by which the clause could be made effective. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the peace the Bill would have produced, but it would have added to the controversies. Under Clause 3 the only means of making teaching effective was by the employment of teachers able and willing to give that teaching; but the Government proposed to leave this to the local authority, and all the horrors of controversy would have been aroused by a clause which was intended to allay them. With Clause 4 there would have been a similar result. This clause, which the Prime Minister had said was to meet the case for denominational teaching, had been referred to by speakers from the other side of the House not so much as an exception to a general principle as an excrescence upon the Bill; it was received in sullen silence or with manifest hostility, and round it had raged the bitterest, angriest part of the controversies upon the measure. What right had

1743
they to assume that at the local elections and in the council chambers a different spirit would prevail from that which had prevailed in the debates in this House? During the passage of the Bill the Government had made alterations in Clause 4. They had the alternative of a mandamus and the alternative of an appeal to the central authority. He ventured to say that an appeal to a central authority was likely to add to the bitterness of the controversy at local elections. It had been the invariable experience that where a central department had forced the local authority to perform some duty they did not want to perform, that question was made a paramount one at the next election, and it was made the one question upon which those who sought election asked for the confidence of the electors. This was the power which, according to the Government, would have brought peace and put an end to the controversy. Whether the Lords were right or wrong in the Amendments which they introduced into the Bill, it was idle to pretend that peace was the real point at stake. The fortunes of the Bill might have been at stake. The Government contended that the Lords Amendments interfered with the real principle of the Bill. He confessed he found it difficult to understand why there was such strong opposition to the alterations that had been made. Clauses 3 and 4 had been made as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had always said they meant their to be—effective, practical, and real. The Prime Minister has said it was an interference by the other House with the rights and privileges of the elected Chamber, and in a memorable passage he had indicated what were the views of the Government in regard to this branch of the question. If the object of the Government was to pick a quarrel with the other House, and to found a charge against them in order to deal with the difficulty which had arisen out of their action, he would only remind them of the brilliant speech delivered by the hon. member for North Louth the other day, in which he warned the Government that, if that was their object, they were not going the right way to secure their end. If that was to be the object, let them fight, not upon the Education Bill
1744
but upon the right of the other House to interfere with the legislation of the House of Commons. It had frequently been made a charge against the other House that their interference was actuated by a desire to defend the rights of property and the privileges of a class. He did not think the wildest opponent of the Upper House could charge them on this occasion with having been animated by feeling of that kind. It could not be doubted that the object they had in view was to maintain an educational system in this country in conformity with the wishes of the parents, a system of education which would make the children of the country good citizens, and give to all denominations equally the same opportunities and the same privileges. He admitted there was one Amendment made at the last moment dealing with the parents' consultative committee which was certainly remarkable. They understood that under no circumstances would the Government allow an Amendment to stand which would give a veto to the parents' committee, but they found in the Government's proposed Amendment to Clause 8 these words—
"The local education authority shall appoint persons acceptable to the parents' committee to be teachers in the school."
If that was compared with the original Amendment introduced in another place it would be found that there was very little difference, if any, between the phraseology or the effect of the two Amendments, and if that did not in practice give the parents a veto he did not know the meaning of it.
The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION(MR. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): Do you object to it?
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not object to it at all. It was understood in the course of their debates that that Amendment would be particularly acceptable to the great body of Roman Catholics in this country. It never was suggested that it would meet the difficulty in connection with Church schools. The Prime Minister had moved that this order be discharged. The right hon. Gentleman had no more hearty supporter of his Motion than himself. He did not like the Bill when it

1745
was first brought in and he did not like it in its amended form. He did not believe that the passing of the Bill, in any way they could amend it, could have produced peace throughout the country. It would not have satisfied any one who was really dissatisfied with the present system. It might have lessened for a time the bitterness of the controversy, but it would not have produced peace, and it would have produced fresh controversies and difficulties in connection with our system of local government which would have caused enormous confusion and a vast amount of bitterness. Therefore he rejoiced that the Prime Minister had moved this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the responsibility for the loss of the Bill must rest with those in another place, and he said that was known by the country. With regard to the feeling in the country, every man was entitled to his own opinion. The country would have an opportunity later on of expressing its opinion, and they might very well wait until that time came. It was a little dangerous to make forecasts, and the Prime Minister might find that he had not been so accurately informed as he believed himself to be. It was impossible for him to vote against this Motion, because it had his entire sympathy. In his opinion the responsibility for the fate of the Bill rested with those who were responsible for its production and its passage through this House, who must have known what were the difficulties they would have to contend with. They produced a measure which would not have got rid of those difficulties and would not have produced an improved condition of things. They had the power and the knowledge, and if they had dealt wisely with this question they might have produced a settlement which would have put an end to the controversy. They had chosen to deal with it in a very different fashion; and if to-day they had to commit their own infant to the grave with their own hands, they would find they would have to bear the responsibility for a Bill which had led to that result.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had to express on his own part and on the part of his colleagues their deep disappointment at the breakdown of the compromise and the loss of the Bill.
1746
They had at any rate the satisfaction of knowing that the Nationalist Party had done its best to bring about a compromise, and no share of the responsibility for the breakdown rested upon them. In a difficult, critical, and delicate position they had endeavoured to adopt a kindly and reasonable attitude. They were bound to stand forth in defence of the Catholic schools of this country. They had never pretended to speak in the name of the Catholics of England, but they did claim to speak in the name of the Irish Catholics in England, who were probably 90 per cent. of the whole Catholic body, and the poorest of the poor among the population. They were themselves or they were the sons of people who had been driven out of Ireland by that system of law aid of government which, so far as the great majority was concerned, this House abhorred and was resolved to put an end to. These men had been driven out of Ireland and into all the great centres of industry, all the great factories and workshops of this country. They had lived their lives of hardship and privation; they had lived under conditions which might easily have driven from them every sense of religious obligation. But these men kept their faith, and so deeply imbued were they with devotion to their faith that out of their poverty they had spent millions of money in the erection of their schools, and to-day it was a true saying with them that they regarded the faith of their children as their dearest possession—a possession for which they would, as their fathers did in the past, make any sacrifice; for which they would fight; and for which, he believed, if need be, they would die. Under those circumstances he and his friends who represented the Irish race in this House were bound to stand forth in defence of these schools. But they shrank with horror from the idea of the Catholic claim that they represented being obtruded as an obstacle in the path of the educational reforms demanded by the democracy of England. They shrank with horror from the idea that the Catholic claim should be dragged into the midst of the great religious controversy between two sections or more of the Protestant people of this country. They desired that their claim should be associated in no degree

1747
whatever with the grievance of any section of Protestants, and he would say especially of Nonconformist Protestants. He said "especially" because there was enough common to the history of Nonconformity and their history in the shape of persecution for faith's sake to make them shrink from the possibility, if they could avoid it, of having their claim mixed up with the maintenance of any grievance of Nonconformists. Above all, they shrank from having their case mixed up with the question of the House of Lords, and therefore it was that while they put forth their Catholic claim strongly, he hoped—sincerely, he knew—at the same time they endeavoured to put it forth with moderation and with reason, He admitted that the attitude they had taken up had been reciprocated by the House generally. The Bill as it was introduced must undoubtedly have meant the death of the overwhelming majority of the Catholic schools of the country, because they could not, owing to conscientious beliefs, take advantage of Clause 3 and send their children in for Cow per-Temple teaching. Therefore the Bill as it was originally introduced would undoubtedly have meant the death of the majority of the Catholic schools of the country. He and his friends therefore proposed at the commencement of the discussion a series of Amendments which would in their judgment have made the Bill at least tolerable to the Catholics of the country. He did not say that those Amendments would have made the Bill completely satisfactory to them. There had been no education Bill which had been completely satisfactory to Catholics. He believed that from the very nature of things it was impossible that a great Protestant nation creating an educational system for itself could at the same time make a completely satisfactory system for Catholics. The Bill of 1902 for which they voted was certainly not entirely satisfactory. He did not claim, therefore, that if the Amendments had been carried the Bill would have been completely satisfactory in the sense in which a Bill would be which they themselves drafted. But those Amendments would have made the Bill tolerable, and would have enabled Catholic schools to continue in existence. The position in which he
1748
found himself was this, that those Amendments had been in substance conceded by the Government. The concessions that had been made completely fulfilled the promises that were made by the President of the Board of Education in his famous speech to the Jews. As he had mentioned the President of the Board of Education, he would like to say that whoever might consider that what had happened was a defeat, the right hon. Gentleman ought not. The President of the Board of Education had created for himself a position in this House occupied by few statesmen in the past. For himself, he would say that as he listened to the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of the Bill, to his good humour and wit and patience, to his kindliness, and conciliatory tone towards opponents, his admiration for him grew night by night. And he could, speaking for himself and all his colleagues, say that they thanked the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for the conciliatory way in which he had dealt with their claims, and for the fact that he had by his recent Amendments completely fulfilled the promises he had made. He alluded specially to the Amendment dealing with the question of teachers in Clause 4 schools, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for their Amendment. From their point of view it was a fur better Amendment than that of Lord St. Aldwyn, and therefore he for his part, speaking on behalf of large Catholic interests in this country, welcomed the fact that Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment had been rejected and that the Amendment proposed by the Government which they had a chance of getting in this compromise was a far better one. Under that Amendment the great bulk of the Catholic schools of this country would have remained Catholic schools with a Catholic atmosphere and Catholic teachers. He had read an interesting interview published in one of the evening papers to-day from a distinguished dignitary of the Catholic Church, the right Rev. Monsignor Brown, Vicar-General of the diocese of Southwark, in which, speaking of the amended Bill, he said—
"As amended by the Government the Education Bill would have been a working

1749
measure. Of course it would have carried with it certain risks, but unless administered in a hostile spirit by the local authorities the Catholic schools would have remained Catholic in every sense of the word."
Under these circumstances his colleagues and he who had opposed the Second Heading and the Third Reading of the Bill had to consider this very grave question—whether on the production of these Amendments, which substantially gave them what they had been asking for, they should facilitate the compromise and the passage of the Bill, or whether they should join with the Leader of the Opposition and with the House of Lords in wrecking the measure and facing all the perils and uncertainties of the future with a light heart. It was not without the very gravest deliberation and consideration, and it was not without consultation with those who were best entitled to speak on behalf of the Catholic body in this country, that they had come to the conclusion that in the interest of these Catholic schools it would be unwise for the Catholic representatives in this House to make themselves in any degree responsible for the wrecking of this measure. The Government had gone a long way to meet them. At the lowest they had made the Bill tolerable for the Catholic body. The great bulk of the Catholic schools would have been saved; and, on the other hand, the future of the Catholic schools, which were the schools of a small minority in this land, was full of uncertainty and doubt, and no man could foretell what those schools might not have to suffer in future if they now rendered this settlement impossible by insisting, or trying to insist—because they could not successfully insist—on what they regarded as the full measure of their rights, and by joining themselves with the House of Lords at what, in all human probability, was the commencement of a great constitutional struggle between the enfranchised democracy on one side and a hereditary and irresponsible Chamber on the other. Under all these circumstances they had decided that they would do what they could to promote this compromise and to pass the Bill into law. He repeated what he had said at the commencement of his remarks, that they could say with perfect truth that no particle of responsi-
1750
bility for the wrecking of this Bill rested upon them. He was glad to be able to state that in taking this course they were acting not only in consultation with, but with the concurrence of, the responsible heads of the Catholic Church in England. He would say this one word in conclusion: Was it too much for them to hope that, in the future developments of this struggle both in the administration of the Act of 1902, rendered infinitely more difficult and embittered as it must be by what had happened, and also in any further legislative proposals that might be put forward for a settlement of the education question, their attitude in reference to this Bill might be remembered, and that the Protestants of this country who were in an overwhelming majority, and of course could do what they liked in spite of their protests, would act in the future with not only toleration but with perfect fairness and even generosity towards this small minority in their midst made up of poor, hard-working, and self-sacrificing men?
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that he and those with whom he was associated regretted that such a futile termination should be the result of the long and weary labours in which the House had been engaged. Apart from the sectarian clauses of the Bill upon which there was so much difference of opinion, and which were responsible for the final wrecking of the measure, the Bill was one upon which there was a general consensus of agreement. Many of them foresaw that, even if the Bill were passed, it would still leave what was known as the religious difficulty unsettled. In that belief the Labour Party had asked the House to accept what they more than ever believed to be the only possible settlement of this question, the elimination of religious instruction from the public schools of the country. But, having failed to obtain the assent of the House to that proposition, they had loyally and cordially co-operated with the Government in endeavouring to get the measure through, because of the good it contained. They were prepared to support the Government in any compromise that might be come to between the two

1751
opposing sections. Now he would suggest that what, without meaning offence, he would call the humanitarian clauses of the Bill should be resuscitated at the earliest possible moment. He was aware that it could not be done this session; but surely such matters as the provisions for the blind and deaf, for vacation schools and recreation, for medical examination and inspection, and for enabling intelligent children to have an opportunity of passing into higher grade schools, might at an early date form the subject of another Bill which could be passed with the unanimous consent of the House. If they could not agree how to treat the souls of the children, let them try at least agree in the treatment of their bodies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had asked what Bill it was that the country approved of at the general election. His experience of the general election was that the Bill demanded by the electorate was one which would give the public free and unfettered control over all schools paid for out of public monies. This Bill set out with that intention, and everything else in it was an excrescence. The Government's attempts to conciliate conflicting opinions had led to the Bill's being abandoned. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had paid a well-deserved compliment to the Minister for Education. No man in the House had ever shown more sweet reasonableness and more genuine human feeling in his desire to conciliate opponents than the right hon. Gentleman. Therein lay the weakness of the case. Had the Minister for Education put more steel into his composition, and had he refused concessions, the Church Party would have understood that unless they accepted a reasonable compromise worse things were in store for them, and they would not have pressed their demands so strongly in another place. Surely the logical deduction from the failure of the attempt at compromise was that no settlement of this religious difficulty was possible. There were other questions involved. If the Education Bill was dead the institutions responsible for its death might find that they had wounded themselves in a vital place. The question would be asked—By what right or authority did an irresponsible and an unrepresenta-
1752
tive assembly interfere with the expressed will and opinion of the people of the nation? He was loth to see a great constitutional conflict entered into with another House, but if this method of treating Bills which passed this House continued—and they had had two examples this session—the country would be left no option but to take up the challenge thrown down by the Lords. He was aware that Labour Members had small reason to complain of the action of the Lords in connection with Labour measures. He had seen it stated that this tender handling was due to a desire to conciliate the working classes and keep them from joining in a crusade against the Upper House. It was not for him to interpret the motives of the other House, but if that was their intention, to bribe the masses of the country into tolerating a system of government which was an insult to their intelligence by assuming that some power outside the people was necessary to hold the people in check, the attempt would miserably fail. The Bill was dead from an overdose of sectarianism, and the moral was that there was no halting place between secular education pure and simple and meeting the claims and demands of every section of the Christian Church, and he hoped that lesson would be borne in mind. Millions of children required to be educated and looked after, and yet there was all this squabbling as to the words to be used in imparting religious instruction. Surely if religion underlay the opposition to this Bill it would find its highest expression in sinking creeds and caring for the bodies and the minds of the children and making them fit dwelling places for the image of the Creator. The Labour Party had no responsibility for the wrecking of this measure. If the heads of the Established Church joined their fortunes with another place so much the worse for the Church. If his own voice or opinion had any weight with those responsible for the wrecking of this measure his advice was to make peace quickly with the enemy while yet he was in the way.
Dr. MACNAMARAsaid that, speaking from a strictly educational point of view, he was filled with the bitterest disappointment. He

1753
thought the path was full of the promise of peace, though not of a settlement at once. He had expected that something could he done which would lead to a settlement, but instead of that the path was strewn with the greatest difficulty, perplexity, and anxiety. He would state in two or three sentences exactly what they had been prevented from doing. They desired to set up full and complete public control over every public elementary school. That was an enormous reform which would have touched three out of every five elementary schools. They desired that all the school managers should be the nominees of the public, that all public elementary school teachers should be municipal servants, and they desired especially to free the villages of the country from ecclesiastical control, and to substitute municipal and communal concern. That was exactly where they had failed. The entrenched forces—the territorial and the ecclesiastical forces—had been too much, for them. They had prevented them for freeing the villages for the moment, but it would be the worse for them in the end. They insisted on having as teachers the denominational volunteer "under compulsion." Again, the Bill provided for the first time in English educational history that any teacher in any school teaching any form of religion should be relieved, without prejudice to his office as teacher, from the task of giving religious teaching, if he had conscientious grounds. He would have thought that such a proposal, which would have clarified and perfected religious teaching, would have commended itself to the friends of religious teaching on the other side of the House. The Bill also said that no payments should come out of public funds for denominational teaching. That was accepted without comment by both Houses, and yet the contrary remained the law of the land. It would be the duty of the Government to set that right as soon as possible. They desired to set up a great scheme of medical inspection and treatment for the unhappy suffering little scraps of humanity in the slums of our cities, one of the greatest evils ever brought before the House for reform. Even that was sympathetically supported by the Leader of the Opposition, whose absence they all deplored, not only for its
1754
cause, but because they would have liked to tell him that they thought of him. They proposed to set up a scheme of compensation for the denominational teacher who would have been displaced by the operation of the Bill if it had become law. In 1902 the Tory Party—the friends of the denominational teacher—would not look at that proposal, and not a single bishop could then be found to provide a single farthing of solatium for the men and women who were declared to be devoted servants of the Church. He trusted that the teachers who had written him offensive letters—well, he would not use the word offensive, but strongly wordedletters—against some of the views to which he had given expression would bear that in mind, that the present Radical Government had gone out of their way to find compensation for them. To secure the reforms which he had enumerated the Government had offered very large, generous, and far-reaching concessions. Lord Stanley of Alderley had said that the concessions went too far and would strain to the utmost the loyalty of the rank and file of the Liberal Party. He himself thought they had gone far enough, but he was one of those who would pay a long price for peace. But stiff as was the price offered by the Government it was not stiff enough for the Leader of the Opposition, and nothing would have been stiff enough for him. The right hon. Gentleman did not want the Bill to pass under any circumstances. He wanted to wreck the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been extremely short-sighted in the advice he had given, and never had the friends of denominational teaching teen more grievously misled. The Bill offered large concessions to denominationalists which they would never get again, and the responsibility rested with those who for petty Party machinations had wrecked the measure. In conclusion, he wished to add a word of admiration for the President of the Board of Education, who had conducted the Bill with grim purpose, unflinching courage, unquenchable faith, and sterling honesty, qualities which they admired in all parts of the House, and all of which had been lit up by the rarest flashes of wit and good humour. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman felt the failure of these long weary months of work. They could not give him his Bill, but they

1755
could tender him their respectful thanks and sympathy. He had lost the Bill, but he had gained their esteem and affection for his probity and devotion. He himself would rather have scored this failure than he would have won the success, the contemptible success, won by the Leader of the Opposition.
Sir ALFRED THOMASsaid he wished on behalf of the Welsh Members to say that they felt the fate of the Bill very keenly. If the Bill had been carried in the House of Lords as it left the House of Commons Wales would have been very much the gainer. There should have been set up in Wales a Council of Education. He and his hon. friends regretted that the proposal would not be carried out. The Welsh people felt that the Government had gone far be yond what they would have expected, and what they had a right to expect when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. He had no hesitation in saying that it was the personal esteem which was felt for the Prime Minister and his right hon. friend which led the Welsh Members to give way to the concessions without further protest. Now that the Bill had fallen through, he could not disguise the fact that he viewed the situation in Wales with some apprehension. But whatever happened, he believed that the Welsh would not fail to uphold the character of Welshmen as a law-abiding people, and he hoped that his right hon. friend would not strain the law in favour of sectarian as against council schools, and that he would allow to the councils that minimum of control which was left to them by the Bill of 1902. He understood that the Minister of Education was about to reorganise the office and to set up a Welsh department in the Board of Education. Of course he and his friends would very much have preferred to have a Council chosen by the Welsh people, but they recognised that what was now proposed was a great advance towards securing autonomy in educational matters in Wales. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the proposal.
The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I think it is generally understood by everybody in the House that the time for speech has for the moment disappeared. Silence best befits the death chamber. Our Education Bill, upon which there has been expended ability, time, labour, thought, and pains has been killed in another place, though not, as we think, at the particular instigation of any member of that Assembly, but by the will and decree of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, whose absence from his place we deplore, both for its reason and for the injury it does to ourselves. I do not affect to deny—it would be foolish were I to do so—that I am much moved and disappointed by the defeat of all our hopes. In saying that I am not thinking so much of myself—for through the whole of the struggle I have done my best, at all events, to obliterate myself as much as possible—but I am thinking of the time and labour and trouble that have been bestowed upon the Bill by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have given hours of time and much consultation with their friends in all parts of the country. I refer especially to the devolution clause, which, if an agreement had been arrived at, would have been of enormous benefit to the cause of education, which would have secured to a large extent local zeal and interest, and it would I believe have revivified what I am afraid in many cases is a dying cause. Reference has also been made to the medical inspection clause, which passed with general consent in this House, and gave great hopes, not only to those who are scientifically interested in the subject, but to all who believe in the manhood of our race as being the one thing to preserve and the only real hope for the future. I also derived great pleasure from the thought that this Bill would have done something to organise the playgrounds of our children, to give to the children of the poor what perhaps is almost the best education they anywhere can get, that of acting in manly and friendly co-operation one with another. Well, all these hopes are for the moment vanished, and we have lost our labour, and have, so far as the Statute-book is

1757
concerned, nothing to show for thirty long and weary days spent upon the Bill in its various stages. All that is gone, recklessly gone, unnecessarily gone, and I still think at the bidding of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want in his absence to say much about him. Of course we all recognise that he is somewhat of an amphibian and breathes equally on land and in water. If he is persecuted in one House he flees into another. Applying the words of George Canning, he calls the House of Lords into existence to redress his balance in the House of Commons. Here his balance has long been overdrawn. Any cheques he drew in this House must have been dishonoured, and probably they will return to him with the words written across them, "Account charged; apply to the House of Lords." Well, it is irritating—who can deny it? It is more than irritating, it is mortifying, that the first fruits of the general election should have been destroyed by action of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin asked me fairly enough what was the sort of Bill that the country authorised and supported by the votes cast at the last election. I can tell him. The kind of Bill the country had in view was a Bill without Clause 4 and with very little of Clause 3 in it. And it is simply because the Government, animated by a desire which I and all my colleagues have felt, that no portion of the children of the country should, if we could possibly help it, stand outside the national system—it was for that reason, incurring for ourselves great unpopularity, running no small risks and dangers, that we nevertheless put those clauses into our Bill and stuck to them to the end, although the very persons who might have been expected to support them were the first to jeer and laugh at us for doing so, asking us how we could reconcile such clauses with the pledges we were supposed to have given. That is no encouragement for any politician in the future, although I trust such will still be found, to be animated by a passionate desire that no portion of the children of this country should be excluded from the benefits of the national system. Well, the future will be what it will be. It is not for me to say what it
1758
holds within its grasp. That will be revealed as time goes on. But one thing I can say, as far as I am concerned or any future colleague of mine who finds himself at the Board of Education, that he will administer the law fearlessly without predilection, and with a perfect bloodless indifference, to see that the due course of law is observed, and that the cause of education is maintained at its proper level. We shall all of us have difficulties to face. The Church will have difficulties to face. Nonconformity will have difficulties to face. A condition of things which is perhaps almost impossible has been perpetuated by gentlemen opposite and by their political allies and friends in another place. They have admitted all the Nonconformist grievance, and they recognised our right to cure it. They have taken care that we should not cure it, but that it should remain a sore in our social life. I therefore can only say for myself that I look forward with much apprehension and a deep sense of personal responsibility to what lies before us. I profoundly regret, both for the cause of education and still more for the cause of religion, that this Bill, which did more than any future Bill by any possibility can do to preserve under certain conditions the rights of denominational schools and the right of parents who demand religious education for their children, to maintain them as a walled city in the midst of an undenominational system—that all those things you have rejected. You have wilfully thrown them on one side. And what do you look forward to in the future? The swing of the pendulum is the fetish you worship. Possibly it may swing some day in your favour; but do you think it will ever swing far enough to enable you to disregard the Liberal, the Radical, and the Labour Party and those who favour the secular solution? Do you imagine you will ever be strong enough by the votes of your own Party to force upon this country a denominational system which it has so pronouncedly rejected? You must fail; and I believe that when that day comes you will deeply regret, every one of you, from the bottom of your hearts, that you rejected a measure which I still maintain was honest, which I am certain was courageous, and which

1759
could only have been secured wit the utmost difficulty and the loss of great popularity. You have cast your hopes upon a dim and distant future. All can say is that when that dim and distant future comes we and those who represent the principles you oppose will be there too. I say for the last time that, having rejected this Bill, I believe you will live to regret it still more.
MR. WYNDHAM: The unexpected speech of the right hon. Gentleman calls for a very brief reply. I associate myself in the fullest measure with all that has been said by the Members for Waterford and Camberwell as to the manner in which the Minister for Education has conducted this Bill. I can assure him on behalf of myself and my colleagues on this side of the House that our compliments in that regard are sincere. There is, however, one statement which we cannot allow to pass—namely, that the Leader of the Opposition has, of his own mere will and motion, acting independently on grounds which have been described as petty, killed the Bill which otherwise promised a settlement of the religious education question. Sir, we associate ourselves with the action of our Leader, and I will point out that the Minister for Education has altogether ignored the action of the Government in this matter. He speaks as if our Leader had induced the majority in another Chamber to carry out his wishes. On that I have a question to ask. When the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place asked that his Amendments should be accepted in order that the Bill might be an agreed Bill, was he speaking only to noble Lords there, or was he speaking to the party as an official organisation? We were invited to accept the last proposals of the Government as a party, and by accepting them to say that this was a settlement of the religious difficulty. As honest men we could not do it, because we did not believe it. The Bill in the shape in which it came down to this House from the House of Lords was not a Bill which we could call an agreed Bill. It was a Bill against which we should have protested in the country on the ground that it did not carry out the verdict of the country. We do not believe that the
1760
electorate at the last general election voted for completely recasting the whole educational system of the country. We do not believe that they voted to this effect, that those who prefer denominational education are to pay for it, and those who prefer undenominational are to have it paid for for them. But we were prepared to accept those two large changes, inimical only to those with whom we agree, to make a settlement. But when we were asked to go further and to accept this one-sided system and at the same time to admit other exceptions, we were unable to accept such a compromise as an agreed Bill. When the Minister in charge of the Bill himself provided a loop-hole for authorities who did not carry out his own wishes—a loop-hole in the shape of State-aided schools—we would not be any party to such a reactionary step, bringing in all the educational evils which by general consent were remedied by the much attacked Act of 1902. If the Government required an alternative method to meet cases in which the local bodies did not carry out their ideas of fair play why did they adopt this method instead of proposing some way of dealing impartially both with those who liked denominational education for their children and those who liked undenominational teaching? Had the Government adopted the principle of impartiality on the part of the State, however qualified or voluntary the form, I believe the position would not have been hopeless as it now is. If I am asked, Are we on this side of the House relying on the swing of the pendulum, and whether we think that the Conservative and Unionist Party will ever be powerful enough to force denomination the country, I reply, No, we do not wish to do that. It is because we wish that those who in their hearts and consciences desire denominational education should as parents and citizens have it, and receive just so much and no more countenance from the State as those who wish their children to have undenominational education that we press this matter. In our desire to effect this, we do not trust to the swing of the pendulum; we trust to the love of justice in this country.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he would not have addressed the House except for the fact that a number of gentlemen whom he represented had endeavoured from the introduction of the Bill to treat it in a favourable and conciliatory manner. He thought it had not been realised that looking upon the Bill as they did as a great advance upon anything contained in the previous Education Bill, they were bound to try to understand what the difficulties of the Government were in dealing with a measure which they desired should establish a really national system of education. Some of his friends were hostile to the Bill from the very outset, but he confessed that many others saw in it provisions which would provide a real escape from the position in which they had been so long placed, of being dominated by one Church and being subject to the teachers' test—two of the great questions before the country at the last general election. In many other ways, upon which he did not intend to enlarge, the measure would have been a great advance upon the present system of national education. Therefore they came to the conclusion that it was worthy of their support. Of course they regarded the Bill from a Free Church standpoint, and there were many things in it of which they did not approve, but it was marvellous to him to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin endeavouring to make capital out of the fact that hon. Members on that side of the House were not very warm supporters of the Bill. They felt that the Government had made an honest and manly attempt to meet and deal with the difficulties before them. The facilities in Clauses 3 and 4 were not, as the President of the Board of Education had said, the principles upon which the Government were returned to deal with education, but he was convinced that there would have been no real difficulty in commending the Bill to the country if it had passed in the condition in which the Government left it and if it were understood by the country at large. The wisdom of the course which they had pursued, in attempting to assist rather than to hamper the Government had, he thought, been justified by the result. It had now been plainly seen, however moderate the Bill was, however much they endeavoured
1762
to meet the objection of a certain denomination in the land, no concessions sufficient to ensure the support of the House of Lords, and especially of the right rev. Prelates in that assembly, could be made, and when they realised the intense I opposition with which the proposals I of the Bill had been met at the hands of these Prelates, they might justly assume that the Government had brought in a Bill which contained many elements likely to produce a good system of education. The Amendments sent down to them by the Lords were absolutely subversive of all the main principles of the Bill, and they could not have been recommended to the country by any Government professing to deal justly and to carry out the principles of religious freedom. But some considerable concessions were made in the Bill as it left this House in order if possible to get it through. He confessed I that he regarded the loss of the Bill as a great misfortune, but if all the concessions which were offered in the other Chamber had been accepted and the Bill had been passed with them embodied, there would have been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the country among the supporters of His Majesty's Government. He was quite sure, however, that there was on the basis of these principles a settlement which would have been much better for religious education, the best interests of religion, and the welfare of the country than would result from the whole Bill being withdrawn. He had, with many others, to thank the Government for the many I efforts which they had made to bring the Bill to a proper and just conclusion, and he thanked them for having in the last resort resisted the temptation to make further concessions. He would especially in this regard refer to the Minister for Education. Although the concessions given were not altogether approved by hon. Members on that side of House, it would stand to the credit of the Government in their record that they had done their best in the interests of education and had most honourably failed. The situation to his mind was a most serious one. He would not offer any observations upon the constitutional question. They should be the first to admit the demands of

1763
denominationalists, but he was a passive resister under the Act of 1902, he was still in that position, and must remain so. He thought the number of passive resisters would be enlarged by the action of the House of Lords. They were willing to give the country and the Government an opportunity of removing the grievances which existed. The opportunity had been thrown away, and that form of resistance must be continued. He ventured to ask the Government to be wise and bold. He did not want them to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves: wisdom was a great merit in a statesman, but courage was a greater virtue than wisdom, and he had almost said that reckless courage was the best attribute for the present condition of affairs. The people of the country were solid behind the Government, and whatever might have been their small differences in regard to the details of the Bill, they had by common consent to resist the demand of the House of Lords to force denominational education on the country. Therefore they called upon the Government to be brave. They had been heartened by the words of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had said just the words they wanted him to say, and those words would encourage them to go on demanding the old religious liberty which was the right of every parent citizen. Whatever the result of this controversy might be, it must result in the triumph of these principles, however long that triumph might be delayed. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had said that they on that side were to be blamed for wrecking the Bill, because they did not adopt the secular principle. He was not going to enter upon the secular discussion, but he did not think that was a fair charge to make. He had always supported the reading of the Bible in our schools as he regarded it as the best and oldest piece of literature in the world. He could not join in the crusade to keep the Bible out of the schools, but he was willing to say, if they were willing to accept it, that the Bible should be its own witness in the school free from clerical interference or domination. He could not agree that if the Government had made the basis of the Bill
1764
secular they would have been relieved of these theological squabbles, as he thought the country was not ripe for that form of settlement. The case immediately before the House was how they were, in the face of the rejection of this valuable Bill, to deal with the constitutional question which had arisen. They would deal with the education question after dealing with that. There were no doubt many parts of the Bill which the House of Lords could and would accept, including even those to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had referred. But he felt quite sure that the general system of education would never be dealt with properly until they had dealt with the constitutional question. He assured the Government of the support of the country and of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. He could not sit down without joining in the chorus of praise that had been given to the President of the Board of Education. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had felt that he (MR. White) had put his views before him on the question of education too often, nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman had always received them with the utmost courtesy and with his great sense of justice had endeavoured to treat these views with the respect that he felt they deserved. He hoped the President of the Board of Education would not be discouraged. The principles for which he was contending were immortal principles. No vote of the House of Lords or of the Bishops could destroy them or wean from them the affections of the great majority of the people of England. Therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give up the struggle or his belief in his ability to carry a Bill that would be a blessing to the childhood of the nation and would add to the greatness and prosperity of the country.
MR. ADKINSsaid it had been truly remarked that this was the end of the battle but the beginning of the war. He ventured to hope that the intense ardour with which hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would throw themselves into this war would not prevent these provisions in the Bill relating to the health of the children, and other

1765
parts of the Bill upon which there had been general agreement, becoming law at an early date. The fact that they now had debates and disputes not only on the education question but on the constitutional question made it all the more necessary that those provisions which would stimulate self-government and education, which would help the children and enlarge the scope of local administration, should be passed into law as soon as possible. The Opposition to the Bill in this and the other House had been based not only on the theological considerations of which they had heard so much, but also on the difficulties of its administration. Time and again they had been told that the proposals of the Government were unworkable, but however difficult it might have been to carry out the Bill as it left this House and as it was further modified by the Amendments in the House of Lords, the difficulties would have been no greater than these connected with the Bill of 1902. Whether this dispute resulted in the victory of church over chapel or chapel over church, sooner or later it was inevitable that the dual system of education must come to an end. Those who had supported the Government through all the stages of this Bill were certain that in the next chapter of the controversy more and more stress would be laid upon what was absolutely necessary from a businesslike point of view to provide that education was properly administered, and he believed that the people of the country and Members of this House would rally in ever-increasing numbers to the support of the solution which the Government had proposed during this Parliament. He joined in the thanks which had been showered on the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education for the endless kindnesses and courtesies which they had received at his hands and for the way in which he had treated the House, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for the way in which he had referred to the constitutional question. He believed there had been no instance in history since the days of the great speech of Lord Halifax in the time of Charles II. in which when great constitutional crises arose between the two Houses they had
1766
not been decided in favour of the House of Commons. He believed that hon. Members of this House were determined that the predominance of the House of Commons which was won ages ago should be maintained in the face of the present crisis, so that the will of this House should be the final determination by which the people of the country should be governed.
MR. HUNTsaid he differed entirely from the hon. Member for Middleton. If the country was behind the Government in this matter why did they not go to the country? Why all this thunder against the House of Lords? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had the remedy in their own hands, but did not dare to use it. They knew perfectly well they did not dare to go to the country upon this Bill. The action of the House of Lords in this case had been quite right, because the Bill had never been a fair one. In the case of the Catholics alone, although some little extra advantage had been given to them, they would lose 200 out of their 1,060 schools, and even in the schools where their teachers were allowed to give religious instruction, they had not only to pay for their own teachers, but also to pay towards the religious instruction given in other schools in a religion which they conscientiously disbelieved. It was a far worse thing than was done under the Act of 1902, because in this case the schools had been built by the denominationalists, and the Government proposed not only to take away these schools, but in some cases not to allow the teachers to give religious instruction in their own schools.
MR. MADDISONsaid it must be obvious that this House had the strongest case against another place. The House of Lords had treated with contempt not some strong measure affecting their own interests which might have given them ground for alarm and fear, but a very moderate measure which from its inception was intended to conciliate rather than to obtain an educational settlement on strong national lines. The treatment the Bill could not have been worse if it had been a most

1767
revolutionary measure. The hon. Member for Norfolk had asked what was really meant by secular education; he could only speak for the view of these whom he represented in this matter, and a secular solution meant simply this—
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid this is quite irregular. I fail to see what the meaning of "secular solution" has to do with the question that this Order be discharged.
MR. MADDISONsaid he felt that they were at the very beginning of a great victory, both for education and for something still wider. What had another place done with reference to this Bill? Had they stood for religion? Was there a man in this House who could say that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman did not safeguard religion at every point? Indeed, it went further than merely safeguarding religion. It did something for sectarian religion, and yet, in spite of that, it was received with the greatest opposition, and that opposition was led by these Peers who were called spiritual. He listened the previous night in another place to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he was bound to say the sophistry used was enough to deceive the very elect. They were given to understand that noble Lords and right rev. Prelates stood for the two cardinal points of popular control and abolition of tests for teachers, and yet every one of the Lords Amendments upon that part of the Bill violated these two great principles. But some of them did not expect anything much better from the spiritual Peers. It was said that they represented the spiritual voice which was to calm the savage feelings of ordinary humanity—that they were to take them from the sordid quarrels of politicians and to let into these quarrels the Heavenly voice. Well, their record was very earthly, and the whole record of the Bishop's, whether it was in softening the criminal law or giving justice to Nonconformists, Jews, or Roman Catholics, had alike been reactionary and always in favour of monopoly and tyranny. War had been declared by the Bishops and other Peers, and he for his part
1768
welcomed that war, because he believed out of it would come far greater good to the cause of education than would have resulted from a Bill weakened by compromise after compromise.
Question put, and agreed to.
Order discharged accordingly, and Bill withdrawn.

LAND TENURE BILL.
Order read, for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
MR. SOARESsaid the House again had to consider a Bill which had been mangled and mutilated by Amendments made in another place. There were three courses, he believed, open to the House. One course was to propose a Resolution, such as that proposed in the case of the Education Bill, to reject the Amendments in toto, but he believed that required notice. Another course was to deal with the Amendments seriatim, but that would take a very long time. The third was to move that the Amendments be considered on that day three months. He was in very grave doubt as to the course which ought to be followed that afternoon. He was sincerely anxious that the Bill should pass into law if possible, and he knew that the farmers in the West country were intensely anxious that the Bill should be put on the Statute Book. It was evident also that this view was shared by the agricultural interest throughout the country, for there had been an enormous number of resolutions in its favour passed by agricultural clubs and chambers. Then, too, there had been an enormous amount of Parliamentary time spent on the measure. The Government had given exceptional facilities to the Bill. Lord Carrington had thrown his whole heart and soul into the matter, and they were exceedingly grateful to him for it. He did not like to think that all the energy, trouble, and toil should be entirely wasted. But what was the position

1769
to-day? Only twenty-eight Members could be found to vote against the Bill in this House, but it had gone up to the House of Lords and had been whittled down and smothered by Amendments. He would deal only with some of the principal Amendments which had been made. By one the House of Lords had made the game clause of no effect, because it permitted contracting out. The Bill was intended to deal with bad landlords, and they would be the first to contract out of the clause. If they accepted the Amendment they would deprive the clause of all its value and introduce practically the Scotch game law into this country. With regard to the Amendment dealing with existing tenancies, all the landlord would have to do in defence when a claim for damages was made was to say to the arbitrator, "Well, I meant to allow a certain sum." If the House accepted these two Amendments they would make the game law a farce. The Amendments which had been made in the freedom of cropping clause vitiated the whole section, for it meant that there could be no experiments made, no progressive methods tried. The effect of one of the Amendments to the clause was to prevent its application to the whole of Scotland, and having regard to the fact that the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture approved of this clause unanimously he did not see how they could possibly accept that. Then they came to the Amendments to the all-important Clause 4. There was a little bit left of the clause, but the Lords had inserted an Amendment to the effect that it was not to apply in the case of leases for fourteen or more years. Here again Scottish tenants were to be deprived of the benefits of the Act, and to be liable to arbitrary and capricious treatment on the part of the landlords. But the most serious and important alteration of this clause was the insertion of the following subsection—
"Any question arising under this section as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration relating to the statement of a case and any appeal there from, be deemed to be a question of law."
1770
If they accepted that Amendment they did away with all the benefits of Clause 4. It would mean that any tenant who had been evicted harshly and capriciously would, first of all, have to go to arbitration, then before he could get any compensation, there must be an action in the county court, and from the judgment of that court there might be an appeal to a divisional court. The ordinary tenant farmer would certainly not be able to afford this costly litigation. Finally the Lords had inserted an Amendment which deferred the coming into operation of the Bill from 1908 to 1909. The effect of that would be to enable every bad landlord in the country to give his tenants notice and try to dodge the provisions of the measure. If all these Amendments were put into it the Bill would be absolutely worthless. There was no use sending Bills of this kind to the House of Lords, which consisted of nothing but large landlords. They might just as well ask a jury of hounds to try a case dealing with the rights of foxes as to ask the House of Lords to try a case dealing with the rights of tenants. The House of Lords was not guided by principles of justice, but by principles of prejudice and pride, and he sincerely hoped that it was the pride which went before a fall. He moved that the Lords Amendments be read that day three months.
*MR. LYNCH,:in seconding, said that while the Bill as it left the House of Commons was a very material measure of land reform, it did not go nearly so far as a good many Members wished. His desire was to provide that, where a tenant had put money into the cultivation of the soil, and where the sinking of that money had produced a distinct improvement in the holding, at the termination of the tenancy the tenant should be able to get full compensation. The Bill was a modest one when it was introduced; but it had been whittled down until it had become of very little use to tenant farmers, containing only one really valuable provision, namely, Clause 4, relating to unreasonable disturbance. That was the form in which the Bill had left the House of Commons;

1771
but since then the Lords had so amended it that on its present form it could be of no use. The action of the Lords in omitting the preamble of the Bill showed in a very extraordinary way their incapacity to deal with the laws of the country. By striking out the preamble the Lords had omitted the words—
"Consistently with the interests of the rural labouring class and of the community generally."
With regard to these words a very interesting discussion took place in the Commons. They were inserted mainly in order to cover the words inserted in Clause 4 relating to the provision—
"Without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management."
The Solicitor-General had put these last words in to cover the case of a landlord who made a change in the nature of the farm by introducing small holdings. That would be a reason consistent with good estate management. The Lords had struck out the corresponding words in the preamble. [AN OPPOSITION MEMBER: The Government struck them out.] Yes, the President of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Lords had been continually pressed from the Opposition side of that House and had yielded in some matters. Anyone who had witnessed the Lords debates on this Bill must have been struck by the extraordinarily frivolous manner in which they had dealt with it.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. In discussing a matter of this kind the custom is to speak of the House of Lords in terms of respect; that is one of our fundamental rules, and I must therefore ask hon. Members to take care that it is observed.
*MR. LYNCH,:continuing, said that, difficult though the task might be, he would certainly obey the ruling. The cardinal point of the Bill when it left the House of Commons was Clause 4, and they could not afford to have that clause altered in any way by the House of Lords. The clause provided compensation for disturbance. Under the
1772
Lords Amendments the tenant would have to prove that he had inevitably incurred the loss, that the loss was directly attributable to his quitting the holding, and he had to give certain notices. The whole question of whether or not he had been turned out for good and sufficient cause would be reserved for a court of law, and might involve a tenant in costs which he was wholly unable to bear. All these proceedings related to a simple claim for the recovery of loss due to the sale of his goods and chattels necessitated by his having to leave his holding without good and sufficient cause. That was a monstrous provision. He was firmly convinced that the Bill, by giving fair and just rights to the tenants, would in no way damage a good landlord, but would greatly benefit him. The best way to deal with the Lords Amendments was to reject them. If by that means they lost the Bill he should not regret it, because he felt that a much more drastic measure of land reform on these lines ought to be introduced. If the Bill were accepted it would be letting off for a number of years all these who were opposed to such reform. He hoped the Government would make no concessions, but would stand firmly by Clause 4, and if as a result the Bill was lost he would not regret it.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months."—(MR. Soares.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was not surprised at the strong feeling expressed by his hon. friends, but he would remind them that, although this Bill had been very much altered since it was introduced, there was no doubt that in certain ways it had been considerably improved. It could no longer be called a one-sided Bill. While the tenant was protected in many ways, the landlord had ample protection against any injury. On the merits of the case he was inclined to agree that the Government had made every concession they could, but the period of the

1773
session must be taken into consideration. He would indicate what the Government were ready to do. The first Amendment he would deal with was on page 2, line 28, which proposed to leave out "before the commencement of this Act." The object of that Amendment was that there should be no difference between existing and future tenancies. The objection had been taken that it would allow contracting out and enable the landlord in fixing the rent to say that he was going to fix it at, say, £300 a year, nominal, but that, in consideration of the damage that would be done by game, he would reduce it to £200. The effect of that for all practical purposes would be that the landlord would be contracted out of giving any compensation to the tenant at all. Of course, he might be told that it would be impossible for the landlord to do so because the arbitrator in considering the question of compensation would consider what was fair and just. It was doubtful whether the arbitrator would not say at once, "This is a ridiculous agreement." On the other hand, he could quite see that the arbitrator might say, "You have entered into this with your eyes open, and therefore I cannot give you the compensation which would have been given in respect of the rent you are nominally supposed to pay." There were a good many pros and cons in connection with the matter, and, therefore, the Government had decided to leave it an open question to the House. As to the Amendment in page 2, line 34, inserting a proviso after the word "just," the Government, having considered the matter, thought the Amendment very vague, and they had come to the conclusion that they must resist it. The Amendment at page 3, line 5, inserting after "land" the words "on his holding consistent with the principles of good husbandry," was no doubt a very important and serious one. Speaking for himself, it seemed to strike entirely at the principle indicated in the Bill that tenants, as far as arable land was concerned, were to have no limitation placed upon them as to freedom of cropping. That was to his mind a very desirable enactment to make. The Lords imposed
1774
a limitation on that freedom by inserting words to the effect that freedom of cropping must be consistent with the principles of good husbandry, thereby empowering the landlord to say that the tenant must go back to the four-course: system. As the Bill was originally introduced, freedom of cropping was allowed in respect of pasture land as well as of arable land; but the Government limited it to arable land, and, as that was as far as they would go, they must resist the Lords Amendment. Other Amendments provided that in the last three years of nineteen years leases freedom of cropping should not apply to arable land, and that farms held under current leases of fourteen years and over should be excluded from compensation for disturbance. With both of these Amendments the Government proposed to disagree. The Bill provided that the arbitrator should himself decide whether the action of the landlord in refusing to renew a tenancy was for good and sufficient cause and for reasons consistent with good estate management; but the Lords referred the decision of this question to the county court with the right of appeal. It was clear that such an Amendment, on account of the heavy legal expenses it would involve, would destroy all chance of small tenants obtaining the benefits of the Bill, and the Government therefore proposed to resist it. The Lords also postponed the date on which the Bill was to come into operation until January 1st, 1909, and that Amendment the Government intended to accept. He hoped his hon. friend would, in these circumstances, withdraw his Motion and allow the House to proceed with the consideration of the Lords Amendments seriatim.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Opposition had no desire, at this stage of the session, to contest the course which the Government proposed to take in regard to the Lords Amendments. For himself, he still held the opinion, which he had expressed on the Third Reading, that the Bill was a fair and reasonable compromise between these who represented the various interests in land, and that as it left the House of Commons there was nothing in it of which any reasonable person need be afraid.

1775
While he held that opinion, he thought the theory that compensation should be paid to a tenant on quitting a holding for reasons unconnected with ordinary husbandry was an unsound one which was likely to produce litigation between landlord and tenant, notwithstanding the safeguards by which the provision was surrounded. As to the omission of the words "made before the commencement of this Act" the hon. Baronet had stated that this was to be left an open question. If a division was taken upon it, he would support the omission of the words, as he thought it would be better on the whole if they were left out. As to the other Amendments, the hon. Baronet had spoken at length on the clause about freedom of cropping. In another place the words were inserted ''consistent with the principles of good husbandry." He maintained that the insertion of these words would have no effect whatever, for the hon. Baronet knew well that, in many districts where the four-course system prevailed, when the tenant altered it no good landlord raised any special objection. But what he argued was that an occupying tenant of land, paying a rent under certain conditions, ought not to be allowed to embark on what might be dangerous experiments without the consent of the landlord. They knew of the experiments that had been carried on at Roehampton, but it must be remembered that these were not made on land for which compensation would have to be paid. He did not think that the Amendments would have the effect which the hon. Baronet believed they would. As to the other Amendments dealing with leases of nineteen years or longer duration, there was a sub-section (b) which provided that—
"In any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding.''
He assumed that the reason for that Amendment was that the original clause did not contain the words "quitting the holding. "If a man was paid by his landlord for any improvement he had made, that improvement ceased to be his property and became the property of the landlord, and not of the incoming tenant. He thought it would be much
1776
better to leave things as they were. As to leases, that was a question which applied almost exclusively to Scotland, because, as hon. Members knew, long leases were the exception in England. He had pro-profound sympathy with the President of the Board of Agriculture, because he understood that some of the Amendments introduced by the noble Lord in the other House had been received with the most scathing demonstrations by his friends in this House.
MR. SOARESsaid he wished to thank the hon. Baronet for the fair manner in which he had met him in this matter, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
MR. MORTONsaid that an attempt had been made in the Lords to keep Scotland out of the benefits of the Bill. He insisted that Scotland was not represented in the Upper Chamber, although there were sixteen Scottish representative Peers there. These sixteen Peers, however, had not the slightest sympathy with the majority of the people of Scotland. If any little advantage was to be given to the farmers of this country it should be extended to Scotland. He understood that the Government were going to accede to the Lords Amendment that the Bill should not come into operation until 1st January, 1909, instead of 1908;but he hoped that the Scottish Members would be allowed a free hand in the division on that point. Everybody knew that at this particular period it was necessary to do something for the farming industry and to prevent the agricultural labourers from coming from the country into the already congested large towns. He desired that the whole of the United Kingdom should have the full benefit of this class of legislation. It had already been considerably whittled down, and he hoped that the Government would not allow it to be whittled down any further. He was glad to know that many noble Lords were beginning to see that something should

1777
be done to help the farmer and to keep the labourers on the land. He did not want to make any disrespectful allusions to the House of Lords, but they were not entitled to legislate alone for the people of this country, and he protested against their attempt to rob Scotland of the benefits of the Bill.
MR. BLACKsaid he would have been glad if the Government had considered the expediency of giving more time to the consideration of the Amendments made by the House of Lords. Those Amendments had been presented in a form which made the conception of their full effect difficult. He himself had endeavoured to analyse the game clause, in which his constituents were most interested, and he found that it was of such a character as to place many difficulties in the way of a tenant making good his claim for compensation for damage done by game. As the clause now stood, what chance had small tenants, paying only£20, or, £50, a year rent, of obtaining compensation from landlords who had the House of Lords at their back? Another reason why he objected to the clause was not only that the Bill as it stood was unfitted for Scotland, but, seeing that the Government had agreed to defer its operation until 1909, it might well be postponed until next session. Under the Bill as it stood they would have two whole sessions during which they could look at its provisions. He thought the Government was good enough to last for that period, and that it was wise not to allow the Bill to pass unless it was satisfactory, because they would not have another Agricultural Bill for some time. If, therefore, they allowed the Bill to lie over for two sessions they should have another opportunity of "licking it into shape." Another reason for delay was that the Bill was not suited for Scotland, and would require much alteration in that respect. For these reasons he hoped the Government would at this period of the year allow the whole Bill to go over to next session. He ventured to think that the good of the country would be best consulted by taking that course, which would be the same as had been adopted in the case of the Education Bill.
MR. J. WARDthought it would be a fatal policy to allow this Bill to be destroyed because of one Amendment in the House of Lords. If the Bill were delayed till next session or even till the year 1909, he did not think the House of Lords, if they exhibited the same disposition which he saw displayed last evening, would deal any more favourably with a Land Bill then than they had done now. He heard last night in the House of Lords the idea expressed that for a tenant to think that he had any rights in his holding was rank blasphemy. He also heard it suggested, with the approval of most Members of the other House, that in neither agricultural nor industrial matters had this House the slightest right to represent the people engaged in those pursuits. So long as that was the opinion expressed in another place, and so long as legislation dealing with social, political, and industrial reforms presented by the representatives of the nation, was dealt with in that way, they could not hope for more decent treatment of these measures in the future than they could now. On the other hand, it was clear that there would be a great constitutional question before the country in a few years which would overshadow land and all other reforms, and be the pivot upon which these reforms would hang; therefore although the principle contained in this Bill was a bare representation of the one which they would like to see adopted in regard to land reform, he thought they had better deal with this measure at once. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would not accept the suggestion of his hon. friend, but would proceed to consider the Lords Amendments.
MR. CROMBIEsaid he could not associate himself with a course which would entirely destroy the Bill. As far as Scotland was concerned, he understood from the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill that he intended to put the Bill back into the form in which it left this House, and he did not think that Scottish Members would object to that course, although the Bill as applied to Scotland was not satisfactory. At earlier stage the House had a discussion as to whether or not the Bill should include Scotland, and the opinion of

1779
the Scottish Members was that, although it was a poor Bill and did not satisfy them, still they would rather have that Bill than nothing at all. That having been their opinion then, he thought Scottish Members would rather have the Bill even with the Amendments of the House of Lords than nothing at all. He thought the postponement of the date was objectionable, but it was not so objectionable in Scotland as it might be in England, because in Scotland they had the system of nineteen years leases. Even in Scotland, however, when a lease ran out, there was a practice of running on from year to year, and such a postponement would have a detrimental effect, and he should be glad if the Government would resist that Amendment.
MR. ROWLANDSwas glad to see that the Government were going to restore the Bill to something like the form in which it left this House. Some of them who had followed the course of the Bill were not pleased with it now. The part of the country which he represented took a great interest in the question, and while they were pleased to accept the measure, they thought it right to put on record the fact that they accepted it as the absolute minimum in the shape of reform in this direction. This was not the last attempt that would be made for land reform.
Question "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)said that the Government desired to agree with all the Amendments, except one, on the first page of the Lords Amendments, as they were all of a drafting character and raised no question of principle. As to the leaving out of the preamble, that was done in all modern statutes, and he should in due course move to disagree with a portion of the Lords Amendment which appeared at the bottom of the first page and at the top of the second page of Amendments.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 1, in the title, to leave out the words 'the Tenure of Land' and to insert the words 'Agricultural Holdings.'
In lines 1 to 5, to leave out the Preamble. In line 6, to leave out the word 'therefore.'To leave out lines 10 and 11. In line 12, after the second 'one' to insert the words 'of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900.' In line 19, to leave out the word 'his' and to insert the word 'a.'In line 24,.after the word 'Holdings' to insert the word 'England.' In line 25, after '1900' to insert the words 'or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900.' In lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'any custom or' and to insert the word 'the.' In line 26, to leave out the words 'to be determined by' and to insert the words referred to."
"In page 2, in line 1, to leave out the words 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and.' In line 2, to leave out the words 'tenancy commenced' and to insert the words 'matter to which the arbitration relates arose.' In line 3, after the word 'determined' to insert the words 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary;" read a second time and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In line 6, after '1900' to insert the words 'and any sum awarded by such arbitrator to be paid, shall be recoverable in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, for the recovery of compensation. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation."
(3) The following rule shall be substituted for rule (10) in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900:—
"'The arbitrator shall on the application of either party specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter the subject of the award, and the award shall fix a day not sooner than one month or later than two months after the delivery of the award for the payment of the money awarded as compensation, costs, or otherwise, and shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries," read a, second time.
Sir W. ROBSONmoved that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment save only as regarded one slight particular. The whole matter was, he explained, more or less a question of drafting. The beginning of the Amendment dealt with the recovery of money awarded by the arbitrator, which it was provided should be recoverable in the manner laid down in the English and Scottish Agricultural Holdings Acts. That was to enable the amount of money recoverable to be embodied in an Order of the Court, but the Lords had added a proviso which said that nothing in the sub-section should interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation. It was these words that he proposed to omit, because he considered that they were unnecessary. The sub-section dealt with arbitration and not with valuation, and he thought that if these words were inserted they might create a good deal of confusion.
Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord or tenant for an outgoing or other valuation."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
MR. ABEL SMITH:inquired whether he was right in understanding the hon. and learned Solicitor-General to say that the effect of the Lords Amendment would not be changed if this proviso were omitted. He understood that it was being omitted because it was irrelevant. As it would affect many people in different parts of the country he wished to be quite clear upon the point.
Sir W. ROBSON:replied that the sub-section which he proposed to omit was irrelevant, as the main proposal dealt with arbitration and not with valuation.
Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 2, line 8, to leave out the words 'that neither he nor' and to insert the words 'the right to kill and take which is vested neither in him nor in."
"In line 9, to leave out the words 'has the lawful right to kill' and to insert the words 'and which the tenant has not permission in writing to kill," read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In line 19, to leave out the words intention to make a claim for compensation' and to insert the words 'the damage," read a second time.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Government accepted this Amendment so far as the meaning of it was concerned and its intention. He moved to agree with the first part of the Amendment and to disagree with the second. He explained that the sub-section would then provide that compensation could not be claimed unless notice in writing was given to the landlord. The word "damage" was not a convenient expression. They did not want to multiply notices nor to make them too specific. He formally moved to agree with the Lords Amendment down to the word "compensation" and to omit the words "and insert the damage."
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'and insert the damage."
Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to. Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 2, line 20, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant and a reasonable opportunity is given to the landlord to inspect the damage."
"In lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'at least three weeks."
"In line 22, to leave out the words 'reaped or raised' and to insert the words 'begun to be reaped, raised, or consumed."
"In line 23, to leave out the word 'done."
"In lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'at least one week."
''In line 24, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'begun to be."
"In line 25, to leave out the words 'the claims made' and to insert the words 'notice in writing of the claim, together with the particulars thereof, is given to the landlord."
"In line 26, to leave out the word 'year' and to insert the words 'calendar year, or such other period of twelve months as by agreement between the landlord and tenant may be substituted therefor," read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 2 line 28, to leave out the words 'made before the commencement of this Act," read a second time.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEYmoved to disagree with the Amendment. He had already stated generally the views which induced the Government to leave this an open question, and he was quite ready to admit that there was something to be said on both sides. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman who was at present leading the Opposition had indicated his view upon the Amendment, he desired to say that he took entirely the opposite view. He therefore moved that they should not agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. SOARESsaid that if the Lords Amendment was carried it would be possible for people to contract out of the game clause.
MR. MORTONsaid it was dangerous to have a contracting-out clause.
MR. ABEL SMITHsaid this was a question, not of contracting out, but of convenience. If the landlord and tenant could agree upon a sum to cover the estimated damage by game in an ordinary season, a large number of small claims would be avoided and an immense
1784
amount of friction would be prevented. He complained that on this question the representative of the Board of Agriculture had thrown over his chief in the other House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 2, line 29, after the word 'payable' to insert the words 'by him."
"In line 32, to leave out the words 'in assessing the compensation under 'this section."
"In line 34, after the word 'payable' to insert the words 'under this section," read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 2, line 34, after the word 'just' to insert the words 'Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and for the purposes of this proviso a tenancy from year to year current at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant could, the one by giving notice to the other immediately after the commencement of this Act, cause the tenancy to determine," read a second time.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEYmoved that the House should disagree. This was the Amendment which provided that with regard to existing tenancies it should not be necessary for the landlord to prove that any allowance was agreed to as the amount of compensation, or whether there was any express provision or not in regard to the tenancy. He thought it would bevery much better, especially as they had just passed the previous Amendment, that the money given by the landlord as compensation should be dealt with in one manner. The simpler they made the Act the better it would be, because it was sufficiently complicated already. The Government, therefore, resisted the Amendment, and he moved that the House disagree with it.
Motion made, and Question "That the House doth disagree with the Lords

1785
in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 2, line 35, after the word 'kill,' to insert the words 'and take the."
"In page 2, line 39, to leave out from the beginning of the line to the word 'deer' in line 40, and to insert the words 'For the purpose of this section, 'The expression 'game' means."
"In page 3, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'produced upon the holding," read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'on his holding consistent with the principles of good husbandry," read a second time.
Sir EDWARD STEACHEYmoved to leave out the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry," on the ground that if they were retained they would be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It had been decided by this House that although the tenant ought not to be allowed to have freedom of cropping as regarded the whole of his holding, yet as regarded arable land such freedom was very desirable and the tenant should not be restricted by any covenants from cultivating arable land to the greatest possible advantage. It was obviously desirable in these days to encourage tenants to cultivate arable land to the very best advantage and that nothing should be done to hamper that cultivation. The right hon. Member for South Dublin seemed to think that the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry" would not have a limiting effect, but certainly the impression on his mind in listening to the debate in another place was that the object of the Amendment was of a limiting nature. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman were right he would urge that it would be a ground for striking out these words, because in that case they would be of no use. If, on the other hand, the words would have the effect of limiting the tenants' freedom of cropping on arable land they should be struck out.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'consistent with the principles of good husbandry."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
MR. WALTER LONGthought the hon. Gentleman had derived a wrong impression from the debate in the other House. He imagined the object of another place was to prevent any wild experiments likely to result in damages, and certainly, if he thought the exclusion of these words would expose the land of the country to the very grave risk of wild experiments at the hands of these who knew very little about land cultivation, he should do his best to secure their retention. But he thought the clause placed the tenant within entirely satisfactory limitations, and, as he was afraid the introduction of these words might lead to confusion and litigation, it would be desirable to omit them.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 3, line 7, to leave out the words 'contained in any such contract of tenancy or agreement."
"In page 3, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'and provided also that he shall return to the holding as soon as may be' and to insert the words 'which provision shall in the case of disposal of the produce of the holding consist in the return to the holding of the full equivalent," read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'value' to insert the words 'to the holdings'; after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'in contravention of the custom contract or agreement. Provided that this sub-section shall not apply—(a) In the case of a lease for nineteen years or longer duration as

1787
respects the last three years before the expiration thereof; or (b) in any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding," read a second time.
Sir EDWAED STRACHEYmoved to amend the Lords Amendment by reinstating the provisions which were in the Bill when it was sent up to the other House. He said the first Amendment of the Lords restricted freedom of cropping in the case of a nineteen years tenancy, as regarded the last three years of the lease, when the tenant would have to go back to the three-course system, which he was told was in vogue in Scotland. The Government did not see why the tenant of arable land, whether he had a lease or not, should be restricted in this matter. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture at their summer meeting unanimously approved of this section as it then appeared in the Bill, and therefore it might be assumed that they would equally unanimously disapprove of the alteration made in another place.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"To leave out from the word 'apply' to the end and insert the words (a) in the case of a tenancy from year to year as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or (b) in any other case, as respects the last four years before the expiration of the contract of tenancy."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the whole difference between the two Houses narrowed itself down to a question of three years or one year. He thought there was a good deal to be said on behalf of the Lords Amendment, but he was bound to recognise that the Act of 1900 did interfere with existing holdings. This Bill carried the interference further, because it interfered with leases, and interfered with them in a way which was somewhat serious. He believed there was a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the original form of this particular provision, and,
1788
on balance, he did not feel himself justified in offering opposition to the action of the Government.
Colonel KENYON-SLANEYsaid on this point he did not think English Members were the best judges, because they had very limited experience, but he could not help feeling that the Lords Amendment might be beneficial from the point of view of the continuance of leases. While he did not separate himself from his right hon. friend, he would not like the matter to pass without it being understood that some of them recognised there were strong arguments in favour of the Lords Amendment.
MR. MORTONsaid that, so far as he could gather the opinion of his constituents and others in Scotland, they were most anxious to come under the Bill as it was before, and they would take the risk about the leases.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 3, line 15, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'without prejudice to any other remedy which may be open to him."
"In line 17, to leave out the words 'or as the case may require,' and to insert the word 'at any time and should the case so require' and after the word 'injunction' to insert the words 'or in Scotland an interdict."
"In line 23, to leave out the word 'adequate,' and insert the word 'such,"
Read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word 'deterioration' to the end of the clause, and to insert the words 'as is required by this section or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section, (4) In this section the expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass, which by the terms of any contract of tenancy, is to be

1789
retained in the same condition throughout the tenancy,"
Read a second time.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he believed the object of this Amendment—though he did not think the words carried it out in the most satisfactory way—was to prevent a tenant being paid twice over, that was to say for selling crops and for manures or feeding stuffs to replace what he had sold off the land. He proposed to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section," and to insert in their place, "improvements comprised in Part III. of the first schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been made."'
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"To leave out the words "or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section, and to insert the words 'improvements comprised in Part III. of the first schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been made."
Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment as amended, agreed to.
LordsAmendments—
"In page 3, line 37, to leave out the words 'or refuse to grant a renewal of the tenancy or,' and insert the words 'a tenancy by notice to quit, or after having been requested in writing at least one year before the expiration of a tenancy to grant a renewal thereof refuses to do so or where'; in line 38, to leave out the word 'is' and insert the words 'has been'; in line 39, to leave out the words 'as the result of,' and insert the words, 'and that such increase was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding due to in lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words 'effected at the cost of such' and insert the words 'executed by or at the cost of the."
"In page 4, line 5, after the word 'expense' to insert the words 'directly attributable to his quitting the holding';
1790
in line 6, to leave out the words 'by reason of his quitting the holding, sustains or incurs,' and insert the words 'may unavoidably incur,"
Read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 4, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'goods, implements, produce or stock' and insert the words 'household goods or his implements of husbandry produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding; provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable

'(a) Unless the tenant has given to the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce, and stock as aforesaid ; or

'(b) Unless the tenant has within two months after he has received notice to quit or a refusal to grant a renewal of the tenancy, as the case may be, given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation under this section; or

'(c) Where the tenant with whom a contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit, or in the case of a lease for years before the refusal to grant a renewal; or

'(d) If the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits the holding; or

'(e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act;"

Read a second time.
MR. MONTAGUmoved to leave out sub-section (c). As he understood it, the Bill prevented a landlord dealing with a tenant in an unreasonable manner or in a way that was inconsistent with good estate management, but if they left in sub-section (c) a landlord might deal in an unreasonable manner or in a way inconsistent with good estate management, and to the detriment of the widow or son, or whoever might be farming the land, however satisfactory that farming might be.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"To leave out sub-section (c)."—(MR. Montagu.)
'Question proposed, "That sub-section (c) stand part of the Lords Amendment."
MR. SOARESbegged the hon. Baronet to accept this Amendment. It was, he said, bad enough for a widow to lose her husband, but if three months afterwards she was to be capriciously evicted by the landlord it would be a bad case indeed. Out of pity for widows, who were sometimes just as good farmers as their husbands had been, he appealed to the hon. Baronet to accept the Amendment.
MR. ABEL SMITHsaid it was all very well to appeal for pity for the unfortunate widow and children, but he did not think that had very much to do with the question before the House, which was really as to whether this clause should be extended not only to tenants who would employ deputies, but to the representatives and successors of tenants who had died. This was an entirely new question, and it was rather a strong order to ask the House to accept the proposal at this late period of the session.
MR. J. WARD,in view of the peculiar sentiment underlying the exclusion of the widow or children from benefits of the law, hoped some arrangement would be come to to meet the case.
MR. MORTONexpressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would give way on this matter. He did not see why a widow should be debarred from getting compensation because she was a widow. Surely it was a matter that might be left for the people to settle themselves. By putting in these words they would take away from people engaged in agriculture some of the good which it was hoped the Bill would do. The general feeling of the House was that the Amendment should be omitted. He did not suppose that much difficulty would be made over the matter in another place.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had found great difficulty in estimating what the precise effect of the Amendment would be. It was well known that in a great many cases landlords, on the death of a tenant, did not care to allow the widow to succeed as the occupying tenant. It was not from any feeling of hostility to widows in general or to any widow in particular, but because farming was men's business, and because it was thought that the control of the work was much better in the hands of men. If he. was right, the Amendment was merely to protect the landlord who held these views from being liable to pay compensation for unreasonable disturbance for carrying out what was his invariable practice in not renewing the tenancy to a widow. The special circumstances to which the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire referred did not arise. The insertion of the words would not prevent the payment to a widow of a claim to which her husband would have been entitled if he had lived. The claim for compensation under this clause only came into existence if the landlord behaved unreasonably or without good and sufficient cause. It should be remembered that the widow or child was not the tenant unless the terms of the tenancy stated that on the death of the occupier the widow or child should become the occupying tenant. The sentimental view of the case did not arise. He thought there would be considerable danger in accepting the Amendment unless it would have an operation different from what he believed it would have.
Sir W. ROBSONsaid the object of the clause was perfectly clear. It was to deal with cases where the landlord did not care to have a tenancy of an onerous character continued by a widow. If the tenant died within three months before the date of the notice to quit, the notice to quit affected the widow. In such a case as that, it was not to be held as unreasonable disturbance because the landlord had chosen in the exercise of his discretion to say that he would rather have a male than a female tenant. It did not deprive the widow of any claim for compensation that might have accrued.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid he was very much inclined to agree with the Solicitor-General. Everyone familiar with these matters knew that very often a landlord was unwilling to continue a widow as the tenant of a farm. The refusal to allow her to remain in occupation was one of the most painful duties a landlord had to perform. It seemed to him that the question might be asked—Does a widow require a notice to quit? Was not the tenancy terminated by the death of the husband? He would be sorry if anything were done by the Bill to deprive a widow of any compensation to which she was entitled.
MR. BLACKsaid that in view of the fact that the Bill was applicable to Scotland it was necessary to accept the Amendment. Under Scottish leases it was a frequent thing for the contract to say that the heir of the tenant should succeed to the holding. There was no reason why the heir should be excluded from the operation of the clause.
Colonel KENYON-SLANEYsaid nobody desired that what was fairly due to the husband at the time of his death should be denied to the widow, but what they would say if they accepted the Amendment was that the landlord was bound to continue the tenancy of the farm to the widow or the successor of the deceased. That was not reasonable.
MR. BLACK: That is so in Scotland.
Colonel KENYON-SLANEY: I do not know about Scotland. I am talking about England.
MR. BLACK: The Bill applies to Scotland.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the landlord had not taken into consideration the possibility of the widow or son succeeding to the farm, although there were instances in which that occurred. It would be going outside the scope of the Bill to put on the landlord the responsibility of accepting the widow or successor of the deceased as tenant of a farm. What was proposed in the Lords Amendment was, as the President of the Board of Agriculture had stated, the
1794
result of full consultation, and, therefore, it would hardly be fair to make the proposed alteration.
MR. EVERETTsaid that when the tenancy of a farm was continued to a widow under a good landlord it was a very valuable asset. He had known cases where it had been the means of obtaining another suitable husband. He hoped the House would excise sub-section (c) and that the Lords would recognise that in doing so they were acting from considerations of humanity.
*Sir EDWARD STRACHEYagreed that there was a good deal to be said for the argument of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He had already intimated that the Government had made very great concessions with the view to securing the passage of the Bill. While personally he had the greatest possible sympathy with the idea that the widow, wherever possible, should be allowed to retain her deceased husband's farm, it was very difficult indeed to provide for that in an Act of Parliament. But this Amendment did not only refer to the case of widows he would remind the House If made the effect of the Amendment would be to give rights to any heirs however undesirable and even to creditors, it might be, which would make all kinds of complications and difficulties. He must appeal to his hon. friend, in consideration of the agreement which had been arrived at, to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. MORTONasked whether the Solicitor-General could give an assurance that the widow or child would not be pecuniarily injured by this clause.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid that a Scottish lease frequently provided that a man or his successor should be the tenant during the period for which the lease was made. What hon. Members from Scotland wanted to know was whether this clause would interfere with that succession.
Sir W. ROBSONsaid if a widow had a right to the succession, she would come in with the tenant's right. He confessed that it was difficult to follow imaginary cases.
MR. MONTAGUasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEYmoved to leave out the following sub-section—
"(e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act."
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"To leave out sub-section (e)."
Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert 'any question arising under this section as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration relating to the statement of a case and any appeal there from be deemed to be a question of law."
Read a second time.
Sir W. ROBSONthought the Amendment must have been made under a misapprehension. It overlooked the fact that an arbitrator had already the power under existing Agricultural Acts, when he found the facts, to state a special case asking a Court of law to decide the inference to be drawn from them. He did not think good estate management was a matter for a Court of law rather than an arbitrator. He therefore moved to disagree.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he quite sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in his view as to the principle underlying the Lords Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 4, line 15, to leave out the word 'other,' and insert the words 'or after' ; in line 16, to leave out from the word 'respectively' to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'in like manner as the sections apply to improvements executed after those dates'; in line 26, after the word 'intention,' to insert the words 'together with particulars of such repairs'; in line 31, after the word 'fences,' to insert the word 'gates,' and after the word 'drains' to insert the word 'ditches'; in line 32, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'within three months after the commencement of the tenancy'; to leave out Clause 9."
"In Page 5, leave out Clause 10."
Read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 6, to leave out 'eight' and insert 'nine."
Read a second time.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he had already indicated that the Government assented to this Amendment.
*MR. LYNCHsaid it seemed to him that this Bill was mainly directed against the bad landlords, and why should its operations be delayed for another year?
*Sir EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that he knew there was a strong feeling in the House in regard to some of the Lords Amendments and he had moved to disagree with all substantial ones except this one. But he refused to believe that anyone imagined that the additional year interval would be taken advantage of to any substantial extent by the landlords or attempt to contract themselves out of the Act. They were generally agreed that the Bill held the balance between the landlord and the tenant, and that it was in favour of good husbandry. It had been said that the Bill was directed against bad landlords, but he maintained that these were very small in number indeed, and in his view few would desire the longer they had to consider its true effect to

1797
contract themselves out of the Act. However, he would like to add a word of warning, that if the arrested facilities given by the extension of a year were used by landlords to any great extent to contract themselves out of the Act the question would have to be re-opened by further agricultural legislation, and in a very drastic manner, and very good care would be taken by the Government that in future no opportunity would be given of contracting out of any Act in the interests of agriculture.
MR. SOARESsaid he was glad that the Government had stuck nobly to the promises made by Lord Carrington, and he thought that they might let this Amendment go with the protest which had already been made.
MR. LYNCHsaid that he was not in the House when the agreement which the hon. Baronet had announced was made; but he thought that this was a very substantial concession in return for the other concessions which had been made.
MR. MORTONsaid that according to this Amendment the people were to wait two years before the Act came into force. The hon. Baronet had told the House that the landlords were not likely to take advantage of the additional year to contract themselves out of the Act. But they knew in Scotland what some landlords had done in view of the mere prospect of the introduction of a Land Tenure Bill. He deeply regretted that the Government had been so weak in this matter, and allowed the Bill to be whittled down.
MR. J. WARDsaid he understood that at the beginning of the evening the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill made a statement as to certain concessions which the Government were prepared to make to the Opposition side of the House, and that having that statement before them they decided to proceed to consider the Amendments on those lines. It seemed to him, therefore, a strange thing that, having elected to proceed upon that definite settlement, one Member got up and
1798
moved one Amendment and another got up and moved another. Either they should have rejected the concessions altogether or else they should have gone on like men and accepted the position.
MR. ADKINSsaid he agreed that this provision was a great blemish on the Bill, but an agreement had been come to by the President of the Board of Agriculture on this subject, and many of them would like to be loyal. Still they must recognise the fact that the real reason for this position was the action of the House of Lords, and that the responsibility for this blemish rested with that House and not with the House of Commons.
*MR. LYNCH:did not desire to depart from the arrangement which had been made but said they desired to record their protest. After all, as the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had said, it was the bad landlords against whom this Bill was aimed; and it was these bad landlords who would take advantage of this extended term. However, they had a pledge that the Government would take action and accelerate the Bill if necessary. Therefore it behoved them all to watch in their respective districts and bring to the notice of the Government any efforts to defeat the Act.
*SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGthought that if it was in the power of the Government to take such action as that mentioned by the last speaker it would remove some objections, but he wished to enter his protest against the unwise surrender on so vital a point by the President of the Board of Agriculture in another place and by his hon. friend in this House. He had listened to the speech of his hon. friend with absolute astonishment. They were not legislating for the good landlord, but for the bad landlord, and by this proposal they were giving two years grace to the bad landlord to shower notices to quit, and deprive his tenants of advantages under the Bill; and they gave an opportunity also to those landlords who were sitting on the fence to jump down on the side against their tenants. He entered his protest

1799
against this surrender. He thought the Bill was a weak wishy-washy one to begin with, and after all the whittling down and emasculation it had gone through it was hardly more than a mere sign post to the promised land. This Amendment almost reduced their proceedings to a farce.
Colonel KENYON-SLANEYsaid he did not attach much importance to this Amendment himself, but he wanted hon. Members to consider what the effect of it would be. The Bill might frighten a good many timid landlords, but on the other hand the Amendment would give them time to look at it. Having that time they would not be so frightened and would not be inclined to do anything foolish. He thought some of the fears which had been expressed need not have excited hon. Members.
MR. R. PEARCEasked whether the arrangement which had been arrived at contemplated the idea that in the event of a change of Government taking place in the meantime there should be no alteration made in the date at which this enactment would come into force.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEYmoved that a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONG:wished to express the gratitude which they on that side felt to the Solicitor-General and the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire for the manner in which they had met the Opposition and for the firmness with which they had adhered to the arrangement which, had been arrived at.
Sir W. ROBSONthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his appreciation and for the tone which he had adopted throughout the discussions.
MR. MORTONsaid that such arrangements between the two front benches were always dangerous.
Question put, and Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill.
Committee nominated of—MR. Alexander Black, Sir Francis Channing, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, MR. Long, MR. Soares, MR. Solicitor-General, and Sir Edward Strachey.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said that although the list was formidable in appearance the Amendments were in the main of a drafting character approved by the Government. There were but two exceptions with which the Government disagreed, one relating to infirm workmen and the other to the provision for applications to the Registrar for submission of cases to the medical referee.
The following Lords Amendments were agreed to—
Lords Amendments—
"In page 3, line 14, after the word 'mistake' to insert the words 'absence from the United Kingdom'; in line 18, to leave out the words 'employment abroad' and to insert the words' absence from the United Kingdom'; in line 23, to leave out the words 'it was sustained' and insert 'the accident happened'; in line 41, to leave out from 'and' to 'and' in page 4, line 2,and insert the words 'that where the scheme provides for contributions by the workmen, the scheme confers benefits at least equivalent to those contributions, in addition to the

1801
benefits to which the workmen would have been entitled under this Act."
"In page 4, line 5, to leave out the word 'those' and to insert the word 'his'; line 20, to leave out from the second 'the' to 'or' in line 23, and insert the words 'benefits conferred by any scheme no longer conform to the conditions stated in sub-section (1) of this section."
"In page 6, line 5, to leave out from the first 'and' to the end of line 7, and insert the words 'upon any such transfer the insurers shall have the same rights and remedies and be subject to the same liabilities as if they were the employer, so however that the insurers shall not be under any greater liability to the workman than they would have been under to the employer'; line 17, after the word 'exceeding,' to insert the words 'in any individual case'; line 19,to leave out from 'up' to 'and' in line 23; line 23, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'those Acts and'; line 24, after the word 'accordingly,' to insert the words 'where the compensation is a weekly payment, the amount due in respect thereof shall, for the purposes of this provision, be taken to be the amount of the lump sum for which the weekly payment could, if redeemable, be redeemed if the employer made an application for that purpose under the First Schedule to this Act."
"In page 7, line 27, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'except where the person injured is the master'; in line 32, after the third 'the,' to insert the word 'master'; in line 33, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall'; in line 36, after the word 'injured,' to insert the word 'master."
"In page 8, line 8, after the word 'a,' to insert the word 'master'; in line 17, after the word 'injured,' to insert the word 'master';' in line 35, after the second word 'of,' to insert the word 'masters'; 'in line 38, to leave out the word 'such."
"In page 9, lines 1 to 5, to leave out paragraph (h). In line 9, at end, to insert as a new sub-section:—
'(2) This section shall extend to pilots to whom Part X. of the Merchant Shipping
1802
Act, 1894, applies, as if a pilot when employed on any such ship as aforesaid were a seaman and a member of the crew.'''
"In page 10, line 8, after the word 'furnished,' to insert the words 'or is not sufficient to enable that employer to take proceedings under the next following proviso."
"In page 12, line 6, to leave out the words 'one or more' and insert the word 'a'; in line 7, to leave out the word 'schemes,' and insert the words 'company or society,' and to leave out the word 'have,' and to insert the word 'has'; 'in line 10, to leave out the words 'scheme or in one or other of such 'schemes,' and insert the words 'company or society'; in lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'managers of the scheme consent,' and to insert the words 'company or society consents'; in line 13, to leave out the words schemes or in one or other of such schemes,' and to insert the words 'company or society'; in line 15, at end, to insert the words 'where such a company or society has been established, but is confined to employers in any particular locality or of any particular class the Secretary of State may for the purposes of this provision treat the industry, as carried on by employers in that locality or of that class, as a separate industry'; in line 26, after the word 'order,' to insert the word 'provisional order."
"In page 13, line 13, to leave out the words 'either party,' and insert the words 'an employer or workman'; in line 24, to leave out the words 'rules of,' and to insert the words' the rules of the."
"In page 14, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'summary conviction,' and insert the words 'conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."
"In page 15, line 25, to leave out from '1894' to the end of the paragraph;
Read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 19, line 9, after the word 'shillings' to insert the words '(c) In the case of a workman who has in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of

1803
State obtained from a certifying surgeon a certificate to the effect that on account of old age or the loss of an eye, or a limb, or of any other serious physical infirmity or incapacity specified in the regulations, he is specially liable to serious accident if employed in any employment of any class specified in the certificate, and who has entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him under this Act, the compensation if payable in respect of an accident happening to the workman whilst employed in an employment of any such class shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less—

(i) Where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependants, than fifty pounds;

(ii) Where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, than a weekly payment during the incapacity of ten shillings, and,"read a second time.

MR. GLADSTONEsaid he need not go into the history of this Amendment. The question came up in the Standing Committee, and on the discussion in this House he undertook to bring up a clause on Report which should afford the House an opportunity for a free and full discussion of the subject upon its merits. They had a fair discussion upon Report, and he stated certain arguments in favour of the clause which he formally moved. He did not pretend then, and he did not pretend now, to have any strong feeling on the clause, but he had given these who were more closely representative of labour the opportunity of discussing the matter. The case against the proposal was stated with great lucidity by the hon. Member for Glasgow, and, the House deciding against the Amendment, the Government accepted that decision. In consequence of that decision he moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERthought that it was
1804
desirable to point out the effect of this proposal. The House of Lords had made an effort against the opinion of this House to continue the employment of aged and infirm workmen. He agreed with the Labour Members that there was a difficulty about retaining this class of men at lower wages, but the position which it was proposed to set up was particularly hard upon the old men, and he would call attention to the fact that in some large railway works in the north recently over ninety-six men had had to leave their employment because of old age, and there was no provision for them. They were turned out into the world without support in consequence of this compensation having to be given. [Cries of "No."] That was what it came to. These old men had no provision made for them. He thought hon. Gentlemen below the gangway should give careful consideration to the case of these men who would be displaced under the stringent regulations to be brought into force. He would be very glad to assist in bringing in such a system of old age pensions as would be satisfactory, but if they disagreed with this Lords Amendment they would throw these old men upon the rates, without any other means of relief from the difficulties, misfortunes, and miseries of a dependent old age.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 19, line 10, to leave out the words 'in computing.' and to insert the words 'for the purposes of the provisions of this schedule relating to'; in lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'for the purposes of this schedule', and to insert the words 'of a workman'; in lines 12 to 15, leave out Paragraph (a); in lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'where the workman was not employed at such a fixed rate of earnings, his'; in line 19, to leave out the word 'he,' and to insert the words 'the workman'; in line 30, to leave out the words 'was engaged under,' and to insert the words 'had entered into concurrent'; in line 31, after the word 'employers,' to insert the words, 'under which he worked at one time for one such employer, and at another time for another such employer."
"In page 20, line 12, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'to take or prosecute."
"In page 21, line 2, after the word 'court,' to insert the words 'or an award'; in line 6, to leave out the word 'further'; in line 7, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'or the award'; in line 21, after the first 'or,' to insert the words 'subject to regulations of the Treasury;"
Read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 22, line 3, to leave out the words 'both parties,' and insert the words 'either party,' and to leave out the word 'applicants' and insert the word 'applicant," read a second time.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the House had on the subject of this Amendment accepted a proposal of the Government by which the original draft of the Bill was altered, and there was something to be said on both sides in this matter. Representations had been made that the feeling of those who spoke for the workmen was against the provision in the Bill as it stood. In consequence of that feeling, the Government put in an Amendment, but it was now proposed to restore the Bill to its former state. He therefore moved that the House should disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he did not wish to press the point, because after the decision of the Government it would be practically useless to do so. The House should remember, however, that this was a distinct suggestion of the Departmental Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 22, line 19, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'to take or prosecute;"
"In page 23, line 3, after the word 'thereto,' to insert the words' provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preventing agreements being made for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum;' to leave out lines 31 and 32; in line 33, after (1), to insert the words 'For the purpose of settling any matter which under this Act is to be settled by arbitration;"
"In page 24, line 30, to leave, out the word 'or,' and after the word' arbitrator,' to insert the words 'or Judge of the County Court, subject as respects such Judge and an arbitrator appointed by him to rules of Court;' in line 43, to leave out from the word 'Court' to 'who' in line 44;"
"In page 26, line 6, after the word 'unless,' to insert the words 'in either case;' in lines 13 and 14 to leave out the words 'in which the accident out of which the said matter arose occurred,' and insert the words 'prescribed by rules of Court;"
"In page 27, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words 'appoint a medical referee to report on,' and to insert the words 'submit to a medical referee for report;' in line 14, to leave out (b) and (c), and to insert (d) and (e);"
Read a second time, and agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of—Mr. Secretary Gladstone, MR. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Burns, MR. Barnes, and Mr. Fenwick.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 24, to leave out the words 'an order of the Court' and insert the words 'apply to the Court for an order."—(Sir John Walton.)
"In page 2, line 29, to leave out the words 'other than creditors."
"In page 2, line 37, to leave out the word 'shares."
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words 'or securities"—(MR. Micklem.)
"In page 2, line 5, at end of sub-section (2), to insert the words 'Provided that (a) the public trustee shall not exercise the right of himself transferring the stock without the leave of the Court; and (d) This sub-section shall not apply to any copyhold land forming part of the estate, but the public trustee shall, as respects such land, have the like powers as if he had been appointed by the Court under Section 33 of the Trustee Act, 1893, to convey the land, and Section 34 of that Act shall apply accordingly."—(Sir John Walton.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. MICKLEMmoved an Amendment to provide that the transfer of a trust to the public trustee should not occur unless the powers so to transfer were given in the instrument creating the trust. It would be necessary to omit from Clause 4 the words "(c) by the person having power to appoint new trustees." The immediate effect of this proposal would be to introduce an exceedingly important public official with an enormous business, and under it half the trusts of the kingdom might be taken out the hands of the present trustees and handed over to the custodian trustee. The object of this Bill was to introduce the public trustee for certain purposes, and the Government never contemplated the creation of an official with greater powers than any other official in the country. They would not get any beneficiaries who understood the question to accept what was now being proposed. The Bill had been rendered necessary because of various frauds perpetrated by solicitors, but in order to guard against that danger in the future it was not necesary that they should be able to take the whole of the trust property in the country and hand it over to the public trustee whether the ordinary beneficiaries desired it or not. There were many
1808
persons deeply interested in this question. A very common case was that the tenant for life came to the trustees and said, "The investments are realising only 3 per cent. and that is not enough. Will you change the investments and produce 4 per cent." Very often the trustees were satisfied with the invsetments and refused to change them. Under the clause as it stood the great majority of trusts could be taken at once out of the hands of the trustees and transferred to the public trustee at the mere caprice of some beneficiary. If that were done, the private trustee in nine cases out of ten would decline to act. He ventured to think that it was only common equity that there should be put in the Bill a provision such as he had indicated. He moved an Amendment in regard to this last night, and it was not appreciated by the House [An Hon. Member: Hear hear.] When he said "appreciated" he meant that it was not understood by the House. It was a point of the utmost importance. He begged to move.
MR. HERBERT,in seconding the Amendment, said that one of the important questions here was who should be entitled to appoint new trustees. For example, if the creditor of a trust appointed three trustees, two of whom died after a time, the remaining trustee would have it in his power to appoint a custodian trustee, and if he died, then his executor would be entitled to appoint a new trustee. It was unlikely that this arrangement could be contemplated by the original creation of the trust. He thought that the Amendment was of importance.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words 'having power to appoint new trustees' and insert the words 'authorised in that behalf by any instrument creating a trust."—(MR. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said his hon.

1809
and learned friend had revived a discussion which took place last night, and it was the only discussion in the course of the evening which was followed by a division. The Committee expressed their opinion on the Amendment. He did not think his hon. and learned friend had done justice to the intelligence of the House when he suggested that the proposal was not fully appreciated by those who were present and took part in the debate. There was no intention to force the public trustee as an ordinary trustee upon his co-trustees or upon the beneficiaries. He would merely be the custodian of the property, and he would not meddle with the administration of the trust. The object in view was to ensure the safe custody of the trust fund.
MR. R. PEARCEasked the Attorney-General whether his view was that the clause only applied when there was an actual vacancy existing at the moment.
*MR. RADFORDadd the Attorney-General had argued against the Amendment on the ground that the public trustee would only be appointed to this office of custodian if there was a vacancy. He submitted that it was clear from the words of sub-section (1), notwithstanding what the hon. and learned learned Gentleman had said, that the public trustee might be appointed custodian trustee, although the full number of trustees remained at the moment.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 30, to leave out sub-section (a), and insert '(a) the trust property shall be transferred to the custodian trustee as if he were sole trustee, and for that purpose vesting orders may, where nceessary, be made
1810
under The Trustee Act, 1893."—(Sir John Walton.)
Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Sir JOHN WALTONsaid that the public trustee might be committed to investments under a very wide clause in a will, as for instance in a case in which the trustees originally appointed were entitled to invest in any limited liability company. As a safeguard he proposed to insert in Clause 4, after the word "trust," the words "or in any view that involves personal liability, or otherwise."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 21, after the word 'trust' to insert 'or in any view that involves personal liability or otherwise."—(Sir John Walton.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONmoved to omit the words "income or" from sub-section (e), Clause 4. The object of the custodian trustee was to safeguard the securities of the trust. It was not suggested that he should keep a large system of accounts. It was very much better that all the income should be received and disposed of by the managing trustees, who in the case, for instance, of fifteen or twenty houses would have to deal with all the rates and taxes, and if the income were paid over to the custodian trustee, trouble and expense would be involved. All that was wanted was to prevent fraud, and they all recognised that income had been pretty safe.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERseconded the Amendment. All that was required

1811
here was to allow the income to be paid to the managing trustee. If they went further they would compel the custodian trustee not only to receive all dividends but to distribute them amongst perhaps eight or ten beneficiaries, which was more than the clause proposed.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 25, to leave out the words 'income or."—(MR. J. M. Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Sir JOHN WALTONsaid he did not think the state of things contemplated by the mover and seconder of this Amendment would arise. The object of the clause was that primarily the custodian trustee should receive the income and take care of the capital of the estate. But he might sanction an arrangement under which the income could be received by the managing trustee. In the case of a business which had to be carried on he would have nothing to do with the management, and he could sanction an arrangement with the managing trustee who under that arrangement might receive the income and make the distribution and be responsible for the management of the trust. If this Amendment were accepted it would be necessary to recast the clause, which he thought had better be left as it was
*MR. BERTEAMsaid the clause now under consideration dealt with the custodian trustee as distinct from the administrative trustee, and directly they brought in the word "income" they dealt with a function of administration instead of a preservation of the
1812
trust fund. He would respectfully suggest that the difficulty of the learned Attorney-General as to the recasting of the clause would be got over if the words "income or" were omitted and lower down in the clause the words "there to" were inserted.
Amendment negatived.
MR. MICKLEMsaid the object of the clause he proposed to move was to protect purchasers, mortgagees, and beneficiaries, and to put them in the same position in regard to the custodian trustee as they would be in regard to funds in Court. He contended that the clause did not sufficiently consider outsiders, persons claiming through beneficiaries. He thought it would be manifest to all who understood the subject that it was right that they should be able to put on the funds of the custodian trustee what in effect was a stop order, so that the funds should not be dealt with by the custodian trustee until notice had been given. He moved.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 18, at the end, to insert the words 'subject to rules under this Act any person claiming as beneficiary purchaser or mortgagee to be interested in any trust property held by the public trustee either alone or jointly shall be entitled to give a notice to the public trustee to operate as regards the trust property in the same manner as a stop order operates upon funds in Court."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Sir JOHN WALTON:was understood to say that this Amendment was not necessary because it was obvious that what was desired could already be done under the clause.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 19, after the word 'apply' to insert the words 'in like manner as to the public trustee in the provision of this sub-section shall apply."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Sir JOHN WALTONagreed that some words were necessary, and said he had in fact prepared words, but he was not jealous of his own words and would accept the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
*MR. CAVEmoved to leave out sub-section (5) of Clause 5. He said that this clause provided that in the case of a trust in which one of the trustees was a person engaged in any profession with power to charge for his services, any one of the beneficiaries under the trust could go to the Court and insist upon having the public trustee joined to that trust. Professional trustees were almost always solicitors, and the main effect of the clause would be that in every case where there was a solicitor trustee with power to charge, any one of the beneficiaries could insist upon having the public trustee appointed as a co-trustee with him. There were several reasons why he objected to this provision. In the first place it conveyed a slur, which ought not to be cast on a great profession because one or two members of it had betrayed their trust.
Sir JOHN WALTON (interrupting): If the hon. Member move the omission I shall accept it.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6,line 21, to leave out sub-section 5."—(M Cave.)
Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
*MR. RADFORDthought that in many places in the country the bank manager would be the natural person to undertake the investigation and audit of trust accounts. The banks of the country were willing to undertake this business, and if the Attorney-General would accept this Amendment, it might make the working of the clause easier. He moved the insertion of the words "bank manager."
MR. MICKLEMseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 10, line 17, after the word 'solicitor,' to insert the words' bank manager."—(MR. Radford.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Sir JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept this Amendment. They were appointing an official, and he must be a man in whom they had the fullest confidence.
Amendment negatived.
MR. MICKLEMmoved an Amendment to Clause 14, leaving out all the words of sub-section (5) after the word "shall." Anyone reading the sub-section would see at once that it did not make either a reasonable or a proper provision; in fact, it did not deal with the points raised in the section. He felt sure the Attorney-General would agree that the alteration was made somewhat hastily. His contention was that the Bill as drafted in another place was right. The

1815
audit was quite independent of the public trustee and was provided for between the parties. Obviously the usual rule was that the cost of the application should be paid by the estate, but they had to remember that this was an audit which might be made every twelve months, and it would be unfair to throw upon the estate the cost of an annual audit which ought to be borne by the tenant for life or by those who insisted upon the audit.
MR. BERTRAM:formally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, line 11, to leave out from the word 'shall,' to the end of line 15, and insert the words 'in default of agreement between the parties be paid by the applicant unless the Court otherwise direct."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Sir JOHN WALTONthought that, as a rule, the cost of the audit should come out of the estate, although he agreed that there might be exceptional cases. Beneficiaries might consider that in some instances the cost ought to fall upon others, but there was power under which the public trustee could deal with the matter. He could not accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
*MR. RADFORDsaid he understood that by the word "estate" the Attorney-General meant the capital of the estate. It had already been decided that the word "estate" included the income of the estate. He begged to move the insertion of the words "capital of the."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, line 12, after the first word 'the' to insert the words 'capital of the."—(Mr. Radford.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 11, line 37, to leave out the word "regulating' and insert the word 'prescribing.'—(Sir John Walton.)
Amendment agreed to.
The Report stage of the Bill was concluded.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. MICKLEMsaid he wanted the House to understand that the various Amendments he had moved had been proposed, not so much in his personal capacity, as because there were very large interests outside the House who, while desiring to see a public trustee appointed, were anxious that the Bill should work satisfactorily and well for all parties. He complimented the Attorney-General upon having conducted the Bill through the House with the utmost skill and discretion. There were, however, one or two points in the Bill to which attention should be drawn when it went up to the House of Lords. In the Bill as it stood now there was, for instance, an omission of the gravest moment in regard to Clause 7. The public must be satisfied that there was a Government guarantee for all acts of the public trustee. The clause ought to make provision for the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund in every case in which the public trustee acted. There was another point which was

1817
quite alien to the general scope of the Bill, and it seemed to him that it would be monstrous if at the end of the session, when the Bill had just been reprinted, they should introduce a sub-section which provided that any interest, possibly a mere executor, could divert a trust estate from the trustees and hand it over to the custodian trustee. That was inconsistent with the other provisions of the Bill, and it would upset the common practice of the country. The Attorney-General had suggested that that could only be done if a vacancy occurred, but he maintained that if the Bill passed as it now stood it would be possible for the whole of the trust funds of the country to be handed over to the custodian trustee. He hoped that the Attorney-General would take care that these two matters were remedied when the Bill went to another place.
Sir HOWARD VINCENTthought that the Bill would do a great deal of good, but he would remind hon. Members that it was a purely voluntary Act. No one need employ the public trustee unless he liked. He wished to express his great acknowledgment to the Government and the hon. and learned Attorney-General for the great pains they had taken to pass the Bill, which was in no sense a Party measure.
MR. R. PEARCEsaid he wanted to protest against the Third Reading of the Bill on the ground that it was inopportune to set up a public department which would cost a considerable amount of money in order to manage private property. He did not think the right remedy had been provided in
1818
the Bill. He agreed that there were frauds by trustees, but these could be punished by the criminal law. In his opinion the proper remedies for dealing with suspected trustees were contained in the Amendments which he had put on the Paper, but which been defeated.
Sir JOHN WALTONsaid he wished to acknowledge the kind references made to himself. He congratulated the House upon the good humour and fair-minded spirit in which the discussion upon a highly technical subject had been conducted. The result was that the Bill had been put into a business-like shape. He ought also to say that the House was indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield for the attention he had drawn to the subject in previous years, and he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's expectations would be realised, and the forebodings of the hon. Member for Leek falsified.
Question' put and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 3, line 29, after the word 'workshop,' to insert the words 'including any place which for the purpose of the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, with respect to accidents is a factory or workshop, or is included in the word 'factory' or 'workshop,' or is part of a factory or workshop;"
"In page 4, line 9, after the word 'seven,' to insert the words 'but the Secretary of State may appoint a later date (not being later than the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and eight), for any special provision of the Act to come into operation, and if a later date is so appointed, that special provision shall not come into operation until that later date."
Read a second time.
*The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said that both the Amendments had been inserted in the House of Lords at the instance of the Government. They raised no point of substance, and he moved that this House agree.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments," put, and agreed to.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendment, in lieu of Lords Amendment disagreed to by this House, to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Amendment to Amendment to Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
Removal of Offensive Matter Bill, Census of Production Bill, without Amendment.
Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, with Amendments.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 383.]

LAND TENURE BILL.
Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Edward Strachey.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Reason for disagreeing to certain of Lords Amendments to the Bill reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(MR. Secretary Gladstone.)
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
The House adjourned at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.