Commons Sitting of 2 July 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions the following Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the South Eastern or Bodmin Division of the County of Cornwall.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1854–1895.
Election of a Member of Parliament for the South Eastern or Bodmin Division of the County of Cornwall, holden on the 22nd day of January, 1906.
To the Right Honourable The Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, Sir William Grantham, Knight, and Sir John Compton Lawrance, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the Rota for the time being for the Trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby Certify in pursuance of the said Acts that upon the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 18th days of June, in this year, we duly held a Court at the Assize Courts, Bodmin, for the trial of, and did try the Election Petition for the South Eastern or Bodmin Division of the County of Cornwall, between William Henry Vallack, Tom and William Stuart Bruton Duff, Petitioners, and The Honourable

1367
Thomas Charles Reginald Agar-Robartes, Respondent.
And in further pursuance of the said Acts We Certify that at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Thomas Charles Reginald Agar-Robartes, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition was not duly elected and returned, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of Corrupt and Illegal Practices having been committed at the said Election, We, in further pursuance of the said Acts, Report as follows:—

1. That no corrupt or illegal practices were proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at the said Election.

2. That the person whose name appears in the First Schedule hereto was proved to have been guilty of the corrupt practice of treating.

3. That there is no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the said Election.

4. That the said Thomas Charles Reginald Agar-Robartes was guilty by his Agent of the corrupt practice of treating.

5. That a Certificate of Indemnity has been furnished to the person found guilty of treating whose name appears in the Second Schedule hereto.

And in further pursuance of the said Acts we hereby certify that at the con elusion of the said trial we differed as to whether the return concerning election expenses made under Section 33 of The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, did or did not constitute a proper or sufficient return of the said election expenses.
A Copy of the Evidence and of our Judgments, taken down and written out at length by the Deputies of the Shorthand Writer of the House of Commons, accompanies this our Certificate.
The First Schedule.
Name of Person found guilty of Treating.
Charles Alfred Millman.
The Second Schedule.
Name of Person furnished with a Certificate of Indemnity.
Charles Alfred Millman.
Dated this 28th day of June, 1906.
WM. GRANTHAM.
J. C. LAWRANCE.
And the said Certificate and Report from Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Lawrance, Judges of the High Court of Justice, were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
Copy of Shorthand Writer's Notes of Judgment and Evidence laid upon the-Table by Mr. Speaker.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received from the Judges appointed to try the several Election, Petitions the following Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Attercliffe Division of the City of Sheffield:
In the High Court of Justice, King's-Bench Division.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 1895.
The Election for the Attercliffe-Division of the City of Sheffield, holden on the 15th day of January, 1906.
To the Right Honourable The Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, Sir William Grantham, Knight, and Sir Joseph Walton, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the Rota for the time being for the Trial of Election Petitions in. England and Wales, do hereby Certify in pursuance of the said Acts that upon the 25th and 26th days of June of this year we duly held a Court at the Town Hall, Sheffield, for the Trial of and did try the Election Petition for the Attercliffe-Division of the City of Sheffield, between. Arnold Muir Wilson, Petitioner, and Batty Langley, Respondent. And in further pursuance of the said Acts We-Certify that at the conclusion of the said, trial We determined that the said Batty

1369
Langley, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition, was duly elected and returned, and that his Election was not void, and We do hereby Certify such our determination to you.
And whereas charges were made in the said Petition that the illegal practices therein specified had been committed in reference to the said Election, We, in further pursuance of the said Acts, Report as follows:—

1. That no illegal practice was proved to have been committed by, or with the knowledge and consent of, the said Batty Langley.

2. That no persons were proved to have been guilty of any illegal practices.

3. That there is no reason to believe that illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the said election.

4. That the said Batty Langley was not proved to have been guilty by his Agents of any illegal practice.

WM. GRANTHAM.
JOSEPH LAWSON.
Dated this 28th day of June, 1906.
And the said Certificate and Report from Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Walton, Judges of the High Court of Justice, were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
Copy of Shorthand Writer's Notes of Judgment and Evidence laid upon the Table by Mr. Speaker.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, &c.) Bill [Lords]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Education Board
  1370
  Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kest-even, &c.) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill, Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Bill [Lords]; Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  Trent Navigation Company Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; to be read a second time To-morrow.
  Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, without Amendment.
  Municipal Corporations Bill, with an Amendment.
  Justices of the Peace (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of further waterworks and the taking of water from the River Bure for the

  1371
  purpose of affording increased supplies of water by the Great Yarmouth Waterworks Company and the Lowestoft Water and Gas Company to confer further powers upon those companies with reference to their respective undertakings; and for other purposes." [Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords].
  Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
  Sir Louis MCIVER reported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. MORTONobjected
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that when the Bill was under discussion his name was mentioned as having given a certain undertaking. He did not reply at the time, as he did not wish to prolong the debate, but with the permission of the House he would now state that he had informed the railway companies of the views entertained by the hon. Member for Sutherland and others. The companies were fully alive to the importance of the questions involved, and were considering the question in all its aspects.
  MR. MORTONon this withdrew his objection.
  Bill read a third time and passed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Allerton, By-water, and Castleford; Allhallows; Amble; Beech Hill; Harwich; and, Newcastle-on-Tyne; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Brierley Hill (two); and, Tansley; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TENURE BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
  Petition from Sydenham and Forest Hill, for reduction; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of (Ireland) for the year 1905. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended December 31st, 1905, together with a Statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to Depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on December 31st, 1905, and the nature and amount of the Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated June 28th, 1906, declaring that Edward Wallace, Boy, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3658 and 3661 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Training of Teachers and for the Examination of Students in Training Colleges [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OSBORNE.
  Copy presented, of Report by the House Governor and Medical Superintendent at Osborne for the year ending March 31st, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE:—
  1. Richmond Bridge, Cash Account for the year 1905 [by Act].

  Session.

  Number of Applications.

  Number of Orders granted.

  Number subsequently transferred—

  Local Authorities.

  Companies.

  Local Authorities.

  Companies.

  To Local Authorities.

  To Companies.

  Session.

  List of Cases in which Local Authority consent was dispensed with.

  List of Cases in which Orders were refused to Companies on Opposition of Local Authority.

  List of Cases in which competing Applications were made by Local Authority and a Company, with result.

  List and particulars of Cases in which Promoters declined to accept an Order on account of conditions imposed by Board of Trade.

  2. Appeals to Board of Trade in regard to works during ten years ended March' 1906:—
  Section 1. Administrative county of London—

  (a) by local authorities;

  (b) by companies.

  Section 2. Other Areas—

  (a) by local authorities;

  (b) by companies.

  Date of Appeal.

  Order.

  Name and Description of Applicant.

  Object of Appeal.

  State if Appeal was Opposed or Approved by Local Authorities.

  Decision of Board of Trade.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1902 (APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS TO BOARD OF TRADE).
  Return ordered, "respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade upon Applications for Provisional Orders and Appeals to the Board of Trade, respecting Electricity Under-takings for Session 1896 to Session 1905 (both inclusive):—
  1. Applications for Provisional Orders under the Electric Lighting Acts, Session 1896 to Session 1905 (both inclusive):—
  Section 1. In respect of areas in the administrative county of London.
  Section 2. In respect of other areas.
  3. Applications and Appeals to Board of Trade in regard to change of pressure during ten years ended March, 1906:—
  Section 1. Administrative county of London—

  (a) by local authorities;

  (b) by companies.

  Section 2.Other areas—

  (a) by local authorities;

  (b) by companies.

  Date of Application or Appeal.

  Order.

  Name and Description of Applicant.

  State if Opposed or Approved by Local Authority.

  Decision of Board of Trade.

  Actual Pressure—

  At date of Application.

  As Altered.

  4. Applications by local authorities for approval of Board of Trade in regard to hours of access to street boxes during ten years ended March, 1906:—
  Section 1. Administrative county of London.
  Section 2. Other areas.

  Date of Application.

  Order.

  Name and Description of Applicant.

  Decision of Board of Trade.

  —(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Railways in British Protectorates, Leased Territories, and Colonies (other than the Transvaal and Orange River Colony) not possessing responsible Institutions, Address for "Return showing (1) the ownership and length of the Railways (a) in operation, (b) under construction, (c) authorised; (2) the methods, including State guarantees, if any, by which the funds for the construction of the Railways have been or are being raised; (3) the total capital expenditure incurred or authorised, together with the latest figures as to the gross annual revenue derived from the existing lines of Railway, and the corresponding working expenses."—(Mr. Walker.)

  VOLUNTEER BRIGADES.
  Address for "Return of the distribution of Provincial Volunteer Corps into Brigades and of the names of the officers appointed to command the Volunteer Provincial Brigades, showing their present age, place of residence, and their antecedent service either with the regular Army, the Militia, or the Volunteer
  1376
  Force, and the military scientific training they have passed through, such as the Staff College, the Royal Military Academies, or the School of Musketry." —(Sir Howard Vincent.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Proposed Transfer of Workmen from Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, after the representations made to the Government, the decision of the Admiralty to remove 200 men from Chatham to other dockyards is still to be adhered to; and, if not, whether he can put an end to the anxiety felt in Rochester and Chatham by announcing the present intentions of the Admiralty in this matter without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is not proposed to transfer these men to other yards.

  Sick Pay for Mr. Carmody, Sorter at Mount Pleasant Parcel Office.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the case of the sorter, Mr. Carmody, of the Mount Pleasant parcel office, whose pay was stopped for ten days in June, 1905, notwithstanding he was certified unfit for duty by the official medical officer for Limerick, and who has been further punished by having his increment deferred during the present year; and whether he will inquire into the merits of his case.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have already personally investigated the case of Mr. Carmody, and I am satisfied that his absence from duty in June, 1905, was not properly covered by medical certificate. Sick pay could not therefore be allowed to him. It was necessary to defer his increment, which otherwise would have accrued in April last, until a certificate of twelve months approved service could be given. This certificate I am glad to learn was given on July 1st, and in that case the increment will be allowed from that date.

  Post Office Servants—Entries on Defaulter Sheets.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the departmental rule in regard to making entries against a man on his official record sheet; if an officer applies would he be supplied with a copy of the entries made against him; if trivial reports made against a man by an official, on being dismissed in the man's favour after investigation by superior and competent authority, are recorded against the man on his record sheet; and whether an official is allowed to cause entries to be made against a man simply because he, the official, suspected, reported, and attempted to show that the man had committed an offence against discipline, notwithstanding the fact that the man proved his innocence of committing any disciplinary offence, and the reports falling through.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not sure what is the precise information desired by the hon. Member in answer to the first part of his Question. An officer would be supplied on application with a copy of the entries made
  1378
  against him. The Answer to the remaining parts of the Question is in the negative.

  Report of Departmental Committee on Death Duties.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the date when the Committee was appointed which considered the question of assessment and collection of death duties, which sat in 1898 under the chairmanship of the present Secretary of State for War; and where the evidence given and the Report of the Committee are to be seen.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Committee was appointed in 1898, and reported to the Treasury early in 1899. The Report was treated as confidential, in accordance with the practice usual in respect of the Reports of Departmental Committees on establishments, and was not published.

  Rex v. Watt—Cost of Deportation of the Witness Shuttle.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under which Vote in the Estimates the special service fund (at the expense of which the witness Shuttle, in the case of Rex v. Watt was sent to Canada) will appear.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The special service fund is not provided in the Votes of Parliament, but by a charge on the Consolidated Fund, forming part of the civil list charge, as the hon. Member will see on reference to page 43 of the annual Finance Accounts.

  Commission of the Peace—Fees and Stamp Duties.
  MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will state what are the total fees payable, by stamp duty and otherwise, by gentlemen appointed to His Majesty's Commission of the Peace in England, because of their appointment.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The only amount payable to Crown officials by English magistrates on their appointment to His Majesty's Commission of the Peace is the sum of one pound, payable to the Exchequer on the insertion of the names,

  1379
  irrespective of number, in a Commission of the Peace. With regard to the fees payable locally to clerks of the peace I beg to refer you to my replies to the hon. Member for the Guildford Division of Surrey on May 2nd and June 14th respectively.†

  Kew Garden Employees—Right of Combination.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been called to the notice posted at the Royal Botanic Gardens, to the effect that any person employed in the Royal Botanic Gardens who desires to make a complaint must send it in writing, with the complainant's name, to the curator, who will lay it before the director, and to the effect that it is strictly forbidden to make a complaint through an outside person, and any case of the kind will be regarded by the director as a serious breach of discipline; and will he say whether, in view of the right to negotiate through their representatives recently conceded to the workers of several Government Departments, he will have the notice removed, in order that the workmen at the Royal Botanic Gardens might enjoy the same privilege as the men in other Departments.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My noble friend the President of the Board gave directions in February last that the same procedure should be followed with respect to representations made by or on behalf of the men employed at Kew Gardens as that sanctioned in the case of Post Office servants. The notice referred to by my hon. friend was issued in 1903, and it is now in course of revision.

  Importation of Live Cattle for Immediate Slaughter—Suggested Removal of Restriction.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, as there has not been a case of foot-and-mouth disease either in Denmark or Holland for three years, and, according to the Return of the German Imperial Board of Agriculture, no case of foot-and-mouth disease for more than a year in
  † See (4) Debates, clvi., 561; clviii., 1148.
  1380
  Schleswig-Holstein, Oldenburg, Hanover, Westphalia, or the Rhine provinces, the Board of Agriculture will consider the advisability of at once removing the restrictions at present imposed on the importation of live cattle and sheep for immediate slaughter at the Deptford Foreign Cattle Market.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The experience of the last fifteen years has shown that, owing no doubt to their geographical situation, outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease may be expected to occur both in Denmark and Holland from time to time, and this being the case, and in view of the terms of the Disease of Animals Act, 1894, my noble friend regrets that he cannot consistently with his statutory duty make any modifications in the restrictions referred to. I may add that twenty-one cattle were attacked with the disease in Denmark in 1904, and that there were two cases in Holland in the same year.

  Indian Army Officers and Service with Militia during South African War.
  MR. SMEATON: To ask the Secretary of State for India, are officers who, previous to joining the Indian Army, served in the Militia during the South African war with' Army rank, and who, under the terms of War Office letter No 6/163d, June, 1905, are allowed to count such embodied or war service towards pension or gratuity in the British service, permitted to count it towards pension and promotion in the Indian Army in the same way as they would be allowed to count it if, at the time, they had borne commissions in the Regular Forces; and, if not, will he explain why not.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Officers of the Indian Army are allowed to reckon as service for Indian pension their service out of India before joining the Indian Army, to an extent not exceeding two years, and service in the embodied Militia is considered as service out of India for this propose. Promotion in the Indian Army is regulated by service from date of first permanent commission, and, therefore, under regulation, time in the embodied Militia does not reckon as service for promotion. It is the practice, however, specially to allow

  1381
  any such time passed on field service to reckon for promotion.

  Indian Educational Expenditure.
  MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the last quinquennial report on the education of the Government of India, compiled by Mr. Nathan, of the Indian Civil Service, the amount of direct expenditure on elementary education out of State funds, apart from fees and local funds, was stated to be only £90,000 for the year 1901–2, the last year for which figures were given; and will he state what corresponding amount was spent by the State during last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not yet in a position to answer this Question, but I hope very shortly to receive from the Government of India a reply to the inquiry which I addressed to them when the hon. Member first gave notice of the Question.

  Alleged Wrongful Imprisonment of Ryots at Backergunj.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Lack, the settlement officer at Barisal, has been complained against for wrongful imprisonment of the tenants (ryots) of two lady zemindars of Backergunj and other persons in the locality; that the complaint was dismissed by the local magistrate, Mr. Emerson, in his private room, without a hearing, as frivolous and false; whether such action lies within the power of Mr. Emerson; and whether, in view of the state of public feeling in the new province, he will say what steps he intends to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) As I stated in answer to a Question on the 21st June,† I have no information as to the facts, but I will inquire and consider whether any action is necessary.

  Irish Society and the Professor of Irish at Trinity College, Dublin.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Society nominates the professor of Irish in Trinity College, Dublin, and pays his
  † See Col. 350.
  1382
  salary, or whether the professor is subject to the jurisdiction of the board of the college in the same manner as all other professors.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Irish Government have no official information upon this subject, but the Question has been referred to the Provost of Trinity College, who states that in the year 1840 a number of gentlemen connected with the Irish Society subscribed a sum of money to aid in the foundation of a pro fessorship of Irish in the university, but the society, as such, had no part in the foundation of the chair. The then board of Trinity College, in agreeing to this foundation, undertook to pay annually the difference between the interest of this sum and £100 a year, to provide for the-study of the Irish language, pending the further collection of funds for the endowment of the chair. Public subscriptions raised the fund to a figure which when invested in Bank of Ireland stock gives on an average £100 a year. In the year 1871, by a decree of the board and visitors, the salary paid by the college itself was raised to £100 a year, so that the total salary of the professor is about £200. The funds subscribed by the public are invested in the names of the provost and fellows of Trinity College and the professor of Irish, and the election of the professor is vested in the trustees, who at present are the provost and the two Parliamentary representatives of the university ex officio together with Lord Ashbourne and Lord Ardilaum, who were co-opted some years ago by the then ex officio trustees under powers given to them by the deed of trust. These two latter trustees have never taken any action in connection with the chair. The professor, like other professors, is subject to the jurisdiction of the board, and no other body has any authority or jurisdiction over him.

  Erection of Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH (Sligo, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what action has been taken by local authorities with regard to the representations for the erection of forty-eight labourers' cottages which were forwarded by the Estates Commissioners to the Local Government Board and district councils in the period from November 1st, 1903,

  1383
  to March 31st, 1905, under Section 96 of the Land Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that, as a general rule, no action J has been taken by the rural district councils concerned in relation to such representations. In a few instances the consideration of the matter has been postponed until the council are making a new improvement scheme under the Labourers Acts, as the expense of making; and carrying through a scheme for one or two cottages included in a representation would be entirely out of proportion to the result. To remedy this defect, a clause I has been inserted in the Bill now before Parliament, providing that the representation shall practically be a scheme taking effect forthwith where the Local Government Board so order. A table will be appended to the Board's Annual Report for 1905–6, showing up to March 31st last the name of each rural district affected, the nature of the representations made, and the action, if any, taken thereon.

  Sale of Estates in County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of estates sold to tenants in the county of Sligo, and sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners, from the coming into operation of the Act of 1903 to the date of the last Return, the number sold by private treaty, and of those sold through the Estates Commission, with the average number of years' purchase given in each case respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that since the commencement of the Act they have made advances in the case of fourteen estates in Sligo sold direct by landlords to tenants, the average number of years' purchase of the tenanted land being 23–6. In the same period four estates in county Sligo were purchased by and vested in the Estates Commissioners, the average number of years' purchase of the tenanted land being 21. The Commissioners have no information as to sales effected by private treaty.

  The De Freyne Estate—Construction of a Road to the Village of Sheepwalk.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1384
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why, although the Congested Districts Board has purchased the estate of Lord De Freyne, no attempt has been made to provide a proper approach to the village of Sheepwalk; and whether he is aware that the want of such approach is causing great inconvenience to the population from day to day.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board have included, in their proposed scheme for the improvement of the De Freyne estate, the construction of a road to the village of Sheepwalk. The work, however, cannot be commenced until the estate has been legally vested in the Board.

  Evicted Tenant on the Madden Estate—Case of M. A. Kiernan.
  MR. T. SMYTH (Leitrim, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the fact that an evicted tenant named M. A. Kiernan, residing at Aughakiltubrid, Cloone, county Leitrim, on the Madden estate, which has been sold recently to the tenants at twenty-four-and-a-half years' purchase, was refused the right to purchase by the landlord, unless the amount of the arrears of rent due was added to the purchase money; and if he will call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this case, so that the evicted tenant may get the same terms as the other tenants who have purchased their holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the former holding of Mary A. Kiernan is included in the lands for the sale of which the owner has lodged an originating application, but no purchase agreement in respect thereof has been lodged. Mrs. Kiernan's application for reinstatement will be inquired into by the Commissioners when they are dealing with the estate.

  Withdrawal of Grant from Corlea School.
  SIR E. CARSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Education in Ireland have given notice that they will withdraw all grants from Corlea school after June 31st next, being a vested school under Church of Ireland management; how long these grants have been in existence; and whether the Commissioners of Education

  1385
  have made any arrangements for the religious instruction of the pupils attending Corlea school in the event of that school being closed and the children compelled to attend the nearest school, which is under Presbyterian management.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that by order of February 13th, 1906, they directed the withdrawal of grants from Corlea school from June 30th, upon the ground that it is no longer required, as there is sufficient provision for the education of the pupils at other national schools in the locality. The school is under Irish Church management, but is non-vested. It has been in connection with the Board since 1859. Thirteen of the pupils belong to the Irish Church, twelve are Presbyterians, and five are Roman Catholics. Two schools are available for the pupils, namely, Gillygooley, one-and-a-half miles distant, under Irish Church management; and Aughee, one-and-a-quarter miles distant, under Presbyterian management. As the latter school is a vested school clergymen have, under the Board's rules, "the right of access to the pupils of their own denomination for the purposes of religious instruction in the school.

  Refusal of Chief Secretary to Receive a Deputation from Irish Protestant Teachers Union.
  MR. T. L. COEBETT (Down, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he declined to receive a deputation of the Irish Protestant National Teachers Union; and, if so, on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I informed the committee of this organisation that, owing to the many matters of immediate importance which called for my attention, I found it impossible to receive a deputation, but at the same time I told them that I should be happy to consider any written statement of the matters which they desired to bring to my notice. I have since received a statement from the committee and will give it due consideration, but the question raised in it is largely one for the Commissioners of National Education.

  Evicted Tenants in County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1386
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector has been sent to inquire into the cases of evicted tenants in Kerry; and, if so, whether he can report any reinstatements.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that one of their inspectors has been inquiring into the cases of evicted tenants in Kerry for some time past, but he has as yet reported no reinstatements as the result of his operations. Negotiations for reinstatement are, however, proceeding in a number of cases.

  Purchase of Mr. Walsh's Estate at Castletown, County Kilkenny.
  MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been made by Mr. Walsh, the owner of an estate at Castletown, county Kilkenny, to the Estates Commissioners, for the purchase of the estate from him; if so, when; whether a large proportion of this estate consists of evicted holdings in his possession; and whether, with a view to the restoration of these tenants, the Estates Commissioners will direct an inspector to visit the lands without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that on January 22nd last Mr. Peter Walsh offered his estate for sale to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Act of 1903. The property comprises 165 acres in the occupation of tenants, as well as 129 acres of untenanted land which Mr. Walsh wishes to repurchase. The Commissioners have received applications from five evicted tenants for reinstatement in their former holdings on this estate. The case will shortly come before the Commissioners for their directions as to an inspection of the property.

  King's Scholars' Examination—Books Recommended.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that in the programme for the King's Scholars' examination for 1907, formulated by the Irish Commissioners for National Education, dated March last, amongst the books recommended for general reading, along with the works of authors like Shakespeare, Goldsmith, Scott, and Stevenson,

  1387
  is included "Some experiences of an Irish R. M."; can he state what official is responsible for this selection; and can nothing more useful be officially recommended to King's Scholars.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that they are themselves responsible for the selection of the book referred to, which is considered to be suitable for general reading.

  Cases of James Clancy and William Francis—Award of Arbitrator.
  MR. FFRENCH (Wexford, S): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wexford District Council, at a recent meeting, condemned by resolution the action of the arbitrator, Mr. Cliff Owen, by which he awarded, in the case of James Clancy and William Francis, £15 and £21 17s. 6d. respectively, whilst the council's offer was £5 and £8 10s.; I whether he can state the basis by which the arbitrator arrived at the award; and if he will make provision in the Labourers' Bill to prevent awards of this kind.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local, Government Board have received the resolution referred to. The facts, however, are not correctly stated in the Question. In the case of James Clancy, who claims £10, the council offered £5, and the arbitrator awarded £8 10s., of which £1 was allowed for special injury to the claimant's lands. In the case of William Francis, who claimed £37 10s., the council offered £15, and the arbitrator awarded £21 17s. 6d. The arbitrator arrived at his decision after taking into consideration the sworn evidence of all the parties and after inspection of the plots. It is not proposed to make any alteration of the law as regards arbitration.

  Condition of Terryglass (County Tipperary) Graveyard.
  MR. HOGAN (Tipperary, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause the Local Government Board to institute an inquiry into the condition of the Terryglass, county Tipperary, graveyard, now reduced to a commonage for cattle owing to the falling of the protecting wall, with the object of ascertaining who is respon-
  1388
  sible for the state to which the graves and headstones have been reduced, and of compelling those legally liable to at once put the place in proper repair.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board informed the rural district council in November last that, as the burial ground in question is attached or contiguous to a place of worship, the provisions of Section 185 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, do not apply to the case; and the Board suggested that the council should address the representative church body, in whom the burial ground is vested, and urge them to carry out the necessary repairs. The Board have not since received information that anything has boon done, and they are not aware of any remedy in the matter unless the district council are prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility of executing the repairs needed.

  Labourers' Cottages at Athenry.
  MR. DUFFY (Galway, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to a set of resolutions passed by the townspeople of Athenry on the 24th ultimo; is he aware that a mistake in the measurement of the labourers' cottages has been discovered; that the Antiquarian Society claim 22 feet of the gardens all about and around the old King's Castle of Athenry, and that a drain, 16 feet wide and 90 feet long, also runs through the land on which one of the cottages has been built; and what steps do the Local Government Board propose to take in order to protect the rights of these labouring men.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand from the Local Government Board that representations to the effect stated in the Question were made some time ago to the district council, but it was found on investigation that these representations were not correct. The Town Tenants' Association at Athenry has recently forwarded to the Board and to the district council a resolution on the subject. The council, having regard to the previous investigation, declined to take any further action in the matter, and the same view was taken by the local Government Board.

  Purchases of Untenanted Land on the Cusack Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the result of the negotiations by the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of the untenanted lands on the Cusack, county Longford, estate; whether the solicitor in charge, Mr. Daniels, has made any further motion to delay sale; and when a definite decision will be given.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the Estates Commissioners' offer for the purchase of this estate, including both the tenanted and untenanted land, has now been accepted by the Land Judge. The registrar of the court informs me that there are no grounds for the suggestion that the solicitor has endeavoured to delay the sale.

  Distribution of Bog on the Granard Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaint has reached the Land Commission as to distribution of bog on the Granard estate; whether in several cases tenants have been deprived of turbary guaranteed to them under their vesting orders; and, if so, will an inquiry be made by an inspector as to their cases, and the possibilities of getting turbary supplies for them elsewhere on the same estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am afraid I can add nothing to the very full reply given by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to the hon. Member's Question of February 26th.† If any tenant purchaser has been deprived of his legal rights he has his remedy at law. The Land Commissioners have, I am informed, no power to intervene in the matter with the object of procuring turbary for the tenant purchasers, and no purpose, therefore, would be served by their having an inquiry made.

  Elephant Marsh Game Reserve, Central Africa.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the facts that the elephant marsh game reserve
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 793.
  1390
  extends up to Chironio town, which lions actually enter, so that the inhabitants go in fear of their lives; that several lives have been lost; that destruction of lions within the reserve is not permitted; that game of the same class as is preserved in this reserve exists in other parts of the British Central Africa Protectorate, where also game reserves have been established; that Chironio is a town growing in size, population, and importance; that complaints do not proceed from local planters, but from the inhabitants of the town; that no claim is put forward, or application made, for any of the land included in the reserve for cultivation, or for speculative purposes; and whether, in view of these facts, and for the reason also that injudicious reservation is prejudicial to the cause of game protection in Africa, the Government will consider the propriety of calling upon the Commissioner to amend the boundaries of the elephant marsh reserve, so as to remove it to a safe distance from the township of Chironio.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As I informed my hon. friend on May 14th, ‡ the Secretary of State has already addressed the Commissioner of the British Central Africa Protectorate on the subject referred to in this Question, and he proposes to await the reply to his despatch before taking any further action.

  Kaffirs Employed in the Transvaal.
  MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of Kaffirs employed in the Transvaal Colony on May 31st, 1906, by the Public Works Department, by the military authorities, in domestic service, and in trade generally respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The latest figures received of natives holding passports and working in labour districts of the Transvaal are those for April 30th, which give 95,458 for mines and works, and 84,522 for other employ, but they do not show how this last number is distributed among various employments.

  Extension of Railway from Djibuti to Harrar.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clvii., 175–6.

  1391
  make any communication to the House regarding the extension inland of the railway from Djibuti to Harrar.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The matter still being under negotiation, I am unable at present to afford the hon. Member the desired information.

  Small Holdings Committee—Witnesses from Caithness.
  MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the names of witnesses from Caithness who gave evidence before the departmental committee of the Board of Agriculture when in Scotland recently to inquire into the subject of small holdings; if he will state the qualifications of the witnesses to give evidence on the subject of small holdings; whether the witnesses' expenses were paid out of public moneys; and whether any fees were received by the witnesses.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I have communicated with Lord Onslow, the chairman of the committee, and he desires me to say that the names of the witnesses referred to are Mr. John Miller, of Brabsterdorran, and Mr. James Nicolson, of Watten. Mr. Miller is a parish councillor, who rents a small holding and has made a lifelong study of the land question, and Mr. Nicolson is a factor who has the management of several estates on which a number of small holdings exist. No fees are paid to witnesses, but they receive their travelling expenses and subsistence allowance on the usual Treasury scale, the cost being defrayed from the Vote for Temporary Commissions.

  Cambridge Cottage, Kew.
  CAPTAIN BALFOUR: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state whether any steps will be taken during the present year to carry out the intention of the Government to utilise the house and grounds of Cambridge Cottage, Kew Gardens, as a museum illustrative of forestry, pomology, and the diseases of farm and garden crops.
  1392
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have addressed representations on this subject to the Treasury, but our proposals have not been sanctioned, and' I am afraid that there is no prospect of the necessary funds becoming available? during the present financial year.

  Return of Battleships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that five battleships, which are described as first-class battleships in the recent Return (Fleets of the Powers) issued to Parliament, were, in the last Statement of Admiralty Policy,, issued by Lord Cawdor in November,, 1905, characterised as so defective that even if two millions were spent on them the nation would merely have acquired indifferent ships, three-quarters worn out,, and so poorly protected as to be vulnerable to second-class cruisers; and whether he can explain how these vessels came to be included in a Return which has been widely quoted as showing our great strength in first-class battleships.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Ships whose armaments have not been surrendered or reduced are classified in this Return as heretofore.

  American Gambling Operations in Tin— Danger to Home Trade.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to American gambling in warrants in tin in London, a corner was lately formed and the price thereby artificially raised to £203 per ton, thus entailing loss to British manufacturers in Birmingham, the Midlands, and South Wales, and that, owing to the action of a bear clique in London, the corner has collapsed and the price has already declined in a state of panic some £29 per ton, or to £174, thereby again disorganising the whole trade, besides jeopardising the newly developed mining industry in Cornwall; and whether he can state what steps His-Majesty's Government intend to take in order to prevent a recurrence of these gambling operations, with the object of protecting legitimate commerce and home industries.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware that the price of tin in London

  1393
  rose from £160 5s. per ton at the end of 1905, to £213 at May 15th, 1906. Since that date the price has declined almost continuously, and on June 28th, it stood at £177 15s. Both the rise and fall appear to be due to a combination of causes among which no doubt speculation has been an important factor. Other causes are the state of the world's supply and stocks of tin, and the conditions prevailing in the tinplate trade. I do not consider that any steps could usefully be taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter.

  Great Southern and Western Railway Company and Mr. Peter Dowling's Water Supply.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have been in the habit of cutting away the water supply from the mill of Mr. Peter Dowling, Straboe, Maryborough, Queen's County, which passes under their line, causing loss and inconvenience to the millowner and his customers, which they decline to pay compensation for; and will he see that this practice on the part of the railway company is discontinued.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My attention had not previously been called to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but it is not one in which the Board of Trade appear to have any power to intervene.

  Danger from Sparks from Engines on the Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland).
  MR. DELANY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that extensive damage has been done to residents along the Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland) in consequence of sparks flying from their engines igniting hay, straw, and dwelling-houses situated adjacent to the line; whether he is aware that the company are using new and powerful locomotives, without the necessary safeguards to control sparks being attached; and will he see that proper restrictions shall be enforced to protect the property of those living along the line.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No complaint of the damage referred to by
  1394
  the hon. Member has been received by the Board of Trade, but in any case the Department have no powers which would enable them to take the action suggested.

  State Grant to Catholic Elementary Schools in Manchester, Preston, Southampton, and Bristol.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether be can state what is the amount per child of State grant and of rate aid for Catholic elementary schools of Manchester, Preston, Southampton, and Bristol for the last ended financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Board have no information as to the sums spent upon voluntary schools (as distinct from the council schools) from the rates. The-gross annual expenditure per child on maintenance in respect of council and voluntary schools taken together, during the most recent year for which figures are available, was in Manchester £4 4s. 0d., in Preston £2 9s. 7d., in Southampton £4 6s. lid., and in Bristol £3 12s. Id. These figures include the amounts contributed from Exchequer grants and from the rates, and from other sums, if any, received from fees, or endowments, or other sources. So far as can be gathered from the records, the total Exchequer grants, including the special aid grant under Section 10 of The Education Act, 1902, paid in respect of the same year, amounted, so far as the Catholic schools only in these towns are concerned, to an. average of £1 19s, 7½d. per child in the case of the twenty-five Catholic schools, in Manchester, taken together; to £2 Cs. 9d. in the case of the seven Catholic schools in Preston; to £1 19s. 9d. in the case of the two Catholic schools in Southampton; and to £2 0s. 6½d. in the case of the five Catholic schools in: Bristol.

  Pensions Withheld from Inmates of Irish Lunatic Asylums.
  MR. COGAN, (Wicklow, E.): To ask the Secretary to. the Treasury whether he has, as promised, looked into the question of pensions withheld from the inmates of Irish lunatic asylums, and if he is now able to state that a sum equivalent to the amount so withheld, will be paid' into the local taxation account, or to make the pensions payable

  1395
  to the persons who are dependent on the pensioners.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have looked into this question, and I find that no pensions have been withheld from the inmates of Irish lunatic asylums, which could legally have been paid to them. After making the deduction, if any, necessitated explicitly by Section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, the net pension is paid to the local authority which is responsible for the maintenance of the pensioner in the asylum. If it is more than sufficient to cover the cost of his maintenance therein, the balance, after deducting the cost of such maintenance, is paid to his representatives.

  Loans Under the Housing of the Working Class Act.
  MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what loans have been allowed during the last two years under the Housing of the Working Class Act repayable over eighty years.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The number of loans of the kind referred to in the Question is twenty-two, and they amount to the sum of £258,962. I shall be happy to give my hon. friend a list of them if he so desires. I may add that the number above stated is exclusive of several loans which comprise not only items of expenditure for which eighty years would be allowed, but also other items for which a shorter term would be granted. In such cases an equated period of less than eighty years has been fixed for the repayment of the whole loan.

  Assaults by Natives on British Soldiers Stationed in the Himalayas
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will communicate to the House any particulars regarding assaults alleged to have been committed this summer by natives of India upon British soldiers occupying stations in the Himalayas.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I regret to have no information available, but will address the Government of India on the subject.

  Harbour Improvements at Wicklow, Arklow, and Portavogie.
  MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what progress has been made with the work of harbour improvements at Wicklow, Arklow, and Portavogie, for which provision was made in the Vote for the Ireland Development Grant of 1905–6.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In each of the cases mentioned further progress awaits action by the local bodies concerned. Wicklow: The sum of £10,000 as a maximum is to be paid to local authorities undertaking the works, subject to the approval by Government of the plans, and to the certificate of the Government engineer as to the execution of the works. Arklow: The Government await the receipt from the Harbour Board of plans and estimates for the proposed works. Portavogie: The County Council of Down have submitted plans and estimates for a scheme entirely different from that originally proposed by them and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman when in office. This fact was pointed out to the Council on 16th May last, but no further communication has yet been received from them.

  Mullaranny and Belmullet Railway—Intention of the Government.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now able to make an announcement respecting the intentions of the Government as to the construction of a line of railway between Mullaranny and Belmullet?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject which, owing to the number of alternative schemes and the difficulty of finding funds, is one of great complexity.

  Extension of Cavan and Leitrim Railway.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to make a statement with respect to the extensions of the Cavan and Leitrim railway, for which provision was made in the Vote for the Ireland Development Grant of 1905–6.

  1397
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that progress in this matter has been interrupted by local opposition, which has manifested itself in an expressed intention on the part of the County Council to oppose the necessary legislation to be promoted by the railway company. In these circumstances the Government, while regretting the interruption in the progress of what they regard as a useful scheme, are unable to interfere.

  Hillas Estate, Templeboy—Case of Patrick Foley.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the purchase of the Hillas estate, Templeboy, county Sligo, has been completed; whether he is aware that a tenant on this estate named Patrick Foley, of Dunowla, Templeboy, is being threatened with eviction for non-payment of £11 10s., one and a-half year's rent, by the agent on this estate, Mr. Richard Robinson, of Sligo, unless he agrees to purchase at a price fixed by the agent; that this tenant was evicted in 1895, and his house thrown down, and afterwards admitted as a future tenant on payment of £67 2s. 1d. by himself and a brother in America; and whether he will ask the Estates Commissioners to investigate the case of this tenant, with a view to prevent undue pressure being put upon him by the agent?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the originating application for the sale of this estate was lodged on the 11th April last, and will be dealt with in its order of priority. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the circumstances mentioned in the Question, but, before sanctioning the advances applied for, the Commissioners will duly inquire into the circumstances under which no purchase agreement has been lodged in the case of Patrick Foley, a tenant on the estate.

  Purchase of Errieff Grazing Farm.
  DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations are going on between a grazier and the owner of a grazing farm called Errieff, on the Phibbs estate in the parish of Keelogues, near Castlebar, county Mayo, with a view to the purchase of this farm; is be aware of the number of many small uneconomic
  1398
  holdings in the vicinity of this farm; and will he see that it is purchased, either by the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners, for the benefit of those people who live on uneconomic holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have no information as to any negotiations for purchase which may be proceeding in this case. The property has not been offered to the Congested Districts Board, but the Board will, at their next meeting, consider the question whether they should make an offer for purchase.

  Suggested Withdrawal of Grant from Roughfort School.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Templepatrick and Mallusk national schools are within one mile from Roughfort school; and whether, in view of this fact, he will consider the advisability, in the interests of economy, of recommending the withdrawal of the grant from Roughfort school.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the question of the necessity for Roughfort national school has already been under their consideration, but in view of the recent increase in the average attendance, they have decided to take no action for the present. The attendance for the quarter ended 31st March last was 36.

  Dismissal of Teacher of Roughfort National School.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why the teacher of Roughfort national school, county Antrim, is being dismissed by the manager.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education have no information on this subject.

  Damage to Rathlin Island Fishing Ground by Steam Trawlers.
  MR. GLENDINNING (Antrim, N.); To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that damage is being done to the Rathlin Island fishing by steam trawlers trawling quite close to the island; and

  1399
  whether he will take any measures to prevent this practice being carried on in future?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture have received no complaints on this subject, and are not aware that damage is being done. Should any facts be brought to their notice showing the necessity for investigation, they will deal promptly with the matter.

  Increment for Teacher of Scartaglen National School, County Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of delay in intimating to the teachers of Scartaglen national school, county Kerry, Roll No. 8184, the granting of increments of good service salary, seeing that they are entitled to the same by the annual examination reports for the last three years, the same describing the school as good, very good, and excellent.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the question of granting increments of continued good service salary is at present under their consideration. In the particular cases referred to, the decision of the Commissioners will be announced at an early date.

  South African Mineowners and Payment of the War Debt.
  Mr. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the president of the responsible Government Association declared recently, at a meeting hold in Johannesburg, that he had reliable information that the mine magnates wished to control the country for five years, during which time they intended to import thousands of free Chinese to extract the last ounce of gold from the mines, and then to retire and leave the Colony burdened with debt and swamped with Chinamen; and whether the Government will take measures to enforce the payment of the guarantee given by the mineowners to meet war expenses.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have read in the newspapers that such a statement was made and immediately
  1400
  contradicted. The undertaking given by certain mineowners was not a guarantee to pay, but only a guarantee to underwrite £10,000,000 of a loan to be raised by the Transvaal Government when the market conditions were favourable. Any such war contribution would, of course, need to be voted by the new Legislature under responsible government.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Overtime in the Royal Dockyards.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the decision to avoid working overtime as much as possible in the Royal dockyards will in any way alter the policy of the Admiralty, as outlined in Lord Cawdor's statement of Admiralty policy, of completing four armoured ships in the year, and more if Foreign Powers increased their programmes.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The question of overtime will not affect the policy adopted as regards new construction.

    New German Battleships—Cost of Gun Armaments.
    MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Amiralty what is the estimated cost of the gun armament of the new German battleships, as laid down in the German Navy Estimates.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The total sum appearing in the German Navy Estimates under the heading Gun Armament is £660,470 per ship. This would appear to include, however, not merely guns, but mountings and armour. The Admiralty have no further detailed information.
    MR. COWAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty adhere to the description of the two new German battleships, given in the Return of Fleets, No. 129, issued last May, as designed to have a displacement of 17,710 tons and an armament of eight 11 inch and twelve 7·5 inch guns.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty have no later definite information regarding these battleships.

    Trades Union Rate of Wages in Royal Dockyards.
    MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in view of the intention of the Government to recognise the trade union irate of wages in the dockyards, and in | view of the Admiralty having received a petition from the men on the subject, it is the intention of the Admiralty to act up to that intention, and when?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty have received, and are now considering, a large number of petitions from the dockyards. These petitions will be dealt with in the spirit of my statement in the course of the debate on 1st March,† but it is not at present possible to say how soon such changes as may be necessary will take effect.

    Chatham Dockyard.
    MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the area of the land covered by the Government dockyard at Chatham, and the estimated value thereof, the number of and estimated value of the building slipways, the capacities and estimated value of the floating and dry docks, and the estimated value of all the machinery and buildings.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The area covered by the dockyard proper may be taken as approximately 500 acres. The building slipways are four in number, and there are three basins and eight docks, a detailed statement of the dimensions of which I propose to send to the hon. Member. No precise valuation of this property is possible, and even a rough estimate would require considerable time and labour to compile.

    Rosyth.
    MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he proposes to make a statement as to the policy of the Government in the matter of Rosyth.
    † See (4) Debates, clii., 1372–5.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I shall not be in a position to make any statement on the subject during the present session.
    MR. YOUNGER: Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the statement of policy he made in March last.‡
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am unable to add anything to what I said then.
    MR. YOUNGER: But you withdraw nothing?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    H.M.S. "Montagu."
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, when the Board expect to get the "Montagu" off the rocks; what ships are to be employed in bringing the floating dock from Bermuda for purposes of docking her; and whether the Board are still satisfied, in view of the strains to which the ship has been subjected, that the expenditure on salving and repair will be justified.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The date cannot be given as it must necessarily be affected largely by the state of the weather. There has never been any intention of bringing home the dock named for the purpose indicated. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    Commutation of Army Pensions.
    MR. BARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, while a retired commissioned officer may commute part of his pension as early as forty years of age, and a pensioned non-commissioned officer or man at fifty, a retired warrant officer is debarred this privilege until he attains the age of fifty-five; and whether, in view of the fact that non-commissioned officers and warrant officers on returning to civil life are often seriously handicapped for want of means to make a start in business for themselves, he will cause the regulation regarding the commutation of pensions to be amended.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, clii., 1326.
    THE SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Some relaxation has recently been allowed in regard to the age at which retired officers are permitted to commute a portion of their retired pay, and I should like to make a somewhat similar concession in the case of retired warrant and non-commissioned officers and soldiers, where commutation was clearly to their advantage. The subject of commutation generally, however, is not altogether free from difficulty, and at present I can only say that I have it under my consideration.

    3rd Infantry Brigade, Aldershot—D. Bremner's Deferred Pay
    MR. CLAVELL SALTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of D. Bremner, late corporal in charge of the Medical Inspection Room, 3rd Infantry Brigade, Aldershot, who was discharged from the Army on February 6th, 1906, after twenty-four and a half years service, without receiving the deferred pay to which he became entitled on his discharge; whether he is aware that Bremner's deferred pay was withheld from him upon the alleged ground that he was only a private and had improperly drawn corporal's pay from November 1st, 1902 until January 31st, 1906; and whether, seeing that Bremner was appointed corporal by the colonel commanding the 42nd Regimental District in July, 1901, and thereafter until the date of his discharge continuously performed corporal's duties and was allowed to wear corporal's uniform, and in view of the fact that his pay as corporal was always passed by the Pay Office, he will state what justification exists for withholding the sum due.
    MR. HALDANE: This case was decided locally in the Aldershot Command, and I am having inquiries made about it.

    Training of Irish Army Candidates.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether ho is aware that owing to the absence of Volunteer regiments in Ireland in which Army candidates from the universities could get military training, as they do in England and Scotland, provision was made more than a year ago
    1404
    whereby Irish candidates were nominally gazetted to Militia regiments without being required to join them; that further regulations were made whereby applications were made by the colonels of such Militia regiments to the commanding officers of Regular regiments for the admission of such candidates to training with the Regulars, and that this was done without trouble to the candidates or universities, and has worked well for the-last eighteen months; will he explain why this arrangement has been upset by the War Office authorities, who now require Irish Army candidates to sign and fill up forms necessary in the case of those who purpose joining the Militia, involving details and certificates, baptismal and otherwise, with medical certificates, and involving expense for no useful purpose, as these forms, or analogous ones, must be afterwards filled and sent in before admission to the Army; and will he do away with these details, and revert to the arrangements which were approved of by the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, and which have hitherto worked well.
    MR. HALDANE: The facts of the case are not accurately stated. Formerly a university candidate had first to become a Militia officer and then to apply through his Militia, Yeomanry, or Volunteer commanding officer to be attached to a Regular unit. In order to save him the trouble of applying through several authorities, and largely on account of the representations of the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, arrangements were made whereby, if not already holding a commission in the Auxiliary Forces, he could apply through his university authorities, direct to the War Office—(a) to be given a commission on the Unattached List of the Auxiliary Forces, and (b) to be attached to a Regular unit. On receipt of such application all further arrangements are made by the War Office. This arrangement was made by the War Office, not by the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, who has no authority to make such arrangements. It applies equally to all universities whether in Ireland or elsewhere. The present procedure is thus the simplest that could be-devised. To fill in a simple form is a small matter for a gentleman who desires the honour of receiving His Majesty's Commission in the Auxiliary Forces, with

    1405
    a view to being attached to, and commanding men in, a Regular unit, and subsequently obtaining a commission in a Regular unit. A medical certificate of fitness is always required before a commission is given in the Auxiliary Forces. This certificate may save a candidate, who would be rejected by the final Medical Board, from subsequent disappointment, and from the expense of attachment.

    Army Nursing Service.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to make reductions in the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service, seeing that the numbers employed in military hospitals are far in excess of the requirements of the sick, and that much public money could be thereby saved.
    MR. HALDANE: The establishment of the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service was fixed to provide for the efficient nursing of the sick in military hospitals at home and abroad, and to establish in connection with these hospitals nurse training schools for the men of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Increased responsibilities in both respects have been delegated to the nursing service. The distribution of the staffs has been decided upon by the civil matrons of the Nursing Board, and all matters relating to Army nursing form the subjects of recommendation by that Board, and is not, in the opinion of my expert advisers, in excess of the requirements. It must be remembered that the standards of the medical care and treatment which are requisite for the sick have risen during the last few years, and that the improvement is resulting not only in more humane methods, but in a saving of public money which is not less substantial because it is indirect.

    Cason Mine Manager.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Jamieson, compound manager of the Cason mine, was charged at Boksburg Court on the 25th instant with flogging a Chinaman; that Thomas Radcliffe, who was the chief witness, swore that Jamieson administered twenty-five blows with great cruelty, rendering
    1406
    the victim unable to work; that the coolie said he received only one slight blow, and that his evidence was corroborated by other coolies; whether he has official information showing that the magistrate said that the charge brought by Radcliffe was gross perjury, and the case concocted by him; and, seeing that Mr. Jamieson was discharged and Radcliffe arrested in court for perjury and removed to gaol, he will state by whose authority the prosecution of Mr. Jamieson was authorised.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.); I have already informed the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth in reply to a Question on Thursday last† that a report upon the case has been called for by telegraph and will reach us by mail.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: And will the hon. Gentleman inquire who forwarded Radcliffe's affidavit to the authorities?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    MR. GIBBS (Bristol, W.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that in the case of Mr. Jamieson, charged at the Boksburg Court on June 25th, the magistrate said that the witness Radcliffe had committed perjury, and that he ought to be prosecuted; and whether, if that is so, it is intended to proceed against this witness for perjury.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No official information has yet been received, but a telegram has been sent asking for particulars.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the hon. Gentleman make some inquiry into the career of this Radcliffe in this country? Did he not offer his services to each Party alike at the last General Election either to support or condemn Chinese Labour?
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Radcliffe has personally stated
    † See Col. 1128.

    1407
    to Members of this House that that statement about him is absolutely false?
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: It is absolutely true.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It is not.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It would be most improper for me to pronounce any opinion on the character of the man whose name has been mentioned.

    Ceylon Pearl Fisheries.
    MR. MENZIES (Lanarkshire, S.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies seeing that the profits of the Ceylon Government Pearl Fisheries were £150,000 for last year, and that Professor Herdmann believed that the amount of profit would be very large in future years, why the Government accepted £20,666 rental per annum for a lease of twenty years without asking or advertising for tenders.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies which I have recently given to similar Questions in the House, and in which I have stated what I understand to be the reasons that actuated the late Government in the course which they adopted.
    MR. MENZIES: Does the hon. Gentleman consider an adequate consideration is given in rental?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now asking as to a matter of opinion.
    MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that, after the close of the 1905 season, the Ceylon Government Pearl Fisheries were leased to a private company for twenty years at a rent equivalent to £20,666 a year, how that annual rent compares with the annual revenue derived by the Ceylon Government from these pearl fisheries in the years 1903, 1904, and 1905, respectively; and what was the amount of that revenue for each of those three years.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is impossible to state the exact figures from the information available here, but, as nearly as I can estimate them, the net receipts were, in
    1408
    1903 Rs. 630,000 (£42,000), in 1904 Rs. 915,000 (£61,000), and in 1905 Rs. 2,300,000 (£153,300). I am bound to add that the results of these three years,, in each of which there was a successful, and in the last a record fishery, do not of themselves afford a basis for computing what would be a fair rental, and that the rent payable by the company under their lease is roughly the average net revenue obtained over a period of twenty years including and ending with 1905, during which there were twelve years in which the fishery failed altogether.
    MR. J. D. WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Professor Herdmann, the expert, has expressed an opinion that as things stand now—
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be-given of that Question.

    Native Labour for the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement, recently published in Johannesburg by the Transvaal Mines Labour Company, that an adequate supply of Native labour could be obtained so as to gradually rid the Colony of Chinese labour, that the company had a well-planned organisation, and had secured the services of men thoroughly familiar with recruiting work in South Africa, that it was prepared to supply at once, as a first instalment, 5,000 Kaffirs for the mines, and also to deposit £5,000 as security for the due performance of the contract; and whether, under these circumstances, His Majesty's Government will take all such measures as may be necessary under the terms of the modus vivendi between this Country and Portugal to remove the interdict which has been placed by the Portuguese authorities upon the recruiting of Native labour on the East Coast of Africa by any other persons than those employed by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen a statement to this effect. I would refer my hon. friend to my Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Chester on June 18th,† as well as to the speech of
    † See 4 Debates, clviii., 1363.

    1409
    Secretary of State made in another place on Friday last, wherein it has been made clear that His Majesty's Government are willing to permit and facilitate the recruiting of Kaffirs by other bodies besides the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association provided that their reputation and responsibility are established. Communications are even now proceeding in that intention both with Lord Selborne and with the Foreign Office.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to exclude private recruiting? Is he acquainted with the character of the Transvaal Labour Mines Company?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I have a good deal of information about that. It is not the intention of the Government to re-institute open recruiting, but we are prepared to secure equal treatment for every responsible body.
    MR. REES: May I ask if, in carrying out this policy, the Government will bear in mind the fact that recruiting in Tropical Central Africa is exceedingly fatal to the coolies who go to the Rand and of very little advantage to the mining industry?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have every reason to believe that it will be discontinued.

    The Repatriated Chinese Coolies.
    MR. LONSDALE,: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the twelve coolies who have applied for repatriation have been returned to China, and, if not whether the Government will consider the desirability of commissioning them to explain to their compatriots in the mines the new proposals for inducing coolies to embrace the means of escape from their present condition.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As these coolies have already returned to China my honourable friend's solicitude is too late.

    Military Operations in Nigeria.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to recent military operations against
    1410
    natives in Nigeria; and whether the unrest is due to the circulation of seditious, matter among the Mussulman population.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received full reports from Sir Frederic Lugard as to the recent military operations near Sokoto and at Hadeija in Northern Nigeria. There is no reason to suppose that the hostile attitude of certain sections of the Mussulman population was due to the circulation of seditious matter. No other military operations have taken place recently in parts of Nigeria where the population is Mussulman.

    South African Import Duties.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the Provisional South African Customs Union Convention, it is proposed to tax secondhand clothing, largely exported from the East End of London, to the extent of from 150 to 400 per cent, as compared with a present charge of 10 per cent, ad valorem, less a preferential rebate of 2½ per cent.; and if he will represent in the proper quarter the desirability of a reduction in this duty.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is aware that the duty has been increased from 10 per cent ad valorem less a preferential rebate of 2½ per cent, to 2s. for each article of clothing. As the provisional convention has now been ratified by the Colonial legislatures, I do not consider that the requested representation would be likely to serve any useful purpose.

    The Court Martial on Natal Natives.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as soon as the rebellion in Natal is over, His Majesty's Government will remove their objection to the publication of the evidence upon which twelve British subjects were recently convicted of a capital offence and executed.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; it will be both convenient and desirable to publish the evidence in question when the present period of danger and unrest shall have ended.

    Shanghai Administration.
    MR. D. DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take for the reorganisation of the administration of Shanghai: whether in view of the refusal on the part of the Chinese authorities to come to an agreement with the representatives of England, Germany, and the United States as to the procedure of the Mixed Court, he will inform the House if the assessors are exclusively bound by the Regulations of 1869; and whether practice and precedent settled since that date are to be entirely ignored.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): No steps for the reorganisation of the administration of the International Settlement at Shanghai are in contemplation. It would not be correct to say that the Chinese Authorities have refused to come to an agreement as to the procedure of the Mixed Court. Negotiations are proceeding as to the proposed amendments to the Court rules, and although no final result has been attained, we understand that considerable progress has been made. Meanwhile, I am informed that the Mixed Court is being administered as hitherto in accordance with practice and precedent.

    The Denshawi Executions.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that whilst one of the Egyptian natives was being hanged at Denshawi, on June 28th, two others were flogged within view of the gallows; that a large multitude, including women, were looking on; and that the flogging caused horrible cries; and will he say whether the sentences were carried out under the supervision of Captain Machell, adviser to the Egyptian Minister of the Interior; and is Captain Machell a British officer.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: In consequence of the statement which has appeared in the Press, I have asked for a full Report of how the sentences were carried out, with special reference to the points named in this and other Questions. Meanwhile, I cannot say anything as to
    1412
    who was primarily responsible for carrying out the sentences.
    MR. REDDY: Will that brute Machell be kept in the service?
    MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)asked if the Answer applied to all the Questions on this subject.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have, as a matter of fact, prepared Answers which give some pieces of information, but practically my Answer covers all the Questions.
    MR. REDDY: Are you going to cloak this man? You talk about the Congo horrors.
    MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.): Are the reports in the Press substantially true?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have asked for a full Report of all the circumstances of the case. I may say I assume there can be only one impression produced by the details as they appeared in the newspapers, and I think it most desirable instead of dealing with the matter piecemeal we should have the full Report. When that Report has been received I shall be prepared to lay it before the House.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)asked if the information would be sent by cable.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Considering the number of points raised, it is thought best to have a Report sent by Mail.
    MR. PICKERSGILLasked if the Report would be received before the Foreign Office Vote would be taken.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not think it is possible to have it by Thursday.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of having the Vote postponed or the Report sent by telegraph? It would be unfair to deny the House the only opportunity for considering the Report.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I recognise the importance of the matter, but I think

    1413
    there are other questions of importance not connected with this for discussion on the Vote. My object is to give full information, and when I have laid Papers before the House opportunity will be found for discussion.
    MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): We want the opportunity to compare the Congo administration with our administration in other parts of Africa.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the late Captain Bull, whose death followed on the recent affray at Denshawi, really died of heat apoplexy.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information as to the precise cause of death. This is a point which will no doubt appear in the evidence for which I have already asked.
    MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the hanging of certain natives, and the flogging of certain other natives, at Denshawi on June 28th, were of a public character; whether some hundreds of natives, men and women, were present as spectators; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to have the execution of any such sentences in Egypt conducted in accordance with the usage of civilised nations.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The sentences were ordered to be carried out in public on the scene of the outrage. When I have received the full report, the question of whether such executions should take place in public will be considered.
    MR. DILLONasked whether the proceedings were arranged with the approval of the British Consul and Agent-General; if so, were they approved of by His Majesty's Government; and whether any official attempt had been made to induce any of the London Press to abstain from publishing any of these details.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: These points are covered by the Answer I have read. I have no information, but the points
    1414
    have been noted, and will be specially dealt with in the Report on the whole proceedings for which I have already asked. Papers will be laid before the House when the full Report is received. I am not aware of any attempt, official or unofficial, to influence the Press in this matter in any way.
    MR. DILLON: Some of us will endeavour to raise the subject on Thursday.

    Chinese Customs.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that the assurances given by the Wai-wu-pu, that no change is contemplated in the method of administering the Chinese Customs, will be officially promulgated for the instruction of all who are engaged in the department.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Peking reported on June 16th that the offices of the new Administrator would be ready in three weeks, when instructions would be issued to Sir R. Hart to continue as before. These instructions would be in accord with the assurances received by His Majesty's Government, and being issued officially would be public.

    Bahr-el-Ghazal.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the evacuation of the Sudanese Bahr-el-Ghazal by Congolese troops, in accordance with the Anglo-Belgian Convention, will take effect.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The five posts in the Bahr-el-Ghazal occupied by Congolese troops should have been evacuated as soon as possible after the signature of the agreement. But in such remote districts, a certain delay in sending instructions and in carrying them out is unavoidable.
    LORD TURNOUR: How long since should the evacuation have taken place? What has been the extent of the delay?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I can hardly tell. It necessarily takes time to reach these remote places.

    Unrest in the Euphrates Valley.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information of the murder of several British subjects recently in the vilayets of Baghdad and Basr; and what steps are being taken to restore order in that area, and protect the lives and property of British subjects.
    SIR E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have received information of the murder of one British subject, Mr. Glanville, at Maghil, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople is giving every attention to the matter. A special Commission is being despatched by the Ottoman Government to concert such measures as are required for the maintenance of order.

    The Aland Islands.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the occupation of the Aland Islands, in the Baltic, by Russian troops, while Russian warships remain in the immediate vicinity, has caused alarm in Sweden; and whether it is intended to ask the Russian Government for explanations of their action, in view of the engagements of Russia as to these islands in the Treaty of Paris.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply given on June 28th to the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire.†

    The Algeciras Protocol.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in ratifying the Algeciras protocol the Sultan of Morocco has made any reservations or conditions; and, if so, whether he can communicate the nature of such conditions to the House?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have not yet received the formal notification of the Sultan's accession to the Algeciras Act; but according to a Report received from His Majesty's Minister at Tangier, the Sultan has acceded without making any reservation.
    † See Col. 1132.

    Vaccination Exemption Certificates—Captain Gravener, J.P.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Captain Gravener, who said he would not give certificates of exemption from vaccination, is still a magistrate; if his attention has been called to Dr. Tinker, a magistrate sitting on the Hyde bench, who declared on June 25th, 1906 a conscientious objection to give certificates of exemption from vaccination; and if he will take any steps to enforce the Law.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I am informed that Captain Gravener stated that he would not sit when application for certificates of exemption were under consideration. When the matter was first brought to my notice I sent the Papers to the Lord Chancellor, and there is no further action for me to take in the matter. I have made inquiry into the case at Hyde referred to by my hon. friend, and I find that after some conversation with the applicant Dr. Tinker withdrew from the Bench and the applicant was told to come again when two other justices were present. Dr. Tinker does not refuse to carry out the law. These cases and others to which my attention is constantly being drawn illustrate the chronic friction which is caused by the present state of the law with regard to exemption certificates.

    Anarchist Writings.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that one Johann Most was in June, 1881, sentenced I by the Lord Chief Justice to sixteen months hard labour, for having published a libel against the Emperor Alexander II., for having extolled the assassination of that monarch as a triumph of revolutionary justice, and for having encouraged divers persons to murder other potentates in Europe out of Her Majesty's dominions: and that, in returning a true Bill against Most, the grand jury recorded their; unanimous opinion that the publication in this country of excitements to the assassination of foreign rulers should be vigorously dealt with; and, if so, will he explain why no action has yet been taken

    1417
    against those persons who expressed regret at the failure of the recent attempt against the life of the King of Spain; and does he contemplate taking any, and, if any, what action.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am well aware of the facts of the case of Johann Most. The article which formed the basis of the prosecution in that case referred in terms of exultation to the murder of the Emperor of Russia and contained incitements, in the clearest language, to the murder of other rulers. The articles to which my attention was drawn, though containing most objectionable matter, were so written as not to bring the writers within the law. They do not express regret for the failure of the attempt to murder the King of Spain, nor do they contain definite incitement to further murder. I am advised that any attempt to prosecute would serve no purpose but to advertise the mischievous article. My attention, however, has just been called to a further article in another publication which is under my consideration.

    Vivisection.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to an advertisement of the National Canine Defence League, alleging that a collie dog, afterwards claimed by a doctor, recently took refuge in a shop in Gower Street with its throat cut and suffering terribly; and whether he has directed any inquiries to be made in the matter, and, if so, with what result.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It appears from the statement of the shopkeeper that the incident occurred four years ago, and not recently, as might have been supposed from the statements in the papers, and that the dog was claimed by a porter at University College, who was well known to the shopkeeper, and not by a doctor, as alleged. The condition of the dog's neck could not be seen, because it was bandaged; but some tubing is stated to have been hanging from the bandage. The porter died some time ago. No further information appears to be available.

    Caradoc Mine Disaster.
    COLONEL HERBERT (Monmouthshire, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the recent disaster at the Caradoc mine, Gilfach Goch, whether, as required by the Mines Act, a plan of the disused workings of that mine was deposited at the Home Office when working was temporarily suspended; what guarantee the Home Office has of the accuracy of such plans; and whether, having regard to the danger of flooding in collieries that have been partially disused, he will direct that special inquiry be made with reference to the working plans of the colliery in question.
    MR. GLADSTONE: A plan was deposited at the Home Office of the workings in the Ty Du seam at this colliery which were abandoned in September, 1904. The accuracy of the plan was certified by a surveyor approved by the inspector for the district, as required by the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1896. Inquiry is being made by the inspector as to the accuracy of the working plans of this colliery.

    British Railway Rates for Timber.
    MR. D. DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the higher rates charged by British railway companies for the carriage of timber, as compared with Continental railways, and to the differentiation in rates which British railways make in favour of foreign timber; and what steps he proposes to take to remove the inequality which now exists.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): No specific complaints as to the railway rates on timber have recently been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. If any particulars are furnished of preferential rates for foreign timber being granted the Board of Trade will be prepared to investigate the case.

    Company Returns.
    MR. BARRAN (Leeds, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that some limited companies have not filed Returns ordered under The Companies Act, 25 and 26

    1419
    Vic., c. 89, part 2, since 1894, although bringing themselves under a penalty of £5 per day by failing to do so; and whether he will take steps to compel these companies to comply with the provisions of the Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade make every effort to enforce the regular filing with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies of all the returns ordered under the Companies Acts. I do not know of any cases of default such as those referred to by my hon. friend, but if he will give me any instance of which he has knowledge I will make enquiries.
    MR. BARRAN: If I prove the general register is defective in some cases, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is brought up to date as a whole?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will inquire into any cases brought to my notice.
    MR. BARRAN: The right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate my point. I shall prove it is defective in some cases, and I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman will see that all defects are remedied.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will inquire.

    Metropolitan District Railway.
    MR. PAUL: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the frequent stoppages and de-lays of the electric trains on the Metropolitan District Railway; and whether the directors can by any means be induced to consult the convenience of the travelling public.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer on this subject which I gave on March 20th, to the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone.† Since that time I am glad to say that complaints have materially fallen off. I have no doubt that the railway company are fully alive to the desirability in their own interest as well as that of the public of putting an end as far as possible to the stoppages and delays referred to.
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 218.

    The Salisbury Railway Accident.
    MR. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had any fresh information as to the railway accident at Salisbury, and whether full inquiry would at once be instituted into the cause of the disaster.
    MR. WARDLEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether in view of the large number of accidents which had recently occurred through engines jumping the rails when running at high speeds, and especially in view of the deplorable accident at Salisbury, he would cause special inquiries to be made regarding (1) the practice of running express trains at such high speeds (2), the state of the permanent ways, (3) the construction of the engines, and other cognate matters, with a view to the prevention of such accidents.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have not yet received any particulars beyond those which have appeared in the newspapers as to the appalling accident which took place yesterday. The inspecting officer of the Board of Trade has already proceeded to Salisbury, but I have not yet received his preliminary report. A formal inquiry will be held later on as to the causes of the accident, in the course of which the matters referred to by the hon. Member will be carefully investigated; but it would be premature to offer any opinion on them at the present moment. I may be permitted to add that this terrible accident has evoked the deepest sympathies of this House and of the nation with the friends and relatives of the victims of the accident, and with the injured survivors.

    Commission on Lighting Coasts and Harbours.
    MR. GEORGE GIBBS: I beg to ask the President to the Board of Trade when he will announce the names of the Committe or Commission to be appointed to examine the question of lighting coasts and harbours.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope shortly to be a position to announce the names of the Royal Commission proposed to be appointed to inquire into the constitution

    1421
    and administration of the general lighthouse authorities.

    Merchandise Marks.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committe of 1897 on the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and to the unanimous recommendation that the definite words—made in— — —required by the 16th section of that Act, operated as a gratuitous advertisement of our foreign rivals in a particular country, and should be replaced either by the word imported or foreign; and, in such case, if the Government will introduce a short measure to give effect to such recommendation, or support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield with that object.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am fully aware of the Report in question, but there is no intention of introducing amending legislation at present. Any Private Bill brought in to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee would receive the sympathetic consideration of His Majesty's Government.

    Spotted Fever in Glasgow.
    MR. C. E. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether repeated cases of spotted fever have occurred for some months in Glasgow; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of requiring that the disease shall be placed on the list of those for compulsory notification, not merely in Glasgow, but as a general order.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The Infectious Diseases (Notification) Acts do not empower the Local Government Board to issue a general Order making a disease compulsorily notifiable, and I am advised that, under present circumstances, there would be no need for any such general Order as regards the particular disease referred to in the Question. With the approval of the Board, however, action for the purpose of making this disease notifiable may be taken by any sanitary authority in England and Wales (with which alone I am concerned), so far as
    1422
    relates to the district of the authority, and in August last the Board issued a circular to the several authorities, stating that they would be prepared to consider an application for their approval to an extension of the Act to the disease, should the sanitary authority desire, in view of any special circumstances, to make the necessary application. Some applications of the kind have since been, made and approved.

    Medical Officers of Health and Vaccination.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will treat the publication by a qualified medical man of an opinion adverse to vaccination as a bar to his appointment as medical officer of health, as was done in the Penge district council case in April, 1901; and, if the Answer be in the affirmative, will he state how he proposes to safeguard the free expression of scientific opinion by medical officers of health.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I could not give a general Answer on the point referred to in the first part of the Question. If it comes before me in any particular case, I shall be prepared to consider it.

    Kentish Landowners as Land Grabbers.
    MR. COX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the way in which landowners in various parts of the country, and especially in the county of Kent, are in the habit of annexing roadside strips; and whether he will take steps to call the attention of rural district councils to the matter, and to their duty under the law.
    MR JOHN BURNS: I do not find that representations have been made to me on this subject, though I am aware that sometimes attempts to make encroachments of the kind referred to are made. I have not at present any reason to suppose that rural district councils are ignorant of their powers and duties in the matter, and in the absence of further information to show that such is the case, it does not seem tome necessary to call, their attention to them.

    Sale of Tinned Meats.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what steps are being taken to prevent American tinned meats and foods, now in the hands of importers or wholesale dealers, from being relabelled and sold as British produce.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I would refer my hon. friend to Section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, which prohibits the sale to the prejudice of the purchaser of any article of food which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by him, and also to the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which make it an offence to apply a false trade description to any goods. A false trade description includes a false description as to the place or country in which the goods were produced, and the term "goods" includes anything which is the subject of trade.

    Royal Commission on Motor Cars.
    MR. EVERETT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Royal Commission on the Motor Car Acts is likely to report.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: As I stated on Friday in reply to a Question on this subject, I have every reason to believe that the Report will shortly be issued.

    Hyndburn Park School, Accrington.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that plans for the Hyndburn Park School, Accrington, were approved by the Board of Education on condition that the school should be organised in three departments under separate head teachers; that the local education authority desire to depart from these conditions, and to arrange for one large department for 740 children; that on 17th May last the board refused to consent to this modification on the ground that such a department would be large and unwieldy, that effective supervision would be impossible, and that the head teacher could have no possible knowledge of the children under his charge; and whether the Board of Education now propose to depart from
    1424
    the principles expressed in that letter, and, if so, on what grounds.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The facts named in the Question are, so far as I am aware, accurately stated. The matter is having my careful attention, and a letter will be sent shortly to the local authority explaining the views of the board in regard to it and to the principles it involves. The board do not propose to depart from their general principles. As regards the particular instance under consideration, the number of children in attendance will not, at all events for some considerable time, reach the number referred to in the Question, which is certainly larger than can properly be supervised by one head teacher in the proper sense of the term.

    School Buildings Maintenance.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the trustees or managers or the local authority will be responsible for the wear and tear and structural upkeep of the fabric of the State-aided and non-rate-aided schools contemplated in the amended form of Clause 4 of the Education Bill.
    MR. BIRRELL: The cost will not fall upon the local education authority.

    Teachers' Religious Tests.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it will be competent in the new class of state-aided and non-rate-aided schools contemplated under the amended form of Clause 4 of the Education Bill for the managers to apply a religious test to the teachers in such schools upon appointment.
    MR. BIRRELL: The appointment of the teachers in the schools referred to in Question, which I hope will be but few in number, will not be in the hands of the local education authorities, as the schools will in no way be maintained by those authorities. Therefore the conditions in respect of the appointment of teachers which are laid down in the Education Bill as applicable to schools

    1425
    maintained by local authorities will not apply.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplated the imposition of a religious test in such cases.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot exercise any control over that matter.

    Teachers' Appointments and Dismissals.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the local education authority will continue to have the powers of veto over the appointment and dismissal of teachers, conferred by the Education Act of 1902, in the case of the new class of State-aided and non-rated schools contemplated in the amended form of Clause 4 of the Education Bill.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer is in the negative.

    The Conscience Clause.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the parents of children attending the State-aided and non-rate-aided schools contemplated in the amended form of Clause 4 of the Education Bill will, as matters now stand, be able to claim for their children the protection of the Conscience Clause.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Conscience Clause will certainly apply to the schools referred to in the Question.

    Religious Instruction.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education does any syllabus of Bible teaching state whether it is the seventh day or the first day of the week that was commanded to be kept holy; if not, can he say how the ordinance as to Sunday observance is explained to children under the Cowper-Temple system; and will he make accessible to Members of the House any syllabus of Bible teaching in which the abandonment of the observance of the commandment as to the Sabbath day and the keeping of Sunday as the day of rest and reverence is explained or justified.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Board of Education are not responsible for the religious
    1426
    instruction given in council or voluntary schools. I have no information in regard to the matter referred to in the hon. Member's Question beyond that, if any, which may be contained in the Parliamentary Return recently issued.

    Education Bill—Clause 8.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if, in consequence of his new Clause 3 to the Education Bill, he proposes to omit Clauses 8 and any clause consequential to it.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Government's action in regard to Clause 8 depends entirely upon the view taken by the Opposition of the new clause as to bilateral compulsion referred to by the hon. Member. If it is accepted by them, no doubt most of the provisions of Clause 8, and the clause as it now stands, will become inapplicable to the new position thus created, and would therefore have to be materially modified, if not omitted. I can thus give no answer as to the course to be taken when Clause 8 comes before the Committee for consideration, until the Leader of the Opposition has intimated the line that will be adopted in respect to the new clause. It must clearly be understood that the new clause has been put upon the Paper only to carry out the offer made by me on June 12th† to the Opposition, and must not be taken as representing the Government's intentions in regard to the matter in the event of that offer not being accepted.
    MR. DILLON: What opportunity is going to be given to us to indicate our attitude towards the new clause before we reach Clause 8?
    MR BIRRELL: If no intimation has been given to us, we must proceed with Clause 8 as it now stands in the Bill.
    LORD BALCARRES: Are we to understand that it is at the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition whether or not the new clause is to supersede Clause 8?
    MR. BIRRELL: The Government have no desire whatever to thrust the
    † See (4) Debates clviii., 839.

    1427
    new clause upon the House. It was given in answer to a proposal put from the other side, and it was an offer on my part in answer to theirs. If therefore, it is not accepted, we shall proceed with Clause 8 as it stands in the Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: With a view to enabling us to discuss these later clauses, would the right hon. Gentleman make a few of us peers?
    MR. BIRRELL: Nothing would give me greater gratification than to see the hon. and learned Member in another place.

    Education Bill—Clause 4.
    COLONEL WALKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it will not be incumbent upon the applicants for extended facilities to show at the public inquiry that there is alternative school accommodation for all children whose parents do not desire the facilities within the meaning of paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of Clause 4 of the Education Bill; and, if so, how the applicants are to get the names of those parents in time for making the necessary inquiries or at all; and whether the production and publication of those names is consistent with the secrecy of the ballot.
    MR. BIRRELL: The ultimate effect of Clause 4 will be as follows:—The ballot will determine whether or not paragraph (a) of the clause is complied with, i.e., whether the requisite 80 per cent, of children desire the extended facilities, and will consequently show at the same time the number of school-places (not the actual individual children) which may possibly be required in other schools under paragraph (b) of the clause. It will then rest with the public inquiry to determine whether this full number of school-places in other schools will actually be required, or whether any deduction is to be made from that number in respect of children whose parents were unable to vote at the ballot and who do not require that other accommodation. It is obvious, therefore, that there will be no occasion whatever to infringe the secrecy of the ballot, or to ascertain in what way any particular parents may have voted.

    British Mails by German Liners.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state how often during the last fiscal year His Majesty's mails were despatched by steamers of German lines calling at Southampton to the United States; what was the total sum paid to such companies during that period for the carriage of the mails; and will he say whether British steamers were available for this purpose.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): During the last financial year there were six occasions on which German packets calling at Southampton on their voyage to the United States were used for the conveyance of British mails not consisting exclusively of specially addressed correspondence. No direct payment is made to the steamship company in such cases. The use of foreign packets is a matter for adjustment on the basis of periodical statistics with the Government which pays the subsidy. On the occasions in question no British steamers of sufficient speed were available-for the conveyance of the mails.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Is no money paid?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The liners are subsidised by the German Government and it is a matter of arrangement with the German Post Office.

    Charing Cross Improvement.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it has been decided that the removal of the premises now occupied in Charing Cross and Spring Gardens by the Phoenix Fire Office, the Union Assurance Company, the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company, the Architects' Department of the London County Council, Messrs. Hobgood and Dowson, is necessary to complete the opening of the Mall to Charing Cross; and, if so, when the buildings were purchased, and by whom, and if not purchased when they will be purchased, and by whom.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOUKT,): I have not heard of any decision such as the hon. Member suggests; nor do I know whether the owners of these houses wish to sell them, or to whom.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he proposes to take any legislative power?
    MR. HARCOURT: No, Sir.

    Skye Medical Officer.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that at Uig, in Skye, on the estate of the Congested Districts Board, there is no proper residence for the medical officer, and that, in consequence, there is difficulty in retaining the services of a doctor in the district; and will he use his influence with the Congested Districts Board to induce them to put one of the houses belonging to them at Uig at the disposal of the medical officer.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The responsibility of the Congested Districts Board in this matter is simply that of any other landlord in the district, and at present I regret to say that there is no prospect of their being able to provide such a house. But I am aware that this is a real difficulty. To enable this parish council to meet it, legislation will be necessary and I will consider whether or not steps should be taken in this direction.

    Marine Biological Station, Millport.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is a prospect of the teachers' classes at the Marine Biological Station at Millport being cancelled because of the action of the Glasgow and South Western and Caledonian Railways in withdrawing their steamers; and whether he will take instant action to prevent the loss of this useful educational work.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Department has received no communication on the subject from the managers of the Marine Biological Station, and they have no
    1430
    reason to suppose that there is any prospect of the teachers' classes at present conducted there being discontinued.

    Protection of Scottish Fisheries.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the quantity of line caught fish landed in Scotland during the year 1905 was 50 per cent. less than ten years ago; and, seeing that this decline is attributable to the fishing beds being injured through illegal trawling, will he state when he proposes to provide the Fishery Board with another cruiser for sea police service.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware that there has been a great decrease in the quantity of line-caught fish in Scotland during recent years, but the decline may be attributable to other causes besides that referred to by the hon. Member. The funds at the disposal of the Fishery Board are not yet sufficient for the purchase of another cruiser.

    Moray Firth Fishing Banks.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland shows that, during the year 1905, the fishing banks of the Moray Firth again proved unproductive; and seeing that this is attributed to the action of foreign trawlers, will he state what progress is being made with the Moray Firth trawling appeal.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information as to the date upon which the decision of the Court of Justiciary will be given.

    Scottish Congested Districts Settlers.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the last Report of the Congested Districts Board shows that the Board have assisted in settling 1,150 persons on the land, will he state how many of these persons are feuars or in process of becoming proprietors, and how many crofters under the Act.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The 1,150 settlers brought out in the statement at page 27 of the Appendix of Congested Districts

    1431
    Board eighth Report may be divided thus:—

    1. Feuars (Battery Park, Stornoway)

    29

    2. Proprietors subject to annuity

    730

    3. Crofters under the Acts

    261

    4. Leaseholders (Borve and Symbister)

    130

    1,150

    Crofters' Building Loans.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state in how many instances the Congested Districts Board have advanced money to crofters to enable them to rebuild their houses; and what security does the Board take in such cases for the recovery of the money advanced.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Board have made loans in ninety-four instances to enable crofters to build houses on new crofts formed by proprietors by the subdivision of farms with aid from the Board. The security is the bond prescribed by Section 6 of the Board's Act

    Irish Lights Board.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are no members of Irish Harbour Boards on the Irish Lights Board; and what steps he proposes taking to remedy this omission.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Pending the proposed inquiry by a Royal Commission into the constitution of the General Lighthouse Authorities, I am not prepared to take any steps with respect to the Irish Lights Board, whose constitution can only be altered by Act of Parliament.
    MR. JOYCE: When will the Royal Commission hold its first sitting?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope it will be appointed in the course of a few days.

    Tralee Post Office.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General when
    1432
    it is intended to start building the post office in Tralee.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The plans have now been settled, and it is hoped that the Board of Public Works will soon be able to make arrangements for commencing the building.

    Trawling.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland shows that the line fishing industry has declined 50 per cent. within the last ten years, and that this decline is due to the depredations of illegal trawlers, will he state whether he can see his way to grant facilities for the further consideration of the Trawlers' Certificates Suspension Bill.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBBLL-BANNERMAN,): No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot see my way to granting facilities for this Bill.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill is unopposed with the exception of one Member of the Opposition who is interested in trawlers—and trawlers only—and does he know it would prove of great service to line fishermen all around the coasts? Will he, therefore, not reconsider his decision?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should be glad to see proper time given for the discussion of this Bill, but although my hon. friend discerns only one opponent I am aware that granting of facilities would immediately produce more than one.

    Jewish Massacres in Russia.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that both Houses of the United States Congress have passed a Resolution expressing the horror of the people at the massacre of Hebrews in Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to give ail opportunity to this House of recording its opinion on this subject.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The recent events in Russia, to which the hon. Member calls attention, have, as he is aware, aroused the strongest feeling in this House and throughout the country. I am not at all sure that the adoption of the unusual course suggested by the hon. Member of giving formal expression to those sentiments would serve any useful purpose, or that it might not even add to the difficulties in Russia itself.

    Punishments in Public.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the demoralising effect of public executions and floggings, and their long abandonment in the United Kingdom, he will order their discontinuance in all countries directly or indirectly under the flag of the British Empire.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will consult my colleagues as to the extent, which I believe to be very limited, to which public executions and floggings take place, and consider whether any steps can be taken.

    Wireless Telegraphy Bill.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot fix a day at present.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will notice be given before the Bill is taken?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Notice must be given.

    Public Rights of Way.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unsatisfactory state of the law affecting the law of evidence as regards the proof of public rights of way, and of the uncertainty with which Junes treat such evidence, which makes the expense of proof of a right of way vary onerous on local authorities, and almost impossible for the public to establish rights of way to mountain tops, places of historic interest, and the seashore, notwithstanding that the public have had uninterrupted use of such rights
    1434
    of way for very many years, His Majesty's Government are prepared to introduce a Bill to amend the law, and so afford greater protection to the public interest.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should be very glad to see the law affecting rights of way put on a clear and satisfactory footing, but, of course, at this stage of the session I can say nothing about introducing legislation on the subject. If I were entitled to put a Question to my hon. friend I should be tempted to ask him why the Bill which was backed by him and which aimed at securing the objects which he has at heart has, within the last few days, been dropped.
    MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland): With reference to that measure, for which I was responsible, I should like to say the Bill was withdrawn in consequence of opposition which it was impossible to overcome on this side of the House.

    Mr. Justice Grantham.
    MR. ARKWRIGHT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the memorial, in compliance with which he has given a day for the Motion of the hon. Member for South Donegal, in regard to the conduct of Mr. Justice Grantham.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The terms of the memorial were hardly intended for public purposes; but even if no such memorial had been presented it would not have been easy to refuse an opportunity for discussing the Motion in question.

    Education Bill—Personnel of Commission.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now state the personnel of the Commission to be appointed under the Education Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, I cannot give the hon. Member the names to-day.

    Government Contracts—Fair Wage Clause.
    MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury

    1435
    whether, in view of the fact that the fair wage clause in Government contracts now fails to meet the changed circumstances, he will appoint a Select Committee to go into the matter, with the view of recommending an alteration of the clause, making trade union wages and conditions of employment the standard of fairness in all Government contracts.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the earnest desire of the Government to give full practical effect to the purpose underlying the Fair Wage Clause. The question what further clauses, if any, are necessary to fulfil this object in the diverse circumstances of the numerous Government contracts is receiving the careful consideration of the Departments concerned. The present moment does not therefore seem to me opportune for the appointment of the suggested Select Committee.

    Colonial Independence.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a debate in the Canadian Senate, on the 27th instant, in the course of which Senator Ellis declared that there is proceeding in Canada a movement which is rapidly making for absolute national independence; and on what course of policy do the Government rely to counteract such a movement towards disintegration, not only in Canada, but also in other parts of His Majesty's dominions.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am rather surprised at this Question looking to the quarter from which it comes. The feeling in Canada, as well as in other Colonies, is well known, and it tends not towards disintegration, but to closer union. And I advise the hon. Member not to be frightened by the speeches of Senator Ellis or anyone else.

    COAST EROSION COMMISSION.
    MR. FENWICK: Can the Prime Minister now state the names of the Commission on Sea Erosion?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Royal Commission on Coast Erosion will be constituted as follows:—The Hon.
    1436
    Ivor C. Guest, M.P. (Chairman), Sir William H. Browne-ffolkes, Sir Leonard Lyell, Mr. William Matthews. C.M.G., Mr. W. P. Beale, K.C., M.P., Commander G. C. Frederick, R.N., Mr. H. Rider Haggard, Professor T. J. Jehu (St. Andrew's University), Mr. A. L. Lever, M.P., Mr. R. B. Nicholson (town clerk of Lowestoft), Mr. Patrick O'Brien, M.P., Mr. T. Summerbell, M.P., and Mr. A. Stanley Wilson, M.P.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill: Mr. Henderson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Barnes.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (No. 2 BILL).
    Order for Committee upon Thursday read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEW BILLS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law regarding Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland," presented by Mr. M'Crae; supported by Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Rainy, and Mr. Gulland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]
  NURSES, REGISTRATION AND QUALIFCATION BILL.
  "To regulate the Qualifications and Registration of Trained Nurses," presented by Mr. Claude Hay; supported by Sir Arthur Bignold and Mr. Findlay; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 292].

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to votes at Parliamentary Elections; and for

  1437
  other purposes," presented by Mr. John Robertson; supported by Mr. Burt, Mr. Alden, Dr. Rutherford, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Mr. Dalziel; to be read a second time upon Friday, July 20th, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 6:—
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsubmitted that it was not in order to discuss this clause, inasmuch as the Committee had already come to a decision in a contrary sense, when on Clause 1 they decided that religious instruction should not be given outside the school hours. This clause put religious instruction outside compulsory attendance, and therefore outside the school hours.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that even if the hon. Member were correct about Clause 1 he had given the Answer to his own Question, which was that Clause 6 dealt with attendance, whereas the Amendments on Clause 1 dealt with religious instruction. He did not think the Question submitted by the hon. Member arose.
  MR. WALTERSsaid that the object of the Amendment standing in his name and of consequential Amendments was that the children should attend the schoolhouse during the whole time that it was used as a public elementary school. If parents objected to their children receiving religious instruction, provision should be made for secular instruction to be given in school hours in lieu of religious instruction. He said quite frankly that he approached this matter not so much from a religious as from an educational standpoint. He regarded the question more from the side of school efficiency and school discipline; and he was very much afraid that, in all the ingenious balancing of denominations, they would forget that
  1438
  the principal object of the schoolhouse was to educate the children. Let them take, for instance, the serious disturbance to discipline and efficiency that would be caused by the working of the facilities clauses, and, in addition, by the different times at which the children would be permitted to come to school in the morning. Both classes and curriculum would be disarranged. He was not surprised that the Minister for Education should say that under this clause a larger number of boys would be an object not of obloquy, but of envy to others, because the teachers would have no knowledge whether the children were coming to school or not, and the parents would have no knowledge that the children whom they were sending to school ever reached it. The result would be that a large number of children would absent themselves at the commencement of the day; the teacher would have a difficult task in the organisation of the classes to start with, and then he would have to rearrange the classes again when the second or third batch of children came in. He therefore opposed Clause 6 on educational grounds. He now came to the very serious question of child labour. He thought that Clause 6 opened the door very widely for a considerable extension of child labour. There were two forces at work in that direction: first, the greed of employers and, secondly, the selfishness of parents. Cheap child labour was always an attraction to a certain type of employer; and if children might be absent from school till a quarter to ten o'clock there would be a large increase in the number of boys and girls who would be employed to run errands; for indoor and outdoor work, and as domestic drudges. The children would not be fit for school instruction after a hard morning's work. Then the school attendance officers would lose control over the children. At least 10 per cent. of the children at present had to be compelled to attend school by the constant superintendence of the school attendance officers, and if they added inducements to children to stay away from school until 9.45 each morning, this would further increase the irregularity of attendance. He had the strongest objections to child

  1439
  labour. He thought that the world's work should be done by adult men—not by children or old men; and therefore the burden on children should not be increased but diminished. It might be asked why should not this matter be settled by the local education authority by by-law? He objected to that, because it would raise over again the religious difficulty which the House were trying to settle. They had, by a large majority, decided that they would not have secular instruction only in the elementary schools of the country; that there was to be undenominational religious teaching, and that certain special facilities were to be given for denominational religious instruction. As a Nonconformist he thought the Government had been too liberal in the latter respect; but he thought in common honour it would not become the House to take away those facilities by a kind of side issue; and they ought not to throw this bone of contention among the local education authorities. But neither did he want that the special facilities should be increased by a side issue. The object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to ask for local option so as to provide a method of withdrawing the children from school during school hours and taking them to church. That was going beyond bounds and increasing the facilities for religious instruction beyond what the Committee had already granted. He thought it would be very much better, instead of leaving this to the local education authority, that it should he decided there and then definitely and distinctly what the policy was to be. He was very jealous of any interference with the effective working of the school system in the country and particularly of council schools in which there was no religious difficulty whatever. He believed that the Conscience Clause in Section 7 of the Act of 1870 was all that was required. In point of fact it was seldom put into operation. The people were entirely satisfied with the kind of religious instruction given in the council schools, and there was no demand for special religious teaching in some other building than the school. He could not understand why some hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House should want
  1440
  that system altered. He had no objection to the parents having the right upon a definite written request to have their children withdrawn from the school premises during the time religious instruction was being given, or, in the alternative, to their children being given secular or moral instruction in separate rooms during the religious instruction hour Surely children who lived in squalid surroundings, whose lives were hard and prosaic, were the children who would benefit most by the touch of imagination given by the reading of the Bible story and parable. Surely the children who had to suffer most from, and were the victims of, the worst forms of industrial greed and selfishness most needed the lessons of love and humanity from the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the gracious influences of religion. It was for these reasons that he moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 9, after the word 'the,' to insert the words 'obligation of a.'"—(Mr. Walters.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)asked the hon. Member to read out in full the constructive effect of his Amendments.
  MR. WALTERSsaid that if his Amendments as a whole were accepted the clause would run—"The obligation of a parent to cause his child to attend, school shall, notwithstanding any bylaw, include an obligation to cause the child to attend at the schoolhouse during any time allotted to any religious observance, or to instruction in religious subjects, during the hours for which the schoolhouse is used for the purposes of a public elementary school. Provided that the local education authority shall provide during the time so allotted for any children who are withdrawn by their parents from any such observance or instruction some form of secular instruction."
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSinquired whether it was in order for an hon. Member to propose an entirely new clause upon an Amendment

  1441
  to insert "obligation of a," which meant nothing.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that no doubt the Amendment on the Paper was, by itself, utterly incomprehensible. But it was followed by others which made it comprehensible and was not out of order. He had already stated his reasons for allowing the Amendment and its fellows to be moved. It raised all the important issues raised by the clause itself, and raised them in a convenient form, although no doubt the effect of the Amendments taken as a whole was to remodel the clause to a greater extent than was desirable if any new issue had been raised by it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIKRELL, Bristol, N.)said it would be in the recollection of the Committee that a few days ago he promised on behalf of the Government that the Committee should have an opportunity of voting on Clause 6 without any hint or suggestion being given to them by the employment of Government tellers. In this matter, therefore, their will was free, and he hoped hon. Members enjoyed that position. The issue was not altogether free from difficulty, and even of some measure of technicality; and he hoped hon. Members would allow him to state what was exactly the present state of the law upon the subject. Supposing Clause 6 were to be struck out of the Bill altogether and no fresh enactment of any kind made, how would the matter stand? Now, the existing by-laws made it perfectly plain that the parent of every child of not less than five or more than fourteen years of age should cause such child to attend school—the Committee would observe it did not say the school-house—unless there was some reasonable excuse for non-attendance. The next by-law provided that the time during which the child should attend school should be the whole time that the school was open for instruction, subject, of course, to the conscience clause providing for the withdrawal of any child from religious instruction. It was a very ineffective conscience clause which was provided for under the Act of 1870. That Act was silent as to whether the right of withdrawal meant the right of withdrawal of the child from the school premises or whether it simply meant the right of
  1442
  withdrawal from the class in which religious instruction was given, although he believed that during the course of the debate in 1870 it was made perfectly plain that what was intended was the right to withdraw the child from the religious instruction and not from the schoolhouse itself. Ever since 1870 the general practice had been to require the nonconforming child to attend the school house, to stand apart from his fellows, and to be regaled with some branch of secular information instead of religious instruction. Then came the Act of 1902, which transferred the voluntary school to the local authority, and, at all events, imposed on the local authority for the first time the obligation of settling the time table and paying for the instruction. Then the question was raised in certain parts of the country as to whether the child could be taken at nine o'clock from the school to the church for religious instruction. The Board of Education decided that it was a question for every local authority to decide for itself, whether the by-law was complied with by allowing the child to be taken elsewhere for the purpose of receiving religious instruction. Then came the by-law called by the honoured name of the late Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education. As a matter of fact, out of 326 local authorities ninety-four had adopted the Anson by-law, and 232 had not. Consequently the present state of the law might be stated as follows: Where the by law had not been adopted—that was in the areas of 232 local authorities—every child was required to attend the school-house during the religious instruction time, except in the very few cases where the local authority had indicated that it would regard attendance at church as equivalent to attendance at the school-house. Where the new by-law prevailed—that was in ninety-four cases—the child need not attend the school-house, if the parent had written in that sense, during the time of religious instruction. No doubt it was presumed that the child was absent in order to obtain religious instruction elsewhere, but there was no compulsion or obligation of any kind so to occupy the time when he was liberated from school. Consequently, taking that by-law into account, it rested entirely at present with every local authority in the country to decide whether there was compulsory

  1443
  attendance during religious instruction time or not. The local authority might adopt the by-law; if it did, the parent could notify in writing his desire to withdraw his child, and the child was withdrawn altogether from school during the period of religious instruction. That was within the option of every local authority in the country. As he had said, 232 local authorities wont on with the law as before—namely, the child was supposed and required to attend the schoolhouse; although a parent has never been prosecuted for non-attendance, nevertheless, the child was required to attend at the schoolhouse for the purpose of receiving religious instruction or, in the alternative, secular instruction. That was the present situation. Were no law passed and Clause 6 deleted altogether, matters would remain in that position. He adhered iti his own mind to Clause 6. Although he had been much affected by some of the considerations put forward on grounds of fear and alarm as to what would happen supposing parents got to know what it was assumed they did not know, that no harm would befall them if their children did not attend until the religious instruction was over, he supported Clause 6 for three reasons. In the first place he was perfectly satisfied that it was the only effective way of making the conscience clause a reality. It was a matter of great regret that all these years the conscience clause had remained ineffective; because if only it had been recognised as a real thing in our town and country school life—if it had become a thing under which a claim was easily made, readily granted, generously allowed, he did not believe they would have been in the difficulties they had been in all these years. The number of times in which the conscience clause had been enforced, considering the number of cases involved, was extremely small. He believed he knew why that was. The conscience clause was invented, conceived, and framed for the purpose of protecting the conscience of the parent; but it was so framed as to cast the whole burden of securing its enforcement upon the tender shoulders and the thin skin of the child, who was required to go to the school armed, it might be, with a document from his father, and to demand an exceptional, special kind of treatment, to be exposed
  1444
  undoubtedly to a good deal of remark and sarcasm, and to have given to it in lieu of religious instruction, some form, and very likely a disagreeable form, of secular knowledge. Therefore, he said that a conscience clause, if they wanted one, should be made a really effective one. They wanted to secure that it should be put into operation whenever it ought to be. They ought not to impose a burden, as the present conscience clause did, upon a child. Children could not, they really would not, and they ought not to be expected to submit to it. Anybody who had ever been in the position of a minority child, and who had not forgotten his own child-nature, would, he thought, recognise the truth of what he had said. Another reason for the clause as it stood was that it got rid of the difficulty of the school hours, by no means an improper thing to get rid of. The Committee had shown by a large majority that it wished religious instruction to be maintained in all the schools; and it had also, he was glad to say, secured some measure at all events of facilities for denominational teaching in the schools. He thought, therefore, it was all the more important and desirable that they should eliminate from the area of passion and shibboleth and Party feeling all that they could. The subject was difficult enough as it now stood, and anything that reduced the difficulties was to be commended. He thought, therefore, the fact that this clause did get rid of the difficulties of school hours was a distinct advantage. He would also point out, and he thought he was bound to point out, although this part of his argument might not approve itself to his hon. friend behind him, that this was not a bad denominational clause, since it did allow—and nobody, it seemed to him, whether he desired it or not, could by any possibility object to that—an opportunity for giving denominational teaching outside school hours, at the expense of those who gave it, in a very convenient form. It might be that those who did not like the denominational instruction might view with disfavour the idea that the practice should grow up in this country of, for example, the Church children being taken by the vicar or rector of the parish at nine in the morning to the church or the vestry for

  1445
  three-quarters of an hour's definite religious instruction; but no Nonconformist who had grasped the principle of his Nonconformity could have any objection to any such proposal. It was not done during school hours or out of the ratepayers' or taxpayers' funds. It was a matter of private zeal and of private devotion; and anybody who could secure that zeal and that devotion was, surely, at perfect liberty so to do. He thought, therefore, although not himself sharing the denominational zeal of many Gentlemen opposite, or sharing their view of the advantages gained by the children being taught together in school hours, that he was bound in justice and in truth to indicate that this clause as it stood did give to the children reasonable opportunities during the old time, at the old school hours of the day at which children had been accustomed to receive religious instruction, to receive this definite religious instruction. For these reasons he thought this clause was the most honest, the boldest, the clearest way of dealing with this difficult question. It made the conscience clause a reality, and enabled those persons who really did not wish their children to receive particular religious instruction to secure their withdrawal without putting upon them a too heavy and, indeed, intolerable obligation. All educationists would agree that it would be a grievous thing if the school-going habit, built up at an enormous expense of public money during the last thirty or forty years, were to be destroyed; but having made such inquiry as he could in London and other places, he could only say that there was a tendency to exaggerate the fears upon that matter referred to by his hon. friend. School-going had now become an ingrained habit in this country, and it was an entire mistake to assume that either the great majority of the parents or the great majority of the children reluctantly sent, or went, to school. The instances they had in London of the actual employment of children of school-going age in lucrative pursuits for gain at the expense of their school hours were happily very few indeed; and the prohibition of the law as to child labour, which was intended to be made severer than it was, and the growth of a much sounder opinion on this subject made it possible to hope that there would be in the future even fewer of such instances
  1446
  than in the past. He did not really think—although the subject was one that deserved careful consideration—that there was any occasion for the nervous dread and anxiety on this subject which animated very good people. For the reasons he had given, and having regard also to the general structure of the Bill, by which, Cowper-Temple instruction being made as universal as possible, and by the facilities now given under Clauses 3 and 4, they had done their best to give to the education of this country a distinctively religious flavour, he thought they were bound in the interests of religious liberty itself to adhere to the clause, and he recommended it accordingly to the Committee.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLhoped the Committee would permit him to say a few words on a subject in which he had taken a very great interest. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend the time table now existing, and which provided for the opening of the school at nine o'clock, to be continued, or was the hour of opening to be that which terminated at the end of the time usually allotted to religious instruction? It seemed to him that very much depended upon that. He believed that at the present time the parents had never been punished for not sending their children to school during the half hour allotted to religious instruction, but on the other hand the child had been submitted to penalties for non-attendance. Before this clause could be fully discussed the Government ought to explain to the Committee whether they intended that the time table should be in its present form. He entirely agreed with what had been said by the hon. mover of the Amendment, who had stated the position very clearly, and he did not think the answer given by the Minister for Education could be regarded either as complete or satisfactory. It was the pleasure of this House two or three years ago to pass a measure which was not so much enforced as he would wish it to be, for the regulation of the labour of children. They had abundant evidence, when they were dealing with that subject, of the unfortunate greed of too many parents shown in their desire to make use—improper use, as some Members thought—of the labour of their children, and to earn a few pence at the sacrifice of benefit to the children. If that were the case two or three years

  1447
  ago it was certainly the case now, and he did not think the Committee would be acting wisely if they ever passed legislation upon the principle that there had been a great change in the sense of parental duty in this respect. The real difficulty was that they were apt to fix their minds upon the great mass of parents and to pass over instances which, though not so numerous, were yet appreciable in their number. He could not dispose of this part of the case so lightly as did the right hon. Gentleman, who would find upon inquiry that there were practical grounds for the fears he ventured to express. Another strong and valid reason was the difficulty which parents would experience in exercising authority over their children during this half or three-quarters of an hour, and it had not been explained who else was to have supervision over them. He believed that in many cases, if they were not employed by their parents in gathering pence, they would certainly do business on their own account. Even if they did not adopt that course they would probably waste their time and get into evil habits through lack of that superintendence which all children required. They might fall into the practice of systematic deception towards their parents. There was one more point—he was speaking now after conversation with a most experienced teacher—and it was that there would be a great difficulty in securing prompt attendance at the secular hour. During the time devoted to religious teaching there was now some want of punctuality, but by the time secular instruction began the register was filled up by the presence of children. Another objection to the proposal was that it would encourage indolence on the part of a parent who would be enabled to commence the day's task half or three-quarters of an hour later.
  MR. PERKSsaid he wished in a few words to explain why he was strongly in favour of the view submitted to the Committee by the President of the Board of Education. He thought the clause was the only real and effective protection for Nonconformist children in the small village schools. It must not be forgotten that under the
  1448
  Bill which was intended to establish a uniform system there were to be four types of school instead of two as in the past. So far as council schools were concerned, the proposal of his hon. friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield would be a distinctly retrograde step. He passed at once to village schools, with which he was chiefly concerned. He spoke as a Nonconformist, and, he believed, represented the overwhelming body of Nonconformist, on this particular point; he hoped they might also receive the support of the Irish Catholics.
  MB. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Certainly not.
  MR. PERKSsaid he would give one or two reasons why the Amendment might perhaps be disadvantageous from the Catholic as well as from the Non-conformist point of view. The village schools in Lincolnshire at all events very generally contained a very large proportion of Nonconformists. He had had the figures taken out for several typical village schools. These schools all belonged to the National Society or church organisations, which in the course of the transfer would doubtless make it a condition that the facilities provided under Clause 3 should be enforced. The religious instruction would therefore take the form, he presumed, of Cowper-Temple instruction plus the special facilities, which might be given, as they had thought, on two days of the week, but which, according to an interpretation recently put on the clause, might, apparently, be given on five days a week. He was not quite sure what interpretation the Government put on that clause, as there was some little difference of opinion on the subject between the President of the Board of Education and the Leader of the Opposition. Be that as it might, the only protection which the Nonconformists would secure, if the Amendments now under discussion were passed, would be the conscience clause. In Lincolnshire the conscience clause had been an absolute farce. In one of the villages to which he would refer in a moment, where there were sixty-one Church of England children and 105 Nonconformists in the school, a labourer

  1449
  a few years ago who claimed the benefit of the conscience clause had a notice to quit served upon him almost immediately consequent on that claim. In another village school close by he himself saw on a winter morning two little children standing at the porch. He asked them what they were doing, and they said their father was a labourer in the village and that he claimed the benefit of the conscience clause. At Marshchapel, there were eleven Church of England children to 106 children of Nonconformist parents. In the next school there were sixty-one Church of England children, and 105 Nonconformists. In the third school there were seventeen children of Church parents and 120 Nonconformist children. In the fourth school there were twenty-six Church of England children and thirty-five Nonconformists; in the fifth school there were twenty Church of England children and eighty Nonconformists; and in the sixth ten Church of England children and twenty Nonconformists. In every one of these schools there would be distinctly sectarian instruction in accordance with the tenets of the Established Church, and if the Amendment were passed the only protection of the Nonconformist children who were in an overwhelming majority would be the conscience clause. The same proportion existed in Cornwall and in Durham as in Lincolnshire. The schools which claimed and received the special advantages of Clause 4, and certainly the State-aided schools, would be largely Anglican and Catholic. They would be affected to even a greater degree by the operation of the clause than the rural schools which by Clause 3 would be thrown back again into the hopeless and, as he thought, most unsatisfactory and unjust position in which they had hitherto been. He did not suggest that a child should be brought up without religious instruction, but he did think it was very important in many of these little villages, and particularly in small rural towns, that the parent should have an opportunity of seeing the nature of the religious instruction given in the schools before he decided whether he would avail himself of such religious instruction. It would be idle to say that the teacher must give secular instruction to the Nonconformist children who were withdrawn. The proportion
  1450
  in these schools between the two section of the community was so overwhelmingly in favour of Nonconformity that the teacher could not be told off, during the period the Nonconformists were claiming the benefit of the conscience clause, to give religious instruction to a very small percentage. The clause was really the only effective protection the children of the rural districts would have against religious persecution, against the bringing to bear on them of all the hundred and one different ways of using the schools for the benefit of the Church. Therefore while he much regretted that the Government had not adhered to the clause as they brought it in, but had run away from its provisions, he was very glad to find the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had had the courage to state to the Committee so clearly his views so far as he was personally concerned.
  MR. DILLONremarked that the hon. Member for the Louth Division had asked him to take the same attitude as he had taken on this clause. Perhaps the hon. Member would be astonished if he said he had not heard from him a single argument in support of the clause. The instance he had mentioned of religious persecution in Lincolnshire would not apply to the parent who withdrew his child altogether. He was astonished at the description given of the condition of the schools in Lincolnshire. When the Minister for Education drew a picture of the feelings of what he was pleased to call the minority children he sympathised with him, but the schools of Lincolnshire did not contain minority children. Were they to be told that the Nonconformists of Lincolnshire were so cowardly and had so little self-respect that seventeen Church children out of 140 children could dominate the school?
  MR. PERKSsaid he never suggested anything of the sort. His argument was that the majority should not be tyrannised over.
  MR. DILLONcontended that that argument would apply with equal force if Clause 6 was passed, because there would be a more ample opportunity for persecution. The only argument which had been adduced in favour of this clause

  1451
  by the Minister for Education was that in certain schools where there was a small minority the children might be placed at a disadvantage by being asked to stand aside. Was that argument strong enough to justify the introduction of a clause which amounted to a reversal of the decision of the Committee on Clause 1? This was a secular education clause. Had the Minister for Education forgotten the great change that was going to be made in the system of education by this Bill? What was the burning necessity for the conscience clause? What was going to be the established religion of the country? Was it against the established religion that they required a conscience clause? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."] Then why did hon. Members opposite not support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Burnley? Those who refused to support the hon. Member on that occasion expressed the opinion that the children should be educated in simple Bible teaching or fundamental Christianity. For the future in the vast majority of the schools the Nonconformists of England would have the religious education which they had selected, and it was against that that they required an extended form of the conscience clause. He had been appealed to as a champion of the rights of parents and he had been asked why he did not support this clause so as to give the parent a right to withdraw his child from religious instruction. Would hon. Members on the Ministerial side be willing to extend that principle and give those who desired denominational instruction a right to withdraw their children from secular instruction? That was quite logical. ["No, no."] He thought it was. This clause was a solemn announcement to the whole of the English people that religion must take a back seat in all the schools of England. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] It was an announcement that for the future compulsory education was to apply only to subjects of secular instruction, while religion was to be outlawed. The Anson by-law had been alluded to, but that was a very different thing from Clause 6. It was a rather confused document, but it laid down that where an individual parent served a written demand or notification that he wished
  1452
  to withdraw his child from religious instruction he should have the right to do so. Although that by-law was issued two years ago, only one-third or one-fourth of the local bodies were putting it into force. But that was totally different from what was now proposed in Clause 6, because it threw upon the parent the somewhat invidious task of sending in a written application, but that was different from declaring to the whole of England that there was no necessity for a parent to send his child to attend religious instruction. What would be the inevitable result? He agreed that this clause was entirely vicious in its operation, but it would affect least of all the Catholic schools, because the priest could be trusted to bring in the Catholic children in spite of this clause. Therefore its main effect would be on the non-Catholic schools, although it would affect Catholic schools in the long run. The withdrawal of children from religious instruction was a kind of thing that would spread, because the whole school would begin to envy those children who enjoyed the privilege of being withdrawn, and year by year their numbers would gradually increase. He believed that was the reason why the clause aroused enthusiasm amongst those who supported a secular system. It was simply introducing secularism through the back door, and so far as the Protestant schools, were concerned it was distinctly a secular clause. He would like to have a poll of the teachers of England on the question. It would have a bad effect on the schools, and above all it would have a bad effect in the case of selfish parents. The Minister for Education had said he did not believe that the majority of parents unwillingly sent their children to school or that the children went unwillingly to school. There were, he believed, a large minority that did send their children very unwillingly, and unless child nature had changed since he was a boy, many children went to school unwillingly and would be very glad of an extra hour at home in the morning, or for play on the way to school. What he was most concerned about was the selfish parent, who would not take the trouble to get his child ready in time for school or would employ him in work about the house. If a parent chose he could keep his child away for an

  1453
  hour after school began. The difficulty of school hours could always have been got rid of by keeping religion outside school hours, and that was what the clause proposed to do. It was a curious thing that at the time when this proposition was made to inform all the parents of England that they might, and to invite them to keep away their children from school while religion was being taught, there was introduced into the Code a new direction of a very curious and interesting type, called moral instruction, which would form an important part of every elementary school curriculum. It was his opinion that all moral instruction should be based on Christianity. The new direction included the following: Cleanliness of mind and body, love of fair play, gentleness to the weak, temperance, humanity, and self-denial. All these excellent teachings rested on Christianity. Nevertheless the Christian religion was to be driven outside school hours and some form of ethics was to be employed instead. What Catholics believed was that some religious belief should permeate the whole school teaching. The Amendment appeared to him to be one of a series of Amendments to make the clause do exactly the opposite of that which it now proposed to do. If the Amendment were carried it meant that the clause would be precisely the opposite of that which the Minister for Education intended. He heartily supported the Amendment. He could only characterise the clause as an attempt to carry secularism, not frankly and openly, but by a gradual and insidious process.
  MR. PAULsaid the hon. Member for the Louth Division was the acknowledged leader of Nonconformity in this House, and he had referred with a contempt which he fully shared to the ambiguities and inconsistencies of Clause 3. He could not help reminding the hon. Member that he (Mr. Paul) got no assistance from him on that point when the clause was passed, but he trusted that he would be more fortunate when he moved the rejection of the clause on Report. The question before the Committee, however, was not one to be judged between Nonconformists and Anglicans, or between Roman Catholics and Protestants, or even between Con-
  1454
  servatives and Liberals, but between those who desired religion as a sort of extra subject and those who thought religion should be an integral and fundamental part of all education. He could not help thinking that it was from the religious training of the young in this country that there came those rare, high-minded, disinterested characters such as that whose loss they were all deploring at that moment—their dear friend, the friend of all of them, Sir Wilfrid Lawson. He was very glad the Government had seen their way to allow the Committee to vote on this question as they pleased. He did not know whether the reason for that unexpected laxity was due to the fact that the Government had for once been unsuccessful in their search for a mandate. All this talk about mandates made him tired and sick. Mandate, mandate, everywhere, there was no room to think. Were they automata? Were they all mandate, and no mind? As, however, every Member with a mandate claimed to interpret it for himself, perhaps the independence of the House was in that way recovered. The question was whether religion, subject to the conscience clause, was or was not to be in the future an integral part of the teaching in all elementary schools, and he earnestly trusted that the Committee would decide that it was. He was very much afraid that if they did not insist upon religion being part of the ordinary curriculum they might be driven to something like that sinister future darkly sketched, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in which a number of wrangling and differing theologians were to be let loose upon the children to teach them to hate each other for the love of God. He prayed that He in His good providence might avert that awful calamity and enable the children to grow up in the future as they had grown up in the past with the two things that could never fail them—the example of their Saviour's teaching and the consciousness of their Father's care.
  LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Northampton in the discussion of the scheme put forward by his right hon. friend the Member for West

  1455
  Birmingham, for that did not appear to arise directly on this Amendment. It appeared to him that the clause as it stood, besides being open to the objection urged against it by the hon. Member for East Mayo and others, gave the children the opportunity of doing three things. It permitted them to go to school and gat what he would call for shortness the State religion; it enabled them to be kept away, and, as the Minister for Education pointed out, to receive at their homes or elsewhere the religion which their parents prefered; or, lastly, it enabled the parents either to employ the children or to allow them to go and play on the streets. Quite apart from the other aspects of the question it appeared to him to be an undesirable thing that children should be encouraged either to undergo labour before going to school, or to play in the streets. He understood that was one of the main objections of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment; he proposed by way of alteration to prevent children from doing work or playing, and he required them to go to school either to get secular instruction or the State religion. That did not appear to him to be a fair arrangement. It appeared to be, he would not say creating, but establishing that form of religion in almost all the schools of the country, and also compelling the children to receive that religion or no other. It might be right—he thought it was right—to prevent the children from playing in the streets or doing work, but he did not think it was right to prevent them from receiving at home or elsewhere the religious instruction which their parents desired. It seemed to him to be a gross piece of intolerance, if he might say so, to interfere with the rights of the father to teach his children what he pleased. Therefore the Amendment which he had on the Paper, † and which he pro posed to move—
  † The Amendment standing in the name of Lord R. Cecil was to insert in the proposed Amendment, after the word "obligation," the words "except as hereinafter provided;" and at end to add "and that a parent shall not be subject to any penalty under this section for not causing his child to attend the schoolhouse during any time so allotted if he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he has caused his child during that time to attend some form of religious observance or instruction elsewhere."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the noble Lord's Amendment should come after the word "shall," or after the word "objection" in the second line of the clause. It does not seem to arise at this point at all.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that in view of the Chairman's ruling he would not deal with the specific Amendment which he had intended to move, but he presumed he would be in order in discussing the general effect of the clause, and of the possible modification which would make it more tolerable. The matter for the consideration of the Committee was whether it was really desirable to give the special position which, the Amendment now before them would to the State religion, because the effect of it would be to say to the children that if they wished they could receive this State religion, or they could receive secular instruction, but if they desired or if their parents desired any other kind of religious instruction it must be taught to them in play time or at some other time. That made it additionally difficult for the children to receive the religious instruction which their parents preferred. He could not think that was fair. It was said that there was no hardship in compelling children to receive this undenominational religion. [AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] He was glad to hear that cheer, because, taking the advice of the Minister for Education, he had looked at the return of syllabuses, and he confessed that he had arrived at some conclusions which were not altogether in accordance with those of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, there was no guarantee practically in the vast majority of the syllabuses that the religious instruction would be effective at all. In most cases there was no inspection. He did not deny that many of the teachers would give good religious instruction under the syllabuses, but it must be remembered that it would not be grant-earning instruction, and that it would not be tested in any way by examination. That seemed to him to be a very unsatisfactory way of giving religious instruction in schools. The charge made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth was perfectly accurate, namely, that the forms of religious instruction sanctioned were exceedingly varied. That was very

  1457
  unsatisfactory. He commended to the attention of hon. Members who believed in simple Bible teaching the fact that the religious instruction was highly dogmatic. It was not the teaching of the Church of England, or of the Roman Catholic Church, but it was, nevertheless, highly dogmatic. To tell any sensible person—if he might class himself in that category—that it was simple undogmatic teaching was really an insult to his intelligence. He instanced the Cornwall syllabus, which provided for the teaching of the Apostles' Creed and practically the whole of the New Testament, and also for the giving of explanations by the teacher of passages of Scripture. It was not possible that such teaching should be anything but highly dogmatic. He noticed curiously enough that in teaching the Apostles' Creed it was required that the teacher, in dea'iag with two of the final clauses of that Creed, should put a particular meaning upon them. In other words, in teaching the most controversial clauses of the whole Creed the teacher was to select a particular interpretation which would not be assented to by a large number of Christian denominations. How could hon. Gentlemen opposite tell him that that was not a denominational religion? Of course it was—or it would be if anyone were to adopt it as his creed, and the only reason why it was put in the syllabus was that it had not been definitely adopted by any denomination. It was said that this clause would be a hardship to numbers of Nonconformists in Lincolnshire who would be compelled to send their children to school on two days of the week when denominational religious instruction was given; but how much greater would be the hardship on Church children who would be compelled to attend five days in the week when so-called undenominational religious instruction was given? He confessed that if the clause were amended as proposed by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division, he would have the greatest difficulty in supporting it; but if it were amended in the way he had suggested in the earlier part of his speech his objection to it would be lessened. The true solution of the difficulty would be the withdrawal of the Nonconformist chil-
  1458
  dren for religious instruction elsewhere. That would prevent the employment of children in other pursuits and would not encourage them to desert religious instruction altogether. The real reason why he objected to the clause as it stood was that it gave a secularist flavour to the whole Bill. If in addition to saying that the formula of any particular Church was not to be taught, they said that they did not think much of dogmatic religion and did not wish their children to be taught it, then they gave a downward impetus to all religious teaching. Although personally, as the Committee knew, he disapproved altogether of undenominational religious teaching, which he thought was wrong, he would rather have undenominational teaching such as was provided for by the Cornwall syllabus, given by Christian men, than no religious teaching at all. He did not deny that such teaching was of some value; but he would rather have a secularist system than a rotten undenominational system, which pretended to give the children religious instruction but did not. In the undenominational system which set out to teach the children sweetness and light, he had no faith whatever. That was giving the children a stone when they asked for bread.
  MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)said he would sooner have the children taught religion of some kind than none at all. He thought that in school hours the children should have moral instruction, to which their parents could not object. He felt certain that if the children were allowed to go to school at different times there would be no regularity of attendance, for the ordinary workman had no great desire on the matter of religious teaching for his children; it would be found that the schools would become emptier and emptier, and the children would be allowed to run about the streets or would be employed at home. He believed that the teachers themselves would prefer that there should be some regular hour for attendance at school, and that the children whose parents did not desire that they should be given special denominational instruction, should be given moral teaching, such as kindness to their fellow men and to animals. There should be equality and freedom to all and no such

  1459
  thing as compelling children to be taught certain forms of religion in which the parents did not believe.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Brightside division of Sheffield should be supported, but with one proviso: that the parents who did not approve of the particular religious instruction given in the school should be able to withdraw their children in order that they might receive instruction elsewhere. What did this clause frankly say? It said that in every school, whether a board school or any other, the religious instruction was to be given out of school hours. That was a startling change, and he asked on what grounds it was proposed? It had been alleged that the present conscience clause had not given sufficient protection to the children of minorities and that the Nonconformists had, consequently, been put under disabilities. He did not think that had been so in the past; but supposing it had, surely under the new conditions all possibility of any injustice would be removed. It should be remembered that every school was to be under the control of the local education authority, who would be perfectly able to ensure that no child should be put in an invidious position by being withdrawn from religious instruction. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education said on the First Reading of the Bill that no conscience clause was worth anything unless it carried with it the right to withdraw children from the schoolhouse during the time religious instruction was being given. He entirely disagreed with that, and the right hon. Gentleman had advanced no arguments in support of his assertion; therefore he could not see why they should change the conscience clause. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that under this clause a child instead of being an object of obloquy would be an object of envy. Was that a thing to rejoice at? The right hon. Gentleman also said in the course of his speech that there was safety in the Hampshire syllabus, and he agreed that that was so. Everything went on very well in Hampshire, and no doubt if other county councils and local education authorities would follow the example set
  1460
  in Hampshire things would go on very well everywhere else. But what was the use of the Hampshire or any other syllabus at all until they had got the children into the school to learn the syllabus? The clause was not asked for by the Church of England, nor by the Roman Catholics, and he was quite sure that the majority of the Free Churches were in opposition to it. This was not a question of High Church or Low Church or of Free Church or State Church. To his mind the question which the clause raised was whether there should be religion in the schools or not. It had been said that if this clause were passed the parents who really desired their children to receive religious instruction would ensure its being given even if there was no religious instruction given in the school at all, and would give religious instruction to their children in their own homes or see that it was given. Of course that was so, and such parents in matters of religious education were above the law. They were not legislating for them, but for the great mass of parents who were indifferent. They were not legislating for the parent who was an atheist but for the parent who was indifferent. He asked the Committee to consider the state of a school after nine o'clock and during the time in which religious teaching was being given. The regular teachers would in many cases be absent and the different denominational teachers would come in and endeavour to instruct the children in their religious Catechism. These religious teachers would naturally not have the same influence over the children as the regular teachers, and meanwhile the scholars would be distracted by the shouts of the other children in the playground who were not receiving religious instruction. The clause, in his opinion, must be amended or ended. What did they ask? They only asked that religious teaching should be put on an equality with cooking or arithmetic—on an equality with secular education, and that it should have a recognised place in our system of education. It was quite obvious that, if this Bill were passed, while Jack would be helping his mother to wash up, Gill would be minding the baby in the parlour during the time that religious instruction was being given

  1461
  in the school. The fons et origo of the clause seemed to have been the experience which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education went through in his childhood; and from his own experience of his own childhood, he quite agreed as to the difficult position which a child would be in if told to object to being present whilst religious teaching was being given. Surely, however, that difficulty could be got over by the parent writing and objecting to his child being given any particular religious instruction. The right hon. Gentleman himself agreed that to exclude the opening prayer and hymn would be to run counter to the instincts of the nation, and he agreed with him. But why were these religious exercises to be put into such a secondary place? If arithmetic were not made a compulsory subject, how many children when they left school would be able to do a simple sum? In the same way, if religious in struction was not made compulsory in the future we should have few churches and chapels needed. If the Government were weathercocks in regard to this matter the country were not in the same position. It was true that the Government had voted against secular education but they had brought in this clause and left it an open question. If the clause were passed, it would, he was sure, inflict a deep and lasting injury upon the people of this country.
  MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.)said a series of speeches had been directed against the clause as it originally stood. The last speaker had put the case most tersely and clearly in protesting against religion being put into a position in the schools different from arithmetic, geography, or any other form of secular instruction. But the claim of those who supported the clause was that religion at the present time occupied a position different from these forms of secular instruction, and that the conscience clause had for thirty-six years up to the present been frankly inoperative. They believed that it would be for the advantage of religion as well as of those who felt conscientious disabilities if some kind of freedom was substituted for coercion in the schools of the country. He was interested in the speech of the noble Lord
  1462
  the Member for East Marylebone and was not without hope that finally he might be found voting with them in favour of Clause 6, because he seemed to prefer the clause as it stood. To say that it was an affirmation of secular education was not true. He wished it was. They were not in the least trying to get secular education by any backdoor as had been suggested. The question be-been the liberty of the parent to choose religion or no religion for his child was perfectly different from the question whether the State should provide any kind of religious instruction at all. He was surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, because no compulsion was ever required towards Roman Catholic parents. Why did he interpose and try to place compulsion on other classes of people? This protection was wanted in rural districts, where the conscience clause had practically failed. It was also true of the non-provided schools in the great majority of the villages in England; otherwise, if there was no religious difficulty, he could not imagine what all this bother that they had been spending the summer over was about. If many of the children in the villages whose parents protested, still attended the schools and did not take advantage of the religious test then there was the less reason to apply fresh religious tests. One hon. Member had stated that although he objected to religious teaching being given to his children he declined to allow them to be put under the obligation of being put into a place separate and apart from the other children of the school during the time of religious instruction. To all children such a thing as that gave a sense of discomfort, and to a sensitive child it was torture. Therefore it was time that an advance should be made in the direction of religious freedom, that the children of those parents who desired it should be enabled to receive, so far as it was possible under the Bill, instruction in the various kinds of religion that they desired, and that those who did not desire it should be able to withdraw their children from the school during the period in which religious instruction was given. A very strong case had been made out on the words "child labour."

  1463
  Child labour had been mentioned, and the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield had to a large extent grounded his appeal for the acceptance of this Amendment upon that particular question. Nobody deplored child labour more than he (Mr. Masterman) did, unless it were the hon. Member for North Camberwell. But this was not the way to deal with child labour. If the Committee had the courage and tenacity of its convictions anything in the nature of child labour before the hours of school attendance could easily be prohibited. They seemed, however, to be afraid of prohibition and tried to squeeze out child labour by providing theological alternatives. Child labour would never be squeezed out in that way; the only result would be to make children work earlier; to make them have less sleep, less playtime, and less time for breakfast, and it was no use to attempt to deal with the question in that way. He could not see, as had been suggested, that the new system would in any way result in the disorganisation of the schools. Parents would be asked whether their children should come for religious instruction OT not [Cries of. "No."] He thought that that was the way in which the local authorities would administer the Bill, and the children who wished to come would arrive at nine o'clock in the morning and arrangements would be made to have them taught at that hour. He did not gather that children would be allowed to come to school some at nine and some at five or ten minutes past in the same way as Members came into the House to listen to this debate. There would be no trace of compulsion. It would be brought about by means of peaceful persuasion at the hands either of the teacher or of the parent, and he conceived that every form of peaceful persuasion would be brought to bear upon the children to induce them to come at that hour. Then at 9.45 the secular business of the school would commence. The roll would be called. There would be no disorganisation and there was nothing in that system that the teachers need or would object to. It was a practical question of the enlargement of the scope of religious liberty which was not beyond the capacity of this House to decide in regard to the educational
  1464
  system which the local authorities of this country would have to administer. He knew that he approached this subject from a different point of view from that of many who sat upon the Liberal side of the House. He approached the subject from the point of view of one who objected to any kind of State religion He thought it monstrous and illiberal that a State religion should be manufactured by the schools, and more monstrous and more illiberal to say that every taxpayer or ratepayer should contribute towards the expense of that State religion; and most monstrous and most illiberal that every child of every parent should be obliged to attend the instruction in that religion. That was really what they were doing under a conscience clause which was ineffective. That gave him a right to appeal not only to the Free Churches, who would not be free if they consented to it, but also to Members on the opposite side of the House to vote against the elaboration of any particular form of religion to be taught in the State schools of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: It is Christianity.] Christianity if they liked, but there were a good many people who had conscientious objections to the teaching of Christianity; and he did not see how their consciences should be regarded as less sensitive than the consciences of others. That was at the bottom of the protest against Clause 6. It was an unequal judgment of the conscience of the poor in comparison with the conscience of other classes.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the President of the Board of Education had stated with the utmost clearness the law as it now stood, but he could not entirely agree with his interpretation of the by-law which he had described as the Anson by-law. What the right hon. Gentleman had stated was not the intention of the by-law; it was not the meaning of it, and it could not bear the interpretation placed upon it. There was one objection to the bare rejection of the clause—that it would then be left in the discretion of the local authority, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, to order that the children should only be bound to attend school during the hours of secular instruction. Knowing what he did of the inclinations

  1465
  of some local authorities, and hearing what had been said by the Minister for Education he feared this might result in many cases in religious teaching being placed out of school hours. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield practically put into a statutory form the commonly existing by-law and the common practice. The Amendment, as being in the line of the present practice, was preferable to the simple rejection of the clause and infinitely preferable to the acceptance of the clause as it stood. The alternative he preferred was that if the children were withdrawn it should only be on the understanding that they might receive religious instruction elsewhere. This was the substance of an Amendment put down by himself and by some hon. friends. The Minister for Education had told them frankly that his object was to put religious instruction out of school hours. They would thus throw aside the religious instruction which had gone on in the schools in one form or another since 1870. They had been told that the conscience clause had hitherto been ineffective and that this was to be a conscience clause of a higher form—a glorified conscience clause particularly favourable to the Nonconformist case. He had been surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the ineffectiveness of the clause, having always previously heard it discussed from the point of view of its extreme imporance. Nonconformist children ought not now to be likely to suffer any hardship, for every school would be a council school, and the sort of religious teaching favoured by Nonconformists would be universally given, while the facilities under Clauses 3 and 4 could surely be so dealt with as not to harass the sensitive consciences of the Nonconformist children, who on all the days of the week would be receiving their own religious instruction. Much had been said in previous debates of the value of teaching fundamental Christianity. It now appeared that the Minister for Education's laudation of Cowper-Temple teaching meant not that anyone was to be required to receive it, but only that it was good enough to be paid for by everybody, whether they liked it or not. The Amendment which
  1466
  the hon. Member for Burnley moved to a previous clause was a straightforward Amendment proposing to keep religious teaching definitely out of school hours. Now they had what had been fairly and appropriately described as a back door settlement of this question. The Government had shut the front door boldly in the face of the straightforward Amendment. Now they opened the back door and stretched out both their hands to secular instruction, to encourage in their way the view that neither parent was bound to send nor child to attend religious instruction, nor any teacher bound to give it. In these circumstances, where no one need teach religion and no one need learn it, why could they not honestly say they wished to sever religion from education and set up a secular system? The Government had not the courage of their opinion, but he must have the courage of his. He maintained the immense advantage of commencing with prayer and religious teaching the education daily given in the public elementary schools. He believed the value of this system to be immense in rural areas, and incalculable in our large towns, where to many it was the only form of religious teaching to which the child ever listened. The Minister for Education incurred an immense responsibility when he struck this blow at the heart of the religious life of the country.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)said he really thought the hon. Baronet might have left the conscience of the Government alone when he himself was prepared to vote in a sense contrary to that of the celebrated by-law bearing his name. The hon. Baronet himself was the author of the system which he condemned in Clause 6, and it was rather hard on his part to challenge the conscience of the Government on that matter. This was a subject upon which he (Mr. Channing) felt more deeply than upon any other subject which had come before them in regard to this Bill. He lamented that the discussions on this Bill had been so confined to the competing claims

  1467
  of rival sectarian bodies and that so little reference had been made to the interests of the children. Was it or was it not the interest of little children to be in the school at nine o'clock so that they should learn something in the earlier hours of the day when their faculties were fresh? Why should parents be encouraged to withdraw them in the early hours because of wretched religious squabbles? If there was any justification for the Bill it was because it was a generous, loyal effort to introduce peace into the schools, to create an atmosphere freed from sectarian passion where the education of the children could really be expanded. He was an opponent of Clause 6 because it was not the right way to seek peace to encourage the withdrawal of just those classes of children who most needed the higher influences. It was because it was a better way to secure peace that in furtherance of that object he most heartily supported the Amendment. He perfectly appreciated his right hon. friend's motives and supported his protest against the inefficiency of the conscience clause—he had more than once taken his share in vindicating the rights of parents under the conscience clause; but if passing this clause meant that the consciences of one or two parents would be satisfied; for one child who might be saved from hearing religious teaching from which its parents disapproved, might not hundreds of children be turned into child slaves? Why should they seek to destroy the discipline of the schools; and why should thousands of children lose the opportunity of getting in the freshness of the morning the teaching they ought to have, whether it were secular or religious? They had finally banished the one man power and had established public control over the schools, and therefore the bogey of religious oppression did not really any longer exist. He did not think that cases of religious persecution were likely to occur in the future. Having regard to the serious social results and the serious educational and moral wrecking among the slum children of our great towns that would result from the worst class of parents withdrawing their children during the
  1468
  time religious instruction was being given, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the clause. Many years ago he took an active part as one of its founders in the work of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and he sat for some years upon the Law Committee which dealt with, cases of cruelty to children Like others in that House, he had sat on the Committee which passed the Employment of Children Bill and studied the terrible evidence of the labour of school children out of school hours on which it was based. The interests of hundreds and thousands of children were affected and they could not be set aside as they would be by this Clause. He had received a letter from a lady who was one of the leading social reformers in Liverpool, and who had been, for many years on the school authorities, giving her opinion as to the result this clause would have upon the, slum population. She wrote—
  "In Liverpool the careles3 and vicious parent, far outnumbers the parent with a conscientious objection to some form of denominatioual teaching. Unless the children are obliged to be in school, at the same time, some will evade school, or move from school to school. In the lower parts of the town it would be useless to open the council schools at all till 9.45, the only schools that would have any religious or moral teaching, would be the Catholic, who would probably get their children at 9 a.m. We could not.…I much hope tha we may continue our present arrangement if finally shutting all the school doors in Liverpool at 9 a.m."
  Often parents were negligent of the highest interests of their children, whom they regarded more as drudges to earn for them a few extra pence to enable them to eke out their own sordid and often immoral lives. It was the duty of the Committee to protect the child life of the country, and he asked them to pause before they accepted a Clause like this. He appealed also to the Labour Members to look upon this from the point of view of labour, for surely they did not wish to see child life crushed down by the demand for early labour. Surely they would feel their obligation to resist in some way the competition of child labour with adult labour in the labour market. On these grounds he hoped the Committee, would accept the Amendment
  MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)saw no necessity for the clause to meet a religious difficulty. It was an invitation to children to barter their religious teaching for half an hour's play. Slum children had no chance of religious teaching in their homes and surroundings. He did not see any reason for this clause at all. He had not seen any religious difficulty worth speaking of in any denominational school. He knew there was no such difficulty in the case of his own village. He was himself an employer of dissenters, and he had gone so far as to offer to facilitate their views, and they had told him that they had no views to facilitate. This clause seemed to him to have for its object the gradual abolition of religious teaching in the schools of the poor. The rich man could retain his schools just because he was rich, but the poor man had to sacrifice his religious teaching simply because he was poor and for no other reason. The clause would make poverty a new religious disability. ["Why?"] If they wished to deprive the children of their religious education let them toe the line and do it frankly and openly themselves, but they should not in this indirect way invite the children to be the agents of their own undoing. There ought to be no mistake whatever about this question. A slum child had no chance at all of getting any religious education in its own home and surroundings. The President of the Local Government Board on one occasion spoke of 200,000 children living with their parents in single rooms. Those children could not get religious instruction in the pandemonium in which they lived; and they were not sent to the Sunday schools. Religious instruction in the day school was their only chance. He asked hon. Members to think of the state of things in common lodging-houses. [Laughter.] It was his weekly task to visit such houses, and he knew quite as much about them as the hon Member who jeered. No form of home religion was possible in the overcrowded bedrooms and common rooms of lodging-houses. The children must have worship at school, or they would have no worship at all. Did the Committee wish this arrangement made in a country which was called Christian? It was
  1470
  nothing short of folly—it was hardly honest—to tell them that these children would get instruction either in their own homes or at the Sunday school. What he and his friends pleaded for was half an hour's religious instruction a day for the children attending the day school, because it was their only chance of receiving such instruction. He did not wish the children to be taken away from that instruction to play marbles. This clause introduced a new condition in the country—namely, elementary schools without religion. All he could say was, God help the children and save them from being sacrificed to political alliances—from being made the pawns in the Party game. They were made for better things, and he only hoped that the Imperial Parliament would do nothing to tamper with the religious purpose of their lives.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said this was a matter to which he had given great consideration because he recognised that it was of far reaching importance. There was really very much confusion of thought as to the existing state of the law. He was therefore very much obliged to the President of the Board of Education for the statement he made at the outset. The right hon. Gentleman correctly stated that Section 14 of of the Act of 1870 said to the parents—"You must bring your child to school at nine o'clock when the school opens; if you do not want religious instruction provided your child can stand aside, and the local authority—the school board that was—will provide secular instruction for the child in the meantime." Then the right hon. Gentleman said he was greatly surprised that the conscience clause had not operated to a greater extent than it had done, and he gave some reasons for that. He himself thought that the main reason why the conscience clause in the Act of 1870 had failed was that the parents thought their children were perfectly safe in the hands of the teachers, just as most hon. Members did in regard to their children. If these debates went on long enough he felt that he should be obliged to interfere in some way with the religious teaching which his children were getting at the present time. What it precisely was he could not say,

  1471
  and he hoped no one would say that he had not a keen regard for their welfare. No doubt another reason was that parents naturally shrank from exposing their children to the invidiousness of standing out. These two reasons formed the main grounds for the failure of the conscience clause. Although the attendance of the child was compulsory, they had never gone the length of prosecuting any working man because he had not sent his child to school until the close of the religious lesson. That was the law down to four years ago when it was very materially widened. In 1903 the hon. Member for Oxford University introduced a by-law, known as the "Anson" by-law. He was sure that the hon. baronet would not intentionally mislead the Committee, but he nevertheless had effectually done so in his references to this by-law. It was in the following terms—
  "The time during which every child shall attend school shall be the whole time for which the school selected shall be open for the instruction of children of similar age, provided that, where the parent has notified to the managers in writing his intention to withdraw the child from instruction in religious subjects, such time shall be the whole time for which the school selected shall be open for secular instruction only."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If the hon. Member will read the note, he will see exactly the object with which the bylaw was offered to, not imposed upon, the local authorities for their consideration.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the note was as follows—
  "This proviso may be added in cases where the local education authority are satisfied that the circumstances of the locality justify its adoption in order to meet the wishes of parents who may desire to make arrangements for religious instruction for their children elsewhere than at school."
  No doubt that was the intention, but the Board of Education had passed this by-law in a large number of cases without any such proviso. If the Government was to be charged with setting up what the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone would describe as the ultimate cataclysm of secularism, it did not lie with the late Government, which originally laid down that by-law when the hon. Baronet was
  1472
  Parliamentary Secretary, to make the charge. What had been the result of the by-law? No less than thirty-seven counties, eight county boroughs, thirty-six non-county boroughs, and thirteen urban districts—ninety-four in all—in the short period of three years had put the Anson by-law into operation. He did not know that anything very terrible had happened in those areas. He had not heard that there had been an increase in child labour or that a large number of children had been withdrawn from religious teaching. His point was that the by-law was embodied in Clause 6 of the present Bill, and if there was to be a cataclysm of secularism the hon. Baronet opposite was responsible and not the present Government.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the by-law has not answered the purpose for which it was issued?
  THE CHAIRMAN: We are really getting into a discussion about the by-law which, except in so far as it has a bearing upon the Amendment to the clause, has nothing to do with this, discussion.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid his point was that the justification of Clause 6 lay in the Anson by-law. He wanted the children to be taught the Bible, but he was doubtful whether they ought to be compelled to attend, especially under the new circumstances which this Bill would set up. There was some confusion of thought on the part of those who said that unless the children attended the religious lesson they would not get any religious teaching at all. Nothing could, be more wide of the mark. If the religious lessons were stopped to-morrow, the children would get a good deal of sound, useful, religious teaching. He had been a pupil teacher, assistant teacher, and head teacher, for twenty years, and he knew that by far the most fruitful lessons were those which arose incidentally from time to time outside the formal Bible lesson. The Bible lesson consisted of Bible history, incidents, and names, to a large extent, and could not have much of real moral value in it. The hon. Member for East Mayo had

  1473
  spoken as if in the new Education Code he had found a new and strange system of moral teaching set up. There was no discovery at all. This was not the first time that moral teaching had been made an injunction on teachers. It was said in the new Code—
  "They (the teachers) can teach them what is noble, to be ready and self-sacrificing, and to strive their utmost after purity and truth."
  Was not that religious teaching? All this was elaborated into a moral code in the Code issued that morning. The hon. Gentleman admitted that that was a most admirable elaboration, but he overlooked the fact that the teachers were specially enjoined to notice that—
  "The scope of such lessons should be carefully defined in order to guard against doing or expressing anything in the least subversive of the authority of religion."
  He admitted that compulsion to attend school at religious instruction had, subject to the conscience clause, been the practice ever since 1870, although it was modified three years ago. Why had they been able successfully to compel the parents to send their children to school? The thing was entirely in the hands of the permanent school teachers, who were very discreet, very circumspect, and who used infinite good judgment. Had it not been for that discretion, circumspection, and good judgment there would have been a social revolution long ago. The teachers did not press denominational views, even in denominational schools where they knew the children were Nonconformists, so that by their good judgment compulsion had been made possible But now they were starting a new system under which in every denominational school, on two mornings a week, they were going to have specific denominational teaching by others than the permanent teachers—by the clergymen, and the curates whose real purpose and intention must be to exalt and exaggerate what he would call the sectarian side of denominational religious teaching. Did the Committee think that in that case, with outside teachers necessarily inspired with this particular purpose of giving the teaching a special denominational turn—and he had not a word to say against them—did the Committee think that they could
  1474
  continue the system of compulsion? He was perfectly confident that they could not successfully do it. Under the Irish system, where they had Roman Catholic teaching every day in the week, it was specially laid down that the Protestant children should not be present. If it were true that they could not do it on two days in the week by outsiders who might be indiscreet, how much less could they do it every morning in the week! For all these considerations he was bound, notwithstanding the fact that he sympathised with the hon. Member for the Brightside Division, to support Clause 6 of the Bill.
  MR. BRACE (Glamorganshire, S.)said that this was the first occasion on which he had ventured to intervene in the debates on the Education Bill, and he would not have done so now had it not been for the misunderstanding or misconception of the real position taken up by himself and others who supported Clause 6. It was true that a number of Labour Members had gone into the lobby in support of a purely secular education, but it was not because they were anti-religionists or because they did not believe in Bible teaching. Most of them spent their Sundays in endeavouring to teach the Bible in Sunday schools, and it was a mistake to say that they were not in direct sympathy with giving religious instruction to children. He supported Clause 6 as it stood, because he accepted it as the charter of freedom and liberty of conscience. They had heard a good deal about the rights of the minorities; indeed there had been a good deal of special pleading for the rights of minorities; but now they were asked to say that the minorities should have no rights, that it should be compulsory on the parents to send their children to school during the hour of religious instruction. The object of Clause 6 was to place the children in exactly the same position as the teachers. He knew something of the working classes of the country; he was a workman himself and the son of a workman, and when he heard hon. Gentlemen speak as they had done regarding the attitude of parents towards religious teaching it showed that those Members did not quite understand the problems

  1475
  they were discussing. He pleaded for Clause 6 as it stood, and he was sorry the Government had not come before the Committee supporting the clause with all the weight of a united Cabinet behind it. At the same time as there were a number of people in the country who had conscientious objections to certain forms of teaching, it was the duty of this House to protect them.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid it had been very clear during the debate what the motives were which inspired opposition against Clause 6. A large number of hon. Members disavowed the very plea on which they founded their objection to the secular Amendment. They were now told that a great majority were absolutely opposed to secular instruction, and yet they said they had no faith in the children being sent to school for religious teaching unless they were compelled. His contention was that Clause 6 was the one Clause in the Bill that carried the issue in the right direction. It was almost the one truly liberal clause in the Bill. He thought he knew something about theology, but when he came to this House as a politician he found himself in a Sanhedrim of amateur theologians in which the Bill was discussed less on political than on religious grounds. There was one exception, but of what value was that? It was said that there would be new facilities given, or new inducements to child labour. If that were true, it was an extremely important consideration; but what effort had been made by hon. Gentlemen who took up that position to give the Committee anything in the nature of political or statistical information on the subject? What did they, as politicians, know of what was happening in the matter of child labour, or of the real value of religious instruction in the schools? If they wanted to discuss the question of under-feeding they appointed a Committee or Commission to make inquiries; but had anybody proposed to appoint a Commission to inquire into the actual results of the instruction which had been given in schools on religious lines for the last 100 years? If a great majority of the Members of this House had been born in a Mohammedan country they themselves would have been
  1476
  Mohammedans. Nobody could dispute that. For instance, the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone would have been the most devout of Mullahs, and he believed the hon. Member for West Ham, despite his very pronounced ethical bias, to which he desired to pay a tribute, would have been very practically ethical on the lines of a good child of Islam. The beliefs which figured upon the floor of the House were political beliefs, but some hon. Members had given them confessions of faith. He respectfully deprecated all confessions of faith in that Assembly, as such confessions on the part of hon. Members holding positive forms of creed would justify countervailing ethical assertions, and yet how offensive those would be considered by hon. Members who were always giving them the assurances of their faith. He regretted I that his hon. friend the Member for Leicester had given himself a certificate of spirituality in this matter, because they were not there to decide upon matters of spirituality. Surely they were present not as theologians but as politicians to decide these questions on political grounds. Clause 6 had the merit of being drawn on political grounds, and the only political consideration urged against it was that advanced by the hon. Member for Northampton, that it would not guard the children against the tendency of the worst class of parents to take their children from school and set them to work. Yet the conscience clause had not been taken advantage of for this purpose, and the worst class of parents were, in a variety of ways, under the influence of the Church missions. The opponents of the clause were trying to refuse one kind of political freedom to one of the best classes of parents. The Sermon on the Mount had been alluded to, and he would remind the Committee, therefore, that the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, on a previous occasion, had said—a wonderful effort of tolerance—that he did not object to that, but that such teaching was absolutely worthless from the point of view of Christianity.
  LORD R. CECILthought the hon. Member was not quite fair. The point he had discussed was how far Christian faith was taught in the schools, and he had said that as a definition of Christian

  1477
  faith the Sermon on the Mount was not sufficient, although he might have used stronger words.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid what the noble Lord wanted was not moral teaching in the schools, but dogmatic teaching.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he wanted both—Christian faith and conduct.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whose fault it was that education in this country was backward? For at least 100 years all education had been kept back by the constant action of the Church of England. The Church of England had been the stone in the wool. In any country where there was a clearly dominant church, there education was backward relatively with other countries.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was not speaking either to the Amendment or to the clause.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he would drop that argument as far as he could and would confine himself to the Amendment and the clause. He wished to express his regret at the loss the House had sustained by the death of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, who had voted for the secular Amendment, and declared that the right way out of the theological wrangle, which was going on over the schools of this country, was to introduce secular education.
  While the hon. Member was proceeding with his argument Mr. BELLOC (Salford, S.) on his way to his seat, passed between the hon. Member and the Chairman amidst cries of "order."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I must explain to hon. Members that when any Member is speaking on the first or second bench, they must not cross between the hon. Member and the Chair.
  MR. BELLOC: I must apologise to the Committee for my ignorance of its rules.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid that Clause 6 would save the country from the tyrannous consequences which would flow from this Bill under the facilities
  1478
  given by Clause 4. In a considerable number of schools there would in consequence of those facilities be no escape from absolutely dogmatic teaching save by way of Clause 6. Dogmatic teaching might be right or wrong. The Committee was not permitted to express any opinion upon that, but it was not education. Education consisted in the eliciting of the powers of a child's mind and teaching it how to use its reason. Therefore dogmatic teaching was non-educational teaching, while Clause 6 was primarily an educational clause. He ventured to deprecate the unfortunate line which had been taken by the hon Member for East Mayo, who, while he backed up the right of parents to settle for themselves the education of their children in regard to members of his own faith, now came forward with a suggestion to disregard the rights of other parents, and to interfere with their rights. What was the value of the moral teaching given in the fashion which the hon. Member wished it to be given, if the child was to be taunted and mocked at by the very people who were giving it? It had been suggested by some who supported the Amendment that it would be possible so to arrange that the children who were withheld from the religious teaching might get secular teaching during that time. But how would that operate? How had it operated in the past? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education had indicated his knowledge of a number of cases. In his opinion the secular teaching given to the withdrawn child was a species of teaching that was repellant to the child and not meant to carry on his secular education in any way. And he could quite understand that; because if it was thought that the withdrawn child was gaining three-fourths of an hour's secular teaching beyond that which was given to the other children, the parents of the other children would at once complain that their children were losing that education which was given to the withdrawn child. So that any secular system of that kind would have the effect of creating teaching which was objectionable and repellant. Those who supported Clause 6 did so because they held with the right hon. Gentleman that it was essential.

  1479
  In the opinion of masses of people in this country "clericalism is the enemy," and he felt that the more strongly when he saw the hon. Member for East Mayo showing a disposition to join the other forces in this House to curtail the liberty of the layman. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary had adopted the phrase "clericalism is the enemy." But that phrase did not mean that the clergy were the enemy. It did not mean that every clergyman was an enemy. The word clericalism was an intensive term, and meant the domination of the clerical influence and the clerical spirit over the lay spirit. He hoped most Members of the House did protest against clericalism in that sense. It was because he protested against it in that sense that he supported the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the two preceding speakers were among those who desired to see established in this country a purely secular system of education, and they, therefore, naturally supported Clause 6 in its present shape, and it certainly harmonised with the views they had laid before the Committee. But he confessed he had not been impressed by the strength of the arguments they had put forward. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had discovered two facts which rather startled him. The first was that the great enemy for 100 years to the cause of popular education in this country had been the Church of England—a statement which seemed to be belied by every passage in the history of the country. Any human being who looked into that history could see that the Church of England in the last 100 years, like the Church of Scotland in preceding centuries, had been the pioneer in the work of popular education, and had in that cause made infinite sacrifices, both pecuniary and other. Another discovery the hon. Gentleman had made had as little foundation in fact. It was that this Amendment was intended to help, and would have the effect of helping, the Church of England as distinguished from other denominations and other forms of religious teaching. The hon. Gentleman knew that the noble Lord the Member for East Mary-lebone bitterly complained that the
  1480
  clause compelled Cowper-Temple teaching, and excluded the teaching of the Church of England and the Church of Rome. He thought his hon. friend had rather exaggerated his case, because the Amendment did not apply to Cowper-Temple teaching alone, but it did compel the attendance of children for Cowper-Temple teaching in what were now voluntary schools, on three days out of the five. How the hon. Gentlemen with these facts staring him in the face could tell the Committee that an Amendment moved by a Nonconformist Member on the other side of the House was an Amendment intended to bolster up the teaching of the Church of England and the Church of Rome passed his comprehension. The hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction, the value of which he could not apprehend, between political considerations and other considerations, and he had told the Committee that if they had been born in a Mohammedan country they would all have been Mohammedans, or if they had been born in a Bhuddist country they would all have been Bhuddists. The hon. Gentleman must carry that reasoning very much further if he adopted it at all. He advocated the teaching of morals in the schools as opposed to religion. If the hon. Gentleman had been born in a different century and in a different country his morality might not have been of the high type it was now. He must extend his argument to secular education, because had he had the misfortune to have been born in a less enlightened century and a less enlightened country, his views would have been at variance with those which he inculcated on the generation in which he happened to have been born. The hon. Gentleman would forgive him for putting aside the whole of that portion of his argument. He had asked, and the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan had also used the argument, why they wanted to compel children to attend religious instruction, seeing that they told them that the mind of the country was made up that religion should not be banished from the schools. If the parents really took this strong view on religion, they argued they did not require any compulsion for their children to attend religious instruction. They valued religion, and that was a sufficient

  1481
  guarantee that the children would attend even if no compulsion was placed upon them. That was the argument, and hon. Gentlemen who used it must remember that when they talked in England of the country desiring a certain thing they meant the majority of the country. Nobody denied that there might be parents who objected to religious teaching altogether—careless, selfish parents, parents who were indifferent and did not consider what was best for their children. Were they to leave those classes altogether uncared for? By this clause such parents would be allowed to have an option. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was clearly opposed to the policy adopted for secular education. The parents in this country were not allowed to say that their children should not have secular education. They were compelled to send their children to school. They could not be trusted not to allow selfishness, carelessness, indifference, and other things to stand in the way of the education of their children. The opponents of the clause based their argument on that. What was good for secular education was equally good for religious education. What they objected to was that by drawing distinctions between the two classes of education they would discredit in the eyes of the parents and in the public opinion of the country that part of education to which hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to apply that compulsion which they felt justified in applying to the other half of the educational system. The hon. Member for North Camberwell approached the same topic from a wholly different point of view, and advanced an argument which, he thought, was new in the debate. If he understood the hon. Gentleman, his point was that compulsion in matters of religion was tolerable so long as the system was in existence which this Bill would upset; and it was tolerable because it was carried out by the elementary teachers. But now that that system was to be upset, now that elementary teachers were not to be allowed to deal with religion, now that it was to be handed over to the clergy of the various denominations, they would have a wholly new influence imported. They would find that the priest or the Nonconformist minister would take such an exaggerated view of those things
  1482
  which divided Christians that the whole religious harmony of a district, which could only be preserved if religion was taught by the teacher in the school, would be lost. He thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that that was a fair statement of his argument. With the conclusion that was to be derived from the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell—namely, that the teacher should be allowed to give the religious instruction—he was in entire agreement. He did not share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension of a great increase insectarian bitterness should the clergyman be forced to come into the school to give religious instruction. But he agreed that in the circumstances it was best that the religious instruction, whether denominational or undenominational, should be given by the teacher, who was responsible for the discipline of the school and understood the art of teaching, which was an entirely different matter from the science of theology. The Minister for Education had left the clause to the Committee. For that proceeding there were examples, but it was not usual, and was only justified in the case of a question about which there was a strong difference of opinion in the Cabinet or among the supporters of the Government. But, though the right hon. Gentleman had left the question to the Committee, he had not concealed his own emphatic opinion in favour of the clause as it stood. The argument upon which the right hon. Gentleman really rested his defence of the clause was that of freedom of conscience. The hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire took the same line, but in their development of the same argument they absolutely contradicted each other. The Minister for Education had said that to compel the minority in a school—presumably Nonconformists—to attend during the time of religious instruction, and then to require from the teacher differential treatment for them was to put the unfortunate children in a position which was cruel to those of sensitive minds, who dreaded being marked out from the rest of their schoolmates. But the argument of the hon. Member for the Louth Division was that while in the schools which he knew best, where the great mass of the children we

  1483
  Nonconformists, the majority would not press hardly upon the Church minority, in schools of another class the tyrannical squire or the intolerant parson would make the lives of Nonconformist parents a burden so bitter that they would not dare to obtain for their children that religious instruction which, left to themselves, they would naturally secure.
  MR. PERKSsaid the point he had tried to bring out was that, owing to the operation of Clause 3, national schools in Lincolnshire would have so strong a clerical atmosphere as to compel Nonconformist children attending them to adapt themselves to their form of religious teaching.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What a Compliment to the Act of 1902! These evils which under the Act of 1902 were either avoided or reduced to relative insignificance were all brought back to full activity by Clause 3 of this Bill! The hon. Member for the Louth Division appeared to hold the view, which had been publicly expressed by Dr. Clifford or some other eminent Nonconformist Divine, that this Bill was far more clerical than the Act of 1902. When he remembered that there was to be compulsory Cowper-Temple teaching every day of the week in schools attended by Nonconformist majorities, he must say that that was an opinion rather unjust to the Bill. It was not his business to defend the Bill, but he thought the time had come when the right hon. Gentleman should obtain justice even from his friends. It had been pointed out that in the county council schools the question of conscience never came up, and that the idea that the denominational minorities attending them were oppressed was a complete delusion. The same thing was exactly true of voluntary schools. There was no conscience difficulty in these schools. In truth, the idea that the minority of children in the one class of school or the other was going to be made miserable lad no foundation in fact, and ought not to be allowed to influence the decision of the Committee in regard to the clause. He could not conceive how hon. Members opposite who believed in religious instruction forming part of the country's
  1484
  national system of education could consistently vote against the Amendment. How was it possible for them to defend their view of the position which religion should hold in elementary education if they drew a distinction between secular and religious subjects, and said that, while the teaching of the first must be compulsory, the teaching of the other must be voluntary? Such an attitude would inevitably lead to the destruction of that blending of religion with education which for forty years the strongest efforts of the House had been directed to make an indestructible part of the social life of the people. The Members of the House who believed in a purely secular system of education were a small minority. Every other section of the House, undenominational or denominational, so long as they were in favour of religious teaching in the schools, were bound to support the Amendment. He found it difficult to believe that any Member who voted against the Amendment either fully understood its consequences or really entertained the view that religion was a necessary element of national welfare, and consequently should form part of the elementary education of the children of the country.
  MR. H. R. MANSFIELDsaid he was afraid that Members from Ireland who supported the Amendment had lost sight of the fact that there were hundreds of rural villages in England in which there were no Roman Catholic schools, and that the clause would be a distinct help to the Catholics residing in such villages. Under present conditions Catholics so situated were forced to take the Anglican teaching or occupy an invidious position under the conscience clause. But under Clause 6 they would be able to keep their children from school during the hour of religious instruction. He was astonished that the Anglican section of the community did not welcome Clause 6. In view of what had been said in the course of the debates respecting Cowper-Temple teaching, he would have thought that those who objected to that form of instruction would have been glad of the opportunity which the clause would secure to them of preventing their children receiving it. Speaking on behalf of the agricultural labourers, many of

  1485
  whom lived in his constituency, he said that many labourers were Nonconformists, but such men were without the powerful organisations which Anglican and Catholics had behind them to investigate their grievances. The Nonconformist labourer was weak, and his views were often inarticulate, although his religion was to him as dear as—and probably much dearer—than was the religion of the dweller in the town to him. His chances of success in life were practically nil, and if he was a religious man he looked forward to another life in which things might be more equal. Being often of the same religion as his father, he desired that his children should be of the same religion as himself. Up to the present he had been under the operation of the conscience clause. If Clause 6 were eliminated he would be driven back upon that. He believed that would be a calamity. He had nothing to say against the conscience clause except that it had been of no use. He once spoke in a village school, and when he had finished the clergyman and the schoolmaster pointed out to him high up on the wall a dirty placard which turned out to be a copy of the conscience clause. He said at the time that it seemed to him that no one had ever read it, and he was told that there was no religious difficulty in that village. The fact was children did not like to be put in an invidious position; and under that clause parents were often put in not only an invidious but a dangerous position. The children had first to bear the brunt, and if the father chose to over-ride the child and stand by the conscience clause, then he himself had very often to run the gauntlet. It was all very well to say that these tyrannical employers did not exist, but they did, and men had now often to pay the price of their convictions, and if they asked for the operation of the present conscience clause they had to pay a price which they were little able to bear. He agreed with the Minister for Education that no conscience clause was worth anything unless it carried with it the right to withdraw a child during the time of religious instruction. They asked for Clause 6 as it stood, because they felt that it brought freedom for the Anglican against simple Bible
  1486
  teaching, freedom for the Catholic against Protestant teaching, freedom for the Nonconformist against sectarian teaching, and freedom for the secularist against any religious teaching at all. It was because they believed it paved the way for freedom that they wanted to adhere to the clause as it stood. The hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division had said that Clause 4 was jerrymandered by the Nonconformist in the interest of the Roman Catholics. This was not so; the Nonconformist did not like and did not want Clause 4. Hon. Members opposite ought not to speak of jerrymandering after that exhibition of it which was given in the wear and tear Amendment. He thought that the only people in danger of jerrymandering were the parents. The rights of the parent had been put forward in aid of denominational teaching, but now that the whole matter was proposed to be left to the parent they were being told that Parliament must decide the matter. They did not think that the parent had a right to demand a certain teaching, but they did say that he had a right to say that he would not have some other teaching. They asked that the parents should have liberty in this matter; if there was to be any Compulsion of the child it ought to be the direct act of the parent and not of the State. He hoped the Committee would stand by this clause. They were asking for justice to the agricultural and other labourers, and he trusted there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of freedom to all classes and sections of the community, which would be secured by leaving this question of religion for the parents-themselves to decide.
  MR SAMUEL ROBERTSin supporting the Amendment, said the question appeared to him to be whether religious instruction was to continue to be compulsory during school hours. He represented a city where the Act of 1902 had been a very great success, because both political Parties made up their minds to lay aside their religious differences and work for the benefit of the children alone. The result was that good feeling had prevailed between the education committee and the managers of voluntary schools. He had asked the

  1487
  Archdeacon of Sheffield what would be the result in the voluntary schools if Clause 6 were carried, and he had replied that by taking religious teaching outside school hours and leaving it optional they were doing a cruel injury to the children of careless parents whose children needed religious instruction most. The Archdeacon further stated that by this clause they would be putting a premium upon non-attendance; that parents would be tempted to keep their boys at home to work and girls would be wanted at home by their mothers; and the children would prefer to play. The result would be that the bulk of the children would never learn any religion at all. What had happened in America? There pressure was brought to bear on account of sectarian animosities and denominational teaching was taken away from the schools. Pari passu with this the attendance at the Sunday schools in America dropped off. The President of the Board of Education said he wanted to make the conscience clause a reality. It had been a reality. The children had not been withdrawn from the schools during religious instruction because they had no real reason for withdrawing them. From inquiries made of the teachers in the thirty-five voluntary Church schools of Sheffield—many of whom had been in the schools for thirty or forty years—as to whether children had been withdrawn during their terms of office it appeared that, with the exception of a few Jews, not a single child had been withdrawn. The Minister for Education said it was possible that the parents did not withdraw their children because they did not wish to place them in an invidious position. Surely the conscience of a parent could not be very sensitive if that were allowed to stand in the way of withdrawing a child from the religious instruction. A former Member of this House who sat on the Opposition side in the last Parliament said to him the other day—
  "The House of Commons is engaged in seeing what is the minimum of religious education that may be given in the schools. Though our Master said, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,' you are trying how little you can teach to the children who are afterwards to be the manhood and womanhood of England."
  MR. ROGERSsaid that since the passing of the Act of 1902 he
  1488
  had been engaged one day a week in the working of the Act in his own county. He felt that Clause 6 raised an exceedingly important question from the point of view of administration. The working out of this Bill when it became law would devolve entirely on the local authorities, and he submitted that nothing should be done to make it more difficult for them to carry out the important and arduous duties with which they were entrusted. He disliked Clause 6 because it said that religious instruction was to be outside of school hours, and that it was to form no part of the normal life of the day schools. He submitted that that was not in accordance with the scheme of the Government. The Bill, as he understood it, was based on the principle of undenominationalism, He had heard a number of speeches from the Treasury Bench defending the Bill on the lines of simple Bible teaching. It seemed to him that if it was right to instigate and encourage a local authority to give simple Bible teaching power ought to be given to make that teaching part of the normal curriculum of the school. Under Clause 6 they were not doing that. It was left entirely an open matter. From the point of view of the discipline of the school he could not disguise from himself the strong conviction that the effect of making the religious teaching outside the school hours would be that the children would come in between nine o'clock and a quarter to ten in irregular batches. That would utterly destroy the common life of the school during the three quarters of an hour, and if the children came in from time to time it would be impossible for the teacher to give them proper instruction. The alternative was to make the children stay outside the school till a quarter to ten. In the case of village schools to which the children came long distances it would be to keep them outside until the first lesson was over. From the point of view of discipline, therefore, Clause 6 would not be an improvement. Having the greatest possible sympathy with the principle of religious freedom, he did not think the present conscience clause had worked in a satisfactory manner in the great majority of cases. If a Nonconformist child was withdrawn from the ordinary religious

  1489
  teaching and given the multiplication table to learn in the corner of the classroom, that was an invidious and detestable position in which to put a small child. The way to make the clause effective was to allow the children to be withdrawn not only from the class but also from the premises. He thought that trouble had come because under the Act of 1870 the conscience clause was interpreted as only allowing withdrawal from the class and not from the premises. There were exceptions to that at the present time. Under the by-law children were withdrawn from the school premises, provided that their parents asked permission in writing. So far as he was aware, the local authority had not insisted on any form of religious instruction being given by the parents. He thought it would be impossible for any local authority to follow a child to its home, or to cross-examine a child as to what it was doing during the time it was withdrawn. There were schools which had so few rooms that there was no place in which a child could be put when withdrawn from religious instruction. He contended that it should be possible to withdraw the children from the premises as well as from the class if proper protection was to be given. It was obvious that under the new Bill the conscience clause would not be required in so many cases as hitherto. If a parent desired to withdraw his child from a Church school where teaching was of a particular character, there would always be the alternative of Cowper-Temple teaching, and he did not anticipate that there would be the same urgency for the operations of the conscience clause in future. If his hon. friend the Member for the Brightside Division could see his way to add to his Amendment some Amendment on the lines of the one of which he himself had given notice he thought it would meet the case.† He was not inclined
  † The Amendment referred to was to add at the end of the Amendment under discussion, "and provided that when a parent has notified to the managers in writing his intention to withdraw the child from the schoolhouse during the time allotted to such religious observation or instruction, he shall not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at such schoolhouse, except during the times allotted in the time-table exclusively to secular instruction.'
  1490
  to think that the question of child labour was very much more than a bogey. If it was more than that it ought to be dealt with by legislation passed for the regulation of the employment of children. If a parent was put under the obligation of writing to the local authority claiming exemption for his child on conscientious grounds, he did not fancy a parent would do that in order to get his child put to work. He was certain that a conscientious objection would only be taken by a parent who felt strongly on the subject. He thought the clause as it stood was a danger to discipline and would hamper the local education authority in maintaining the efficiency of its education. He believed the local education authority should have the opportunity of making religious instruction part of the normal life of the school.
  MR. G. GREENWOODsaid they were all agreed in wanting to see a final settlement of this question, so far as there could be finality in mundane affairs. Above all, they were agreed in wishing to see an end of those deplorable disputes and controversies concerning dogma and doctrine which were an injury to the great cause of national education which they all had at heart or which they all professed to have at heart. But they would never see that finality, that end to disputes and controversies unless the question was settled on sound and intelligible principles—principles that would secure that strict and impartial justice was meted out to every section of the community so that no majority would be able to oppress any minority in the country however numerically insignificant that minority might be. What was the principle for which the passive resisters had been so long and strenuously contending? It was that no man ought to be compelled by law to pay for the support of any religious teaching to which he was conscientiously opposed. That seemed to him a most admirable principle, and should be taken as a first principle in this matter. It seemed to him an odious thing to use all the powers of the State to coerce a man to pay for religious teaching of which he conscientiously disapproved. But if he was right in that, what was the result? We had now quartered all our public elementary schools comfortably on the

  1491
  rates and taxes, and the State levied rates and taxes with the most sublime impartiality from every citizen, without asking him what was his religious belief, or even if he had any religious belief at all. What would happen when this Bill became law? They would be taxing thousands of their fellow-countrymen in order to compel them to pay for religious teaching of which they disap-approved, in direct violation of the principle which he had ventured to lay down, the principle for which the passive resisters had contended, and every passive resister who—he did not say supported this Bill, because the Bill was an immense improvement on the Act of 1902—but who actively supported the teaching of religion in State schools at public expense, would show that, consciously or unconsciously, he had been only fighting for his own hand, and was now ready to throw on others the very burden against which he had so loudly protested when it was laid on his own shoulders. They had heard a great deal from the benches opposite about the right of parents. It was said that a parent had a right to have his children brought up in his own religion. That came rather remarkably from the Party which, for a quarter of a century, had opposed, tooth and nail, the enactment of a conscience clause, and had said in effect to every parent in rural districts "You must send your children to Church schools to be educated in the doctrines of the Church of England, unless you are content to leave them without any secular education at all." A parent had a right to bring up his children in his own religion, but he had not a right to demand that his children should be educated in any religion he pleased at the State expense, otherwise this country would have to embark in a gigantic system of concurrent endowment which would embrace not only all forms and varieties of Christianity, but which must also in justice comprehend many other shades and varieties of faith not excluding the ethical societies. The parent had no right to demand that his child should be brought up in any religion he chose at the State expense. The only right of the parent in this connection was that his children should not be taught in the State school any religion of which he disapproved. The case was put admirably by the present Secretary for India in a
  1492
  book published in 1873 on National: education—
  "The answer was simple and obvious. Parents have an inalienable right to choose the kind of religious instruction which their children shall receive. No one disputes that. Our simple contention is that along with this right of choosing their religious instruction, goes the duty of paying for it. If I say to the parent, 'your child shall not be allowed to receive instruction in Catholic doctrine, or in Baptist doctrine,' I am a tyrant. If the parent should say to me, 'I insist that you shall pay for instructing my child in doctrines which you do not accept,' then it is he who is the tyrant. Yet nothing less than this is involved in the present educational system. We are teaching the religion of some with money raised by the taxation of all."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "Writers for the newspapers, who had not always time to think about the terms they use, have the face to insist that we are for depriving the majority of the community of the right of giving their children a religious education. What we really seek is to deprive the majority of the right of making the minority pay for giving this education to other people's children.… We are next told that the ratepayers, when asked to speak for themselves, reply all over the kingdom by overwhelming majorities, as if, in religious affairs it were not a settled principle of our Government that the majority, however great it may be, and however strenuous its convictions, shall still not force the conscience of the minority. We force Quakers to pay for war, and Peculiar People to call in doctors; but the protection of the Realm and the protection of life are secular ends, not religious ends, like teaching catechism."
  He held that that was a perfectly good and logical distinction, and he was surprised that hon. Gentlemen supported the proposition that if they were entitled to have compulsory secular instruction, they were entitled to have compulsory religious instruction also. The conscience clause was an admission that they were-teaching in State schools what they had no right to teach compulsorily. In regard to the difference between secular and religious education, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India in his book was wholly admirable, and he could have wished that it had been in the hands of every Member in the House before these debates came on The author said—
  "Secular instruction is one thing, and religious-instruction is something quite different; no one who accepts Government aid on condition of a conscience clause can deny this absolute separation. The State has no more to do with the provision of religious instruction than it has to do with the provision of a band of music for

  1493
  each parish. That is the affair of those who want music, or who want religious instruction. There is no prohibition nor wish to prohibit. There is only absolute neutrality and indifference."
  As one who had long been in favour of the "secular solution" he could not wholly approve of the Bill, but at least he thought they were entitled to have an efficient conscience clause, and the President of the Board had clearly demonstrated, and had enforced his argument by an appeal to his own school experience, that they could not have an efficient conscience clause unless this clause remained intact. If it were otherwise the children who claimed the benefit of the conscience clause at the school would have to submit to be called "little atheists" or "little agnostics." The hon. Member for Northampton had sneered at the term "agnostic," but for himself he deprecated controversy of that sort because, as had been said by an hon. friend of his before, it might lead to retaliation and to the discussion of questions which could not properly be discussed in this House. He would content himself therefore with saying that the hon. Member for Northampton appeared to have forgotten his Greek. "Agnostic" was a perfectly good word, which had been introduced by Professor Huxley. The "agnostic" was the man who professed to know all things, and the agnostic was the man who said he did not know. He was very glad to see that the new Code included provisions for definite moral instruction as part of the secular work, such as the duty of kindness to animals. He had no hesitation in saying that was more valuable instruction for the child, and more truly religious than the teaching of certain stories which some of the greatest scholars within the Church itself told them might be dismissed as mythology. He supported this clause, not because it was logical—he was aware that nobody cared a straw for logic in matters political, and still less in matters theological—but because it was just, and he would never believe that that which was consonant to justice could be at variance with true religion.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)said that no doubt the State, having
  1494
  collected the rates and taxes, did not consider very much what religion was taught in the schools. His view, however, was that the people had a right to say that the money they paid should he disbursed in a way of which they approved. It was said that the conscience clause had been in this country for many years inoperative, but supposing that to have been the case—a very large assumption—would not the influence of the local authority have considerable bearing in regard to the operation of this conscience clause? The Catholics had no reason to complain of the operation of the conscience clause, loose as it was, and he was sure they would never have reason to do so. Their objection to this clause was that it placed religious education in a secondary position. They regarded religious and moral teaching as of far more importance than the secular part of education, and they could not assent to any proposal which placed religious and moral teaching upon a secondary plane. For himself he thought the local authority would be able to see that the conscience clause became a reality.
  MR. HELMEsaid he did not think it could be disputed that the object which the Government had in view in introducing this clause had been to incorporate in the Bill a genuine conscience clause, which all of them on the Ministerial side of the House claimed to be necessary. Hon. Members opposite scarcely realised how Nonconformists felt upon this question, and without for one moment suggesting that the clergy and the teachers employed in the voluntary schools of the country had distinctly set themselves to inculcate doctrines which they believed to be regarded as false by many of the parents of the children, yet it was the fact that their fidelity in presenting various aspects of Church teaching had offended the feelings of a very large number of parents. The doctrines which were taught under the word Church in the Creed included that of the. Apostolic succession, and in regard to that and other matters there should,

  1495
  he thought, be greater security under the conscience clause in future than there had been in the past. But whilst holding that view he would ask whether they might not, in endeavouring to obtain relief from the intolerance which had obtained in the past, be going too far in accepting this clause. He admitted that in regard to the undenominational and secular aspect of school life the irregularity of attendance might demand very careful consideration. It was possible, quite apart from the action of the parents, that the children themselves might play truant, and as the Committee had decided in favour of religious instruction being continued in the schools the question was whether as a matter of practical politics they could not secure a position which would prevent them from drifting into a purely secular system. It seemed to him that if the Government were to adopt the Amendment now before the Committee amended by the omission of the word "secular" and the substitution of the words "in such pure and simple ethics and moral order as shall be approved by the education authority," and at the same time make the Anson by-law obligatory, they might arrive at a solution of the question. They would then have three alternatives which would provide for religious instruction as part and parcel of the ordinary school curriculum subject to the restrictions of this real conscience clause which would not permit children whose parents did not desire it to participate in it. If they took the case it provided for, they had a provision to bring the child to school at nine in the morning, and if the parent did not desire his child to receive religious instruction the child was to be put into another place to receive alternative, not secular instruction. If the Anson by-law was made obligatory all that the parent would have to do would be to write a letter to the schoolmaster and the child would be absolved from attendance. That would enable those who desired no religious instruction to be given to their children to be satisfied, and it would allow those persons who did desire their children to have
  1496
  special religious instruction to have their children taken by the clergyman or the priest and given special instruction in the Church or some other place. Whilst as a Nonconformist he urged the claim of unsectarian education he wished to be perfectly fair to the consciences of others. If this by-law was made obligatory they would make the Bill very much more satisfactory in its working in the country, because there would be no reason for those who objected to it adopting the policy of passive resistance—which it was said they might be compelled to adopt. Thus the children might have religious instruction different m degree; it might be the Cowper-Temple teaching for five days a week, or on the other hand they might have dogmatic teaching on two days in the week supplemented by the Cowper-Temple teaching on three days in the week, or in the four-fifths schools sectarian teaching five day a week, or the children might not come at all. He would rather take the risk under these conditions of unfair influences being brought to bear on the children than he would willingly consent to a system which would exclude religion from the schools. He should therefore support the Amendment of his hon. friend and would try to vary it in the manner he had indicated.
  MR. CARLILEsaid he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Brightside Division, which he hoped would receive the hearty support of the Committee. It did not entirely meet the views of those with whom he sat, but it went, as they believed, a long way towards removing what they held would be very mischievous in the clause as it now stood. He desired to associate himself with the hon. Baronet who recently spoke from below the gangway in this matter. In their opinion religious instruction was absolutely vital for the happiness of the children and must be given under the most favourable conditions. It had in their opinion to be kept close to secular education in order that there might

  1497
  be no sense, in the mind of the child, of its being divorced from secular education. They wanted religious and secular education to be given together in the school so that the child should be impregnated with the religion for which they had all striven during all these years. All that was not to be had in this Amendment, but it went some way towards it. The clause, as it stood, practically destroyed that for which they were contending. There were some, he knew, who felt that if increased facilities were given to children to avoid certain things they would immediately go and do them, but that was not his experience. If they made it easier for people to keep their children away from religious instruction were they acting wisely? It seemed to them that the clause was bent upon destroying all religious instruction in the schools and it was because of that that they felt so strongly about it. But they felt, quite apart from that, that religious instruction should have the first place, and they would not be satisfied with its being put at the end of, the morning or squeezed into an odd half-hour in the afternoon. They believed it should come first and be made the most important of all, and tone the whole education which the children received. They believed that if religious instruction was taken out of the school hours the impression on the child's mind would be that religious instruction was inferior to that which they were receiving in the school. Another point they did not lose sight of was that religious instruction being given largely and chiefly by the teachers themselves gave the teachers on the one hand an immense leverage over the children, and on the other influenced the children very much in accepting the teaching. He knew that vast numbers of teachers in this country would strongly oppose any attempt to prevent their giving religious instruction to their children, because they knew the power of it. If, as the hon. Member for North Camberwell had told them, the most effective instruction that he had given was given not in connection with the1 Bible, but in
  1498
  connection with certain moral lessons it certainly was not the fault of the Bible. Those with whom he had the honour to sit recognised that in the Scriptures lessons there was the power, of God to enable the child to absorb them, but no one would suggest that there was such a power behind mere moral maxims. And it was because there was this power behind religious teaching that they insisted upon it, and that they, with God's help, would see that it should have the first place in the school; that it should be the paramount influence in the school life of the children, The hon. Member for North Camberwell had also said that the great reason why children were not withdrawn under the conscience clause was that the parents had confidence in the teachers. He believed that was true, because up to now they had been able to ascertain that the teachers believed in the divine truths which they were called upon to teach. He would just like to say a word on the subject of some observations which fell from the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Northumberland. The hon. Gentleman deprecated their taking up a religious ground on this subject, and said that the Bill was political. He, however, thought it was very difficult altogether to divorce the political from the religious on most occasions, and he was not sure that it was desirable that they should do so. He thought, at any rate, that the moral, if not the religious side, of legislation, ought to be considered, and he was certain that as a rule it was considered by hon. Members in this House. He protested at all events against the idea that this Bill was to be separated in their minds from religious considerations. Then the same hon. Member had spoken of education as being the drawing out of the powers of the child's mind. The hon. Gentleman apparently thought that that was all that they should expect of education. Many of them claimed that education, to be worth its name, must draw out all the powers of the child.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were

  1499
  very general and were not confined to the Amendment.
  MR. CARLILEsaid he was merely trying to explain why they laid so much stress upon the importance of the spiritual nature of the child. The hon. Member for West Ham said his faith was strong that religion would be continued in the schools, but he did not give any reason for the hope that was in him, excepting his faith in something that might happen in the future which would lead to the maintenance of religious instruction, notwithstanding the fact that he would make it extremely easy for parents to keep their children away from religious instruction, and for children to avoid it. They did not believe in the view held by the hon. Gentleman, and therefore for the most part he believed hon. Members on the Opposition side and those below the Gangway would support the Amendment.
  MR. SOARESsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked the Committee to combine their religion and politics in a most extraordinary fashion, but he seemed to have forgotten one point, and that was that His Majesty's Government had left it an absolutely open question. There was no question of Liberal or of Tory so far as this clause and Amendment were concerned, and he thought the Government had been very well advised in their action because there was nothing of a departmental nature whatever about the Amendment or the clause. The knowledge which was necessary for anyone to come to a conclusion was as open to any humble Member of this House as it was to the Minister for Education himself. The Amendment was rather an extraordinary one. It was proposed by a Nonconformist and supported by Roman Catholics and by Members of the Anglican Church. That fact in itself showed that it had nothing whatever to do with various denominations. In his opinion, the point at issue with regard to this Amendment was whether they were in favour of religious education or a secular system of educati n. The hon. Member for Northampton had pouredscorn on what he was pleased to call the doctrine of
  1500
  mandate. He would not go into the question of mandate now, but this he would say, that every hon. Member when it did not conflict with his conscientious feelings liked to do what the majority of his constituents desired, and he was quite certain that the majority of his constituents desired religion to be taught in the school and the hours of teaching to be made compulsory, of course subject to the conscience clause. He did not think the conscience clause was satisfactory at the present time, and he would like to see the Minister for Education brace it up as much as was necessary. If they passed the clause as it stood and refused to accept the Amendment they would be putting all the delights of playtime in competition with religious teaching. It would be a very extraordinary child that did not prefer to play games rather than be taught religion or anything else. Another fact to be remembered with regard to this clause was that they were, in the case of the towns at any rate, putting the desire of gain in the minds of parents. In all our large towns children of ten or eleven years of age might easily earn a few coppers in the time given to religious instruction, and he would sincerely regret if that should happen. So far as council schools in the rural districts were concerned, religious teaching was entirely under the Cowper-Temple Clause, and, where a school under this Bill would be a transferred voluntary school, on three days of the week there would be Cowper-Temple instruction, and on other two days denominational teaching, but he also hoped that on these two days there would be the alternative of Cowper-Temple teaching to those children who desired it. He hoped that that would be made sure on the Report stage of the Bill; if it were he did not think any one, whatever his denomination, could have a grievance if religious education were made compulsory. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said he found in the course of his experience as a school master that more good was done incidentally during the days' teaching than during the time of the religious lesson. Surely if that were an argument at all it was an argument for abolishing all forms of religious teaching at the opening of school, and that proved that the issue was really one between secular

  1501
  education and religious education, and therefore he for his part intended to vote for the Amendment and against the clause.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he should vote for the Amendment and against the clause. The clause would really operate quite differently from what seemed to be generally thought in the Committee. It would have the fate of the conscience clause, and would remain absolutely inoperative; in fact it was only a conscience clause in another form. Why was the conscience clause a dead letter? It was said that the people were afraid of exercising their rights under it because they were afraid of tyranny. That at any rate did not account for it in his part of the country. Nobody would say that a Lancashire cotton spinner was afraid of anybody, and he was sure he would not be afraid of any parson. What was the strongest force which affected people generally in regard to this matter? It was not superstition but habit. The working classes were in the habit of doing this and that, and the last thing they would ever think of was doing something that was contrary to the habits in which they had been brought up. For more than thirty years it had been the habit of the people to send their children to school at nine o'clock in the morning, and they thought that was the proper time. In Lancashire, where the fathers and mothers got up at 5.30 in the morning, it would be preposterous to suggest to them that the time to send their children to school was 9.45, for that would be turning the whole thing into ridicule. This clause would become an absolute dead letter for the very same reason that the conscience clause had become a dead letter. The great mass of people would continue to send their children to school at nine o'clock and only the bad parents would take advantage of this clause in order to utilise the labour of their children. The result would be that all these children who went to school at nine o'clock would have to receive this religious education because there was nothing else for them. He thought the chidren ought to have the choice of a good secular teaching beginning at nine o'clock. They had
  1502
  heard so much about education and conscience that he was disposed to become quite frivolous, for he was sick of the whole thing. He wanted to look at the matter from the 'bus driver's point of view or the point of view of ordinary people. He was an employer of labour himself, and he found that all sorts of reasons were given for sending children to a particular school, but he never heard one give the religious view. Let them drop all this talk about conscience and give them an alternative at nine o'clock. It was nonsense to lose the best part of the morning. They had been asked to consider the education of the children, but they appeared to him to be always forgetting that. From the point of view of the children, could any hon. Member deny that nine o'clock was late enough to commence school? It was nonsense to begin school later than that hour. They ought to give the children a choice. Let them give the parents the alternative of sending their children to religious teaching from 9 to 9.45 or some other teaching. Give them a fair choice and abide by the result. This clause would play into the hands of exclusive religious teaching. It would also play into the hands of the improvident, careless parent and would deprive the children of the most valuable three-quarters of an hour during the day.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the hon. Member had under-estimated the danger to the children from improvident and careless parents. The Minister for Education had recognised that difficulty. It would not be easy to strengthen the law to meet that danger. He would support the Amendment because he wanted to see religious instruction given distinctly within school hours. Clause 6 as it stood distinctly put religious instruction outside school hours, or, at all events, made attendance thereat unnecessary. In some schools religious nstruction was not by any means confined to the beginning of the day. There were schools in Lincolnshire where it was given on four separate occasions during the day, and if the children were free to come and go upon those occasions there must inevitab y be confusion and disorganisation, which in itself must be bad for discipline. In the Code which

  1503
  had just been issued it was laid down that football and rounders should, under certain conditions, be put within school hours. He was all for putting rounders within school hours, but he was equally for including religious instruction within, school hours. The one was at least as important as the other, and he was quite certain that, however the public might regard Clause 1 and the other great operative clauses of the Bill, it would prefer that this clause should be excluded. He sincerely trusted that the Committee would either amend the clause in the direction proposed by the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield or exclude it altogether.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)said he came down to the House with the intention of supporting the clause, but he found such omissions in the speech of his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education that he felt that, on the whole, the difficulties which surrounded the insertion of the clause were greater than were fully realised. The speech of his right hon. friend omitted to meet the question of discipline in the schools and the difficulties of child labour, which were very much more real in the rural districts of England than seemed to be realised. He thought difficulty would arise in the working of the clause on account of the different times at which little children in the rural districts would leave the scattered cottages in which they lived. That was a small point in the minds of Members of this House, but it loomed largely in the imagination of the parents of the children in the districts, and it was one which could not be omitted in considering the administration of the Bill. As to child labour, he thought that a great many Members of the House were not fully alive to the extent to which it was practised in the rural districts of England, and especially in the small towns. About a year and a half ago he went into the question of child labour as practised in Wiltshire. There were two inquiries, the first being held through the agency of the police. The representatives of the police said there was no great amount of child labour in the county. That Report was not regarded as satisfactory and applica-
  1504
  tion was made to the school teachers and the school attendance officers for information as to the conditions under which the children lived. Their Reports entirely reversed the evidence given by the police. It was pointed out that the selling of milk and newspapers was indulged in to a great and growing degree by parents at the expense of the children up to the hour when the schools were opened. The county council made by-laws which prohibited the employment of children in all the cases they could touch up to forty minutes before the hour for the schools opening. If the regular hour for opening the school was postponed till a quarter to ten, there might be an extension of this child labour which was most deletsrious from the point of view of education. It might be said that the parents who drew a, profit—he would say a wicked profit—from the labour of young children were few. The information obtained from the teachers was that this was not so. However well acquainted the hon. Member for Tyneside might be with the conditions in great industrial towns, he could not be acquainted with the industrial conditions in the rural districts, for otherwise he would not have minimised the question of child labour in the way he had done. Hon. Gentlemen who had declared themselves secularists had had the courage to vote against the Government. Let those who were in favour of some religious instruction in the schools also have the courage of their convictions. If it was right that there should be religious instruction, they should not have a clause like this. For these reasons he found himself, somewhat against his will, bound to vote against the clause.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid this was one of the most important questions that had ever been placed before the House of Commons, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman, in allowing the Committee to give a free decision, had done the right thing. The case of the Shalford schools in Surrey showed conclusively that if children were given the option whether they should go to school or not they did not go. A Church school at Shalford was transferred to an association under lease on the condition that the

  1505
  trustees might provide what religious teaching they liked prior to 9.45, but neither children nor teachers were obliged to be at the school prior to that hour. The vicar and curate taught regularly, but the limit of attendance at the voluntary religious lessons was unsatisfactory. The system was found to encourage irregularity and unpunctuality, the results of the teaching were disappointing, and the system was considered so detrimental to the school as an educational machine that when the lease fell in the county council officials declined to entertain the idea of continuing it on the same terms. What they wished to see taught in the schools of this country was the Christian religion—not something which might equally well be Mohammedanism. It was impossible to look at this great question entirely from the political point of view; they must to some extent look at it from the point of view of their faith. He hoped the Amendment would be carried by a large majority.
  MR. ASHTONsaid he looked at this question not only on religious grounds, but still more largely on educational grounds. He must confess that he had never himself been an advocate of excessive religious instruction in the schools. In his own district they had religious instruction for one hour on Mondays. He was unable to see why, if two hours religious instruction a week sufficed in public schools, the children in elementary schools should require more. He himself considered that the extra time might be made better use of in the secular education of the children. He had always felt that the Sunday school and the home ought to do most of the religious instruction of the children. At the same time, in the great towns where there was a residuum of the population, and where the parents did not care whether their children got any religious instruction at all, these children should have a chance of receiving some religious instruction. But it was not mainly from the religious aspect that he viewed this question and proposed to vote against the clause. It was on educational grounds. He agreed very largely with what his hon. friend the Member for East Bristol had said about the waste of educational time if the children were not
  1506
  compelled to go to school at nine o'clock to have some kind of instruction. There was another view. The children with-drawn from religious instruction would be wasting their time in the streets or in the fields for three-quarters of an hour every day while the other children, who were receiving religious instruction, were at any rate learning something, and their minds were being trained. Another aspect of the question was that the State would lose. They were spending enormous sums of money on these schools, but there would be a great waste of the State money if for three-quarters of an hour every day the schools and the teachers were not employed in doing the work of education for the withdrawn children. He admitted that there was a certain amount of risk of the children withdrawn from religious instruction having the finger of scorn pointed at them, and possibly being called atheists, but he thought that the chances at this time of day of the parson or the teacher treating the children as Nonconformists, as they used to do, were limited indeed. In the first place, this Bill would put the clergyman in a very different position from that which he occupied when he was the only manager; and in the case of teachers they had now become servants of the State, and servants of the county, and they would nnd political influences in their way which they did not in the old times.
  MR. WALTERSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he approached this matter from the point of view of the interests of denominational teaching. The result which he would like to see emerge from all the turmoil of these discussions was the equal giving of definite denominational instruction to all denominations in all public elementary schools. From that point of view he should have no difficulty whatever in supporting this Amendment, were it not for the form which Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill had for the moment assumed. Let the

  1507
  Committee consider how unsatisfactory would be the religious teaching in the schools as those clauses now stood. He confessed that he was in some doubt as to whether he ought to assist in making attendance compulsory during the time of such teaching. This clause to him seemed to be directed not against denominational but against religious teaching. The schools would be open, the time tables in force, religious teaching would be going forward or would be offered, and under those circumstances he was asked to say that the attendance of the children should be optional. It seemed to him that some of the strongest reasons which might be urged against Clause 6 had very little to do with education, and nothing at all to do with religion. He thought it would be very injurious to the discipline of the school if a lesson given by one of the teachers might or might not be attended by any child as he pleased. The system of elementary education should be as invariable as possible. The school should be opened and closed at fixed hours, and all the children should be compelled to attend between those hours. He was opposed to making any subject in the elementary schools optional; and if they sought for any subject to male optional, religious instruction was the last they should select. To make the best of a bad business, the better solution was that if any parent desired to withdraw his child from religious teaching he should be at liberty to do so under the conscience clause. If he desired to withdraw his child in order that it should have better religious teaching elsewhere, he should be in a position to do so. But unless a parent desired to avail himself of one or the other of those rights religious teaching should be compulsory, he supported the Amendment.
  MR. ADKINSsaid he heartily supported Clause 6 as against the Amendment and he hoped it was possible for every member of the Committee to do that without being a traitor to educational efficiency or disregarding the conscientious opinion of other Members. The intention of Clause 6 was to make religious education an optional matter, and that only those children should have it whose
  1508
  parents desired it. The moment they went beyond that obvious principle they were at once involved in using State machinery for the formulation of ideas and for the enforcement of religious principles which were actively opposed or only discontentedly acquiesced in by parents whose children had those lessons. The hon. Member for the Luton Division of Bedfordshire had admitted most candidly that if they had compulsory religious lessons in the school the minority of children who did not take them but who, under the Amendment, would be obliged to have arithmetic or something else of a special character, would be at a great disadvantage. If there was not enough secular education taught in the school, then let them have courage enough to make it more. A child who was taught arithmetic instead of religion would get ahead and put the others to a disadvantage. He thought the proper solution of this difficult question was to allow every parent the opportunity of intimating to the teachers of the school if he wished his children to have religious instruction. If so, then he thought the machinery of the State should be available for that type of religious instruction which did not advance the particular interest of any particular sect or any particular society. Such was Cowper-Templeism dependent upon the actual denned wish of the parent—[A laugh]—and it was so in spite of the irrelevant laugh of the noble Lord who apparently could conceive no kind of religious teaching which did not grind the axe of some special group of people. He himself said it was right and just that the State machinery should be used for undenominational religious teaching where the parent desired it. They did not think it fair that the machinery should be used as a matter of compulsion where the parent did not indicate that he desired it. If they put real compulsion upon children attending school to have Cowper-Temple religion or compulsory arithmetic they were making it more difficult for the child to receive religious instruction in some other place at that hour if the parents wished it. He wished to facilitate that.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: Why should you care about that?
  MR. ADKINSsaid he was grateful for that observation. It showed in language the most brief and least courteous the abyss of ignorance in which the noble Lord lived with regard to this question. He cared about it, and the other members of the Committee who supported undenominational religion wished also to give every facility for denominational teaching-elsewhere. By voting for the clause they were voting for making religion as it should be, a voluntary matter. He must cordially support the clause as against the Amendment, and he believed if it were ultimately amended
  so as to give religious instruction to children whose parents cared about it then they would obtain it for all children whose parents desired it, and the teachers of the school would know as far as it was possible what children were intended to be there and what parents desired the assistance of the teachers in giving religious instruction to the children.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 283. (Division List, No. 177.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ginnell, L.

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haddock, George R.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Halpin, J.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Hammond, John

  Armitage, R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Ashley, W. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  Astbury, John Meir

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Harwood, George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Crean, Eugene

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crossley, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cullinan, J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Baring, Hon-Guy (Winchester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Delany, William

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

  Beauchamp, E.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hills, J. W.

  Blake, Edward

  Dillon, John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Boland, John

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bovle, Sir Edward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Brodie, H. C.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Duffy, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

  Joyce, Michael

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Faber. George Denison (York)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burn yeat, J. D. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Keswick, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Fell, Arthur

  Kilbride, Denis

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Field, William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lamont, Norman

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Cave, George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Forster, Henry William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Gilhooly, James

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Starkey, John R.

  Lundon, W.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lynch, H. B.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Paul, Herbert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Percy, Earl

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Kean, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Toulmin, George

  M'Killop, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Turnour, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Ure, Alexander

  Marnham, F. J.

  Reddy, M.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Remnant, James Farquharson)

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Murphy, John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitbread, Howard

  Napier, T. B.

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Young, Samuel

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Younger, George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  O'Dowd, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walters and Mr. Morrell.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex E. Grinst'd

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Branch, James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brigg, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, J, A.

  Crooks, William

  Barker, John

  Brocklehurst, W. D

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Barlow,, John Emmott (Somerset

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cross, Alexander

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Beale, W. P.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duckworth, James

  Bell, Richard

  Cairns, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Clough, W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Bertram, Julius

  Clynes, J. R.

  Essex, R. W.

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maiden)

  Cobbold, Feix Thornley

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Billson, Alfred

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  1512

  1513

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Sears, J. E.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Arthur, William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seddon, J.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Crae, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mansfield, Harry (Northants)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Grant Corrie

  Massie, J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Snowden, P.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Menzies, Walter

  Spicer, Albert

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Gulland John W

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mond, A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Methyr Tydvil)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hardy George A. (Suffolk)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Harvey, A G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hazel Dr. A. E.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Summer bell, T.

  Hedges A Paget

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hobart Sir Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Thorne, William

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Torrance, A. M.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Partington, Oswald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Verney, F. W.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Vivian, Henry

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Perks, Robert William

  Wallace Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jenkins, J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wardle, George J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, Leif(Appleby)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Kearley Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Kelley, George D.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kelley, George D.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  King, Alfred John (Knutstord)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lambert, George

  Richards, J. Compton

  Williamson A

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

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

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex Harwich)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Lough, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rowlands, J.

  Dr. Macnamara and Mr.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Runciman, Walter

  George White.

  THE CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool and that in the name of
  1514
  the hon. Member for Lincoln would practically lead to a re-discussion of the question they had been discussing this

  1515
  afternoon, with the exception of one small part, and therefore they were out of order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURupon a point of order, submitted that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackpool† went beyond the purview of the decision of the Committee, the Committee were not precluded from discussing it.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the Committee had practically decided that the operative part of the clause was to stand The operative part of the clause was that the parent of a child attending a public elementary school should not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at the school house except during the times allotted to secular instruction. That being the case, the class which the hon. Member for Blackpool sought to exempt was already exempted. If he were allowed to discuss his Amendment he would have to do so on the lines that the particular class of parent to whom he alluded should be exempted, while other classes should not be exempted. That would be quite out of order in view of the decision of the Committee. The same observations applied to the other Amendment in the fame of the hon. Member for Lincoln on the Paper to the clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he desired in the few minutes that were left to the Committee for the consideration of this Bill to enter his protest against this clause because it was a cowardly one, inasmuch as it sought to relieve the Committee of the responsibility of saying that religion should go out of the schools of the country and invited the parents to say it for themselves. On a previous occasion the Committee had decided that religion should remain within the school hours, but by the admission by his right hon.
  † The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool was "in Clause 6, page 4, line 9, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'provided that he is able to satisfy the local education authority that the child is receiving adequate religious instruction else-where than at the school.'"
  1516
  friend the President of the Board of Education what they were now called upon to vote was that religion should be taken out of school hours. It required no courage on the part of the Government to bring the Committee to such a position as this, but it might imply lack of prudence and foresight on the part of the Government to induce the Committee to stultify its own previous decision. Religion in the school was to be treated worse even than it was treated in the House of Commons. He felt strongly on this question, and he believed that this clause was going to place the supporters of the Bill in an impossible position. He urged them to be honest. He would a hundred times sooner have voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley, or the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because, whatever might be said of those Amendments, they did not put religion as a sort of curtain-raiser before the performance in which everyone was supposed to take an interest. This clause did not keep even the word of promise and it broke it to the hope. It invited the parent to do what the Committee could not do themselves. It might be thought that the people of England would not understand the proceedings of this House, but he thought they would understand unmistakably what the Committee meant by passing a clause of this kind, and the invitation which would thus be written upon the forefront of the Bill. The clause paltered with them in a double sense and menaced their interests.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said the Government had not succeeded in their attempt to follow some of the worst examples set on the Continent of banishing the name of religion from our schools. They had called upon the Committee to settle the question, but the division which had just taken place would not settle it. Could anything be settled by a majority of sixteen? As long as the Government possessed a majority of hundreds they might hope to settle this question one way or another, but they could not do it with the majority which they had just gained. When the news of this debate was read to-morrow, everybody outside this

  1517
  House, at any rate, world agree that the division which had just taken place would not settle the question. Instead of hundreds, the Government had only a majority of sixteen. [Cries of "No, no."] He judged the action and the desire of the Government by the speech of that Member of the Government who was in charge of the Bill. The speech of the Minister for Education this afternoon was as strong a speech in favour of Clause 6 as could be made. It was a strong invitation to the Party spirit of the supporters of the Government. The clause was supported on the whole by the Party of the Government, and if the Government desired to leave it to the free and unfettered decision of the House, why did they ask the Minister in charge of the Bill to deliver the strong and powerful appeal he made? He appealed to the Government to withdraw the clause altogether, and not to allow it to go forth that at this time in the world's history England was about to follow the example of those other countries [Cries of "America"] which were practically abolishing religion and the name of God from their schools. A short time ago the Committee by an overwhelming majority voted that religion should be taught and the name of God heard in our schools. The
  same issue was now practically before the Committee, and the division which had just taken place showed an extraordinary change. The Amendment had only been defeated by a miserable majority of sixteen in a House of 550 Members, and was the Government going to the country and say, "We have settled this point in the education system for you in a Home of 550 Members by a majority of sixteen"? He appealed to the Prime Minister, to the Government, and to the Minister for Education to do what was, after all, the only consistent thing, and to withdraw the clause.
  MR. PAULsaid he was going to vote against the clause, and he respectfully protested against the speech of the hon. Member for East Clare, because he was grateful to the Government for having allowed hon. Members to vote as they pleased. It could not be honestly said that hon. Gentlemen who voted against the Amendment were voting against the teaching of religion in the schools.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 247. (Division List No. 178.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Collins, Sir W J.(S. Pancras, W

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bolton, T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Branch, James

  Cory, Clifford John

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brigg, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Crooks, William

  Barker, John

  Brooke, Stopford

  Crosfield, A. H

  Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs. Leigh)

  Cross, Alexander

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brunner, Sir John. T. (Cheshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Barnes, G. N.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Beale, W. P.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Beaumont, Hubert) Eastbourne

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duckworth, James

  Bell, Richard

  Cairns, Thomas

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Benn, Jn. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Benn, W. (Tow'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Erskine, David C.

  Bertram, Julius

  Clough, W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Billson, Alfred

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

  Foster, Kt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Sears, J. E.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Arthur, William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seddon, J.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  M'Crae, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shaw. Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Glover, Thomas

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln]

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Snowden, P.

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Spicer, Albert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hall, Frederick

  Menzies, Walter

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon Lewis

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hardy, Georgo A. (Suffolk)

  Mond, A.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Harmsworth, R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Summerbell, T.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morse, L. L.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nicholls, George

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Henry

  Torrance, A. M.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ure, Alexander

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Verney, F. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Vivian, Henry

  Hooper, A. G.

  Paulton, James Meller

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wallace, Robert

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Perks, Robert William

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Wardle, George J.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Jenkins, J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Priestlev, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Kelley, George D.

  Rees, J. D.

  Wiles, Thomas

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kitson, Sir James

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williamson, A.

  Lambert, George

  Ridsdale, E.A.

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Robinson, S.

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Levy, Maurice

  Robson, Sir William Snowden

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Dr.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rose, Charles Day

  Macnamara and Mr. George

  Lough, Thomas

  Rowlands, J.

  White.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Runciman, Walter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  1520

  1521

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Du Cros, Harvey

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Armitage, R.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Killop, W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Meagher, Michael

  Balcarres, Lord

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.

  Field, William

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Murphy, John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Napier, T. B.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Boland, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Nield, Herbert

  Bowles G. Stewart

  Ginnell, L.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George R.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Halpin, J.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Bull, Sir Wil,iam James

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Harwood, George

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Dowd, John

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hervey, F.W.F. (Bury S Edm'ds

  O'Malley, William

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  O'Shaughnessy, P J.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hills, J. W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hogan, Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Chance, Frederick William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Percy, Earl

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cleland, J. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kilbride, Denis

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lamont, Norman

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Crossley, William J.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Russell, T. W.

  Cullinan, J.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Delany, William

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland]

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, W.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lynch, H. B.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  1522

  1523

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sullivan, Donal

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Talbot, Rt. Hn J.G.(Oxf'dUniv

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Young, Samuel

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Warner. Thomas Courtenay T.

  Younger, George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Whitbread, Howard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord

  Tomkinson, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robert Cecil and Mr. F. E.

  Toulmin, George

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Smith.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  And, it being after eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)said that he wished to move as an Amendment that this Bill be read a second time three months hence. He, and those who agreed with him, felt it their duty to oppose this particular Bill because they believed that that course was in the interest of the Corporation of Manchester and would be also for the advantage of the ship canal. He admitted that the Manchester Corporation at one time was in favour of this Bill, but the Finance Committee of the Corporation had since reported against it. He was glad that a change had taken place in the position of the Corporation of the City of Manchester in consequence of its having been felt that enough consideration had not been given for the damage which might be done to the Manchester Ship Canal by the Bill. Some people might ask what had the Manchester Ship Canal to do with this Bill, but he might point out that when that canal was first projected it was calculated that it would cost about £8,000,000 sterling, but when the work had got on to a considerable extent it was found that another £5,000,000 would
  1524
  be required. That money was not to be found in the open market and the Corporation of Manchester found it by the permission of this House. Another £1,000,000 was by the permission of the House similarly invested, so that altogether the Corporation of Manchester had invested £6,000,000 in the Manchester Ship Canal. The Manchester Corporation considered that the carrying of this Bill would seriously damage their interests, because, as the House was well aware, the whole question of shipping was a very delicate one, and if any port suffered from more inspection than other ports it was sufficient to cause shippers and shipowners to send ships to other ports. The powers given to the port sanitary authority would put Manchester in a different position from that which existed at present in other ports. The corporation, had a power of inspection throughout the city, and if a greater power of inspection was granted than prevailed in other ports, it would do great damage to the ship canal. [Cries of "Why?"] If special powers of inspection were given to the port sanitary authority on the quays, it would do great damage to the ship canal. The same powers would not be given in regard to other ports, and the present powers of inspection at Manchester were ample. He did not see why an exceptional course should be taken in Regard to Manchester and Liverpool with reference to inspection when their present system was sufficiently rigid to exclude the importation of bad meat from Chicago or anywhere else. Glasgow was not to be subjected to the conditions which were proposed with regard to Liverpool and Manchester, in which places the best possible course was taken to preserve good hygienic conditions. He maintained that Manchester did its duty

  1525
  in the matter of meat inspection, and he thought it would be impracticable to inspect cargoes in the ports and on the docks. It would lead to delay and large claims for demurrage. If any change t was to be made it ought to be made in all the ports of the kingdom. It might be said that this was a question of the rich against the poor and that the owners of the ship canal, as long as they got their dividends, did not wish to have inspection in their docks. All he could say, if that was the line of argument, was that it was no great catch to hold canal shares at present, although he was glad to say the prospects of the ordinary shares paying a dividend were improving. Only 10 per cent. of the food stuffs used in Lancashire was introduced by way of the Manchester Ship Canal. Eighty per cent. or 90 per cent. was landed at Liverpool, and if any restriction was to be put in force it should commence at any rate at Liverpool. Therefore if there was to be any reform in this matter they would insist upon a general measure being passed by the Government, in which case they would endeavour to improve it when it came before them. In the meanwhile he hoped all who took an interest in the Manchester Ship Canal and who thought that the canal should obtain a fair share of these shipments from other countries would join with him and support him in the division that would take place almost immediately.
  MR. KELLEY (Manchester, S.W.),in seconding the Motion, said that the Bill would inflict a great injustice upon Manchester. He did not think he would be out of order in moving the rejection of this measure when they had regard to the struggle they had to make the canal, to obtain the money to make it, and the struggles they had had since to encourage its use by shippers. He did not think there was any man who had had more to do with the working classes in connection with this canal and who had induced more men to take up shares in the ship canal thin himself. He had a small holding of shares in it, but though a shareholder he was not influenced by that fact to-night. They had had a good many struggles to make the canal asuccess, and now that they were just beginning to make some headway somebody got the Chicago meat
  1526
  scare fever and no doubt unwittingly were trying to injure them. In confirming this provisional order they would inflict a great injustice on Manchester. They simply asked that the same treatment should be given to Manchester as to other ports of the United Kingdom. They did not quarrel with the idea of a closer inspection, they quite approved it, but they said that if closer inspection were needed it should be applied to the whole of the ports of the Kingdom and not to Manchester alone. He therefore seconded the rejection of the Bill.
  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. C. E. Schwann.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said he felt some degree of confidence that the House of Commons would pass the Second Reading of this Bill and would send it upstairs to the proper tribunal, where the questions raised by the two previous speakers would be adequately discussed. Let him give briefly the history of this provisional order, which did not emanate from the Local Government Board, but was conceived in Manchester. It was mothered by Manchester and fifteen other local authorities. It was deposited on the steps of the Local Government Board, and he now asked the House of Commons to send it upstairs, where the infant could be properly examined. The bare facts were these. The Manchester Port Sanitary Authority, of the which Manchester City Corporation was the predominant partner, came for a provisional order, asking that there should be vested in them certain powers and duties of a sanitary authority under the Public Health Acts relating to the inspection of food. The Local Government Board received the letter from the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority on September 27th, 1905, stating that they had had before them the question of unsound food being conveyed within their district by means

  1527
  of ships coming to the Port of Manchester, and that they asked in consequence that the Local Government Board should give them this provisional order. The Local Government Board sent an official down to the district to hold a public inquiry. There was practically no opposition. The Manchester Corporation concurred as would be seen, by the following letter written in October—
  "The Corporation of Manchester understand that an application has been made to the Local Government Board by the Manchester port sanitary authority for powers to seize unsound articles intended for the food of man either on board ship or before they are removed from the docks. The sanitary authority of the Manchester Corporation have had the matter under consideration, and as they are convinced that the proposal is in the public interest they heartily support the application of the Man Chester port sanitary authority, and trust that it will receive favourable consideration on the part of the Local Government Board."
  The public inquiry was held by an officer from the Local Government Board, and no objection was raised by the City of Manchester. The First Reading of the Bill took place on May 25th, and between then and now nothing had transpired except, perhaps, the Chicago meat scandals; but he ventured to say that nothing that could be deduced therefrom was a reason why additional powers of inspection should not be given. Recently Manchester had put forward the following reason for varying its original request. Since the inquiry the directors of the Manchester Ship Canal said they had overlooked the notice of the public inquiry, and as Liverpool Port Sanitary Authority did not possess powers, ships coming to Manchester would be liable to interference not prevailing at Liverpool. Hence Manchester would be placed at a disadvantage compared with Liverpool in competing for the importation of food products. This opinion, however, was not practically sustained by the facts. Liverpool Town Council, who were the port sanitary authority of Liverpool, did exercise these powers, but not so much in the port as in the city. Last year Liverpool rejected 400 tons of rotten canned meat from the United States. Every day Liverpool was doing its duty under precisely the same powers, duties, and obligations to the public health as Manchester was content to ask for from the Local
  1528
  Government Board, and which he sincerely trusted the House of Commons would see that Manchester had in the passing of this particular Bill. The sixteen authorities that made up the Manchester port sanitary authority said, truly that one port sanitary authority on the Manchester Ship Canal could more cheaply, more efficiently, and. more impartially inspect the meat at a given place on the Manchester Ship Canal than could fifteen or sixteen, sanitary authorities attempting to do the same work here, there, and everywhere. Now this particular power was exercised by the London Port Sanitary Authority, and they were only asking the Louse of Commons to give to the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority the powers possessed by each of the sixteen constituent authorities that made up the Port Sanitary Authority of Manchester—Manchester with these other bodies took the initiative in demanding these powers, and he saw no reason why the matter should not go forward as originally intended. He did not ask the House to judge as between Manchester Members and himself,, but that the proposal should go upstairs to a Committee before which Manchester would have a fairer opportunity of stating its case than it could at that time of the night in a House-imperfectly equipped for coming to a proper decision. Might he put it to the-Manchester Members that it would seriously damage Manchester as a port and as a sanitary authority if it were assumed, as it might be if this Provisional Order Bill were not carried to-night, that Manchester wanted to be lenient toward foreign tinned meat coming into its port, whilst a general law was enforced by the London, Liverpool, Hull, Grimsby, and other English ports? In this matter he asked for equal rights for all white men, whether they came from Chicago or Great Britain, and he did not see why Chicago or American tinned meat coming via Manchester Ship Canal should be treated any more leniently than live pork from Limerick, or Scottish beef from Scotland, or mutton and beef from Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and elsewhere. It was absolutely necessary to give the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority the

  1529
  power to reject unsound meat. Manchester's original request was a wise one, for it found a difficulty in preventing unsound meat from coming into the Manchester Ship Canal. If Manchester had a rivalry with Liverpool, the best way to meet it was for Liverpool and Manchester to be on equal terms, as this Provisional Order would put them. He asked the House to send the Bill upstairs and enable the people of this country to be protected from the foreign importer of bad meat, and not give him privileges which were not accorded to the home producer.
  MR. SCOTTsaid that after the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, the House might think that a representative of Manchester would hardly have the audacity to rise at that time of night, but Manchester Members were not responsible for detaining the House at that hour. The responsibility rested with the President of the Local Government Board for bringing on the measure after eleven o'clock at night when he knew that every representative of Manchester was opposed to the Order. He was a member of the Manchester City Council, which was a corporation, (as all interested in municipal administration well knew), with the interests of the people of Manchester at heart, and in this respect one of the most forward corporations in the country. They had presented to this House an unanimous petition signed by the Lord Mayor, and bearing the seal of the Manchester Corporation. The right, hon. Gentleman asked why should they make any difference between Manchester and Liverpool. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he would make the conditions the same in Manchester and Liverpool, every Manchester Member would at once withdraw his opposition. Was that a fair offer? The right hon. Gentleman knew well enough that the conditions would not be the same under this Order. If he had brought in a Bill to prevent canned meat from landing at any British port, he would have found no more loyal supporters than the men who had been returned from Manchester and those associated with that town. It had been said that
  1530
  Manchester had changed its mind. Manchester had a right to change its mind, and no one recognised that better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. Manchester had changed its mind for the selfsame reason that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind on the unemployed question, namely, that it had got facts and information which it had not when it lent its name to the first application. This was a Government measure, and he wanted to know why it should be hurried through the House. A circular sent out by the port sanitary authority was signed by William Huddart, who was recognised as the greatest opponent of amalgamation between Manchester and Salford. Salford had taken Manchester Corporation into court to get an increased rate, and yet the ship canal had been the making of Salford. It was true that the ship canal traffic did not yield a dividend, but it should be remembered that when the trade of Manchester was declining it wanted no protection remedies. It wanted access to the world, and, having built the ship canal at great sacrifice, freights into Manchester had been lowered to the extent of £1,000,000 a year. Manchester only asked for freedom. It did not ask for special treatment, or for freedom to import bad food. [Cries of "Agreed."] Oh, no; they were not agreed. Here were the conditions of sale which existed in Liverpool at the present time. There was a classification of food as "sound" "slack" and "slightly wet." There was also "wastage." What did that classification mean? Everything containing less than two per cent, of waste was "sound"; less than 5 per cent. "seconds"; less than 10 per cent. "thirds." Less than 20 per cent, was "X"; and 50 per cent. "double X." After that they were "wastage." But still "wastage" had a value, and could be bought on the Liverpool market. they in Manchester did not desire that these meats should be unloaded from boats in Manchester; and therefore they were being brought into Manchester by rail. The unfairness of the Provisional Order was to place the port of Manchester in an unfair position as compared with Liverpool. All he asked was that Manchester should compete fairly with other ports.
  MR. FIELDsaid he did not propose to inflict a speech on the House, but it appeared to him, in the words of the last speaker, that the House was slightly wet. [Cries of "Oh, oh" and "withdraw."] His hon. friends had taken an extraordinary way of reasoning with the House in their appeal for the rejection of this Bill. If he understood the position correctly, the Manchester Corporation practically introduced this Bill themselves but they had suddenly changed their minds. The hon. Member who spoke last had said with truth that they had a perfect right to change their minds, but he wanted to know what occult influence had been at work to induce them to change their mind. Did it come from Chicago? He wished to lay down the general proposition that if the system of inspection was to be imposed on other ports, then it was time that they began with Manchester. He would like to point out to the House—because he was in the native meat trade himself—that there was a more rigid inspection of all native meat than of importations of meat, live or dead, or frozen or chilled, or in tins. He thought that this House should give the same equality of opportunity and protection to the native producers of these isles who paid rent, rates, and taxes, as they did to the foreigner. He therefore supported the Bill, and he hoped the House by an overwhelming majority would defeat the Motion for rejection. There was no reason why this Bill should not go to a Committee upstairs.
  MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)said that he thought that Salford as well as Manchester was entitled to have something to say in this matter. The terminus of the Manchester Ship Canal, and its docks were in Salford, and what they wanted there was cleanly and wholesome food. For that reason the borough which he represented desired that this Bill should be supported by its representatives. The Vice-Chairman of the Health Committee of the Salford Corporation had succeeded in bringing the death-rate down considerably, and one of the means by which he hoped to get it still lower was to get meat coming into the borough inspected.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)said that although that evening it seemed to he regarded as an unfortunate thing to say anything in favour of Manchester he proposed to take that course. Before the date of provisional orders private promoters always had a right to withdraw a Bill at any moment, and he did not think that right was affected by the fact that the Local Government Board now promoted provisional orders on behalf of public bodies. Supposing a Corporation were minded to buy the local gas works and then afterwards found they did not want to do so, was their original Bill to be crammed down their throats in the manner in which it was sought to thrust this Bill down the throats of the Manchester Corporation. The Chicago meat scandals had been referred to, but there was a great deal of humbug about them. Men's fingers were dearer than beef, and he believed the alleged scandals were part of a Presidential campaign. But for this Chicago meat scandal the Local Government Board would have yielded to that plea of Manchester. Manchester had always been a supporter of Ireland, and for that if for no other reason he supported the action of the hon. Members from that city.
  MR. HAWORTH (Manchester, S.)said it was unsatisfactory to a loyal supporter of the Government even to appear to be opposed to them. He thought it was hardly worthy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to bring in the question of Chicago tinned meats, because this matter was in hand before the revelations with regard to Chicago. As to the fact that Manchester changed her mind, that City wanted as good an inspection of food as any other place, but when she found that if this Bill were passed Manchester would be placed in an invidious position in regard to various other ports, she changed her position. If these powers were given to the port sanitary authority the House would be simply duplicating them. If they were duplicated for one city they ought to be duplicated for others. They wanted to confirm and not to oppose this Order, but they also wanted to make it effective. It had been already pointed out that only 10 per cent. of the foodstuffs consumed in the

  1533
  district entered through the port of Manchester and that 90 per cent. came in from the ports of Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol. They had no objection to this measure going through on an equality and then it would be an effective Order; whereas if it went through in its present shape the whole thing would be uneffective.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. EMMOTT,)said he had listened very carefully to this debate in order to see whether the arguments on both sides would lead him to a conclusion as to whether it was a matter of principle that ought to be settled on a Second Reading or whether this was a Bill that ought to go to a Committee upstairs. His conviction was very strong that it should be sent upstairs. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth that the President of the Local Government Board had done something unusual in his action with regard to this measure, did not, he thought, apply. He did not think the House was in a position to judge of the merits of this case. In the first place, they had heard of the change of opinion on the part of Manchester. He did not know the reason of that change but that was a matter that could be better investigated in Committee, and was a matter the House was not in a position to discuss. Then they were told that there were sixteen sanitary authorities affected, but that statement was denied by an hon. Member who said there were only three. They also heard of the conditions of Liverpool being equally strict, yet other Members said that Liverpool had an advantage. All these were surely matters which could be dealt with and settled much better upstairs, and therefore he hoped the House would send this Bill upstairs. The matters in dispute were of a character which could be better settled in Committee than in the House.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid he opposed this Provisional Order. One hon. Member said he supported the Order for the sake of the poor of Salford, and if he had thought that was more important than anything else he should have supported
  1534
  the hon. Member. But the hon. Gentleman forgot that only one-tenth of the foodstuffs consumed in Lancashire came through the Manchester Ship Canal, and that if this Order were passed it would not prevent foodstuffs coming in via Liverpool. He quite admitted that the Manchester and Salford authorities had made a mistake in making this appeal. But this was a Lancashire question. The Manchester Ship Canal was a Lancashire canal and Lancashire had suffered for it, though he admitted they had also received benefits from it. They desired to see it prosper and they were not going to stand idly by and see restrictions put upon the canal which were not put upon other ports. There was no contesting the fact that the same thing was going on in Stretford, Salford, and Manchester as was going in Bristol, Birkenhead and Liverpool, and it was not fair to press a proposal against the wishes of those who instigated it in the first instance, but who had changed their minds as soon as they ascertained the facts. If this had been an ordinary Bill nothing more would have been heard of it. It would have been dropped. But because it was in the power of the Government they pressed it. Nothing would have been heard of it but for this scare. He objected to its going upstairs. Let the House settle it now. What would be the position if it went upstairs? They would be prejudiced when it came down because they would be told they must support the decision of the Committee. He wanted to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that he quite agreed with him and would do all he could to assist him to protect this country from the importation of bad meat. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman in this case had taken a wrong course and had not gone the right way to effect that purpose. Therefore he hoped he would drop this Provisional Order and bring in a general Bill to deal with all ports alike.
  MR. HORRIDGE (Manchester, E.)said the provisions of the Bill ought to be in a general Bill applying to all ports. This Order suggested that Section 116 of the Public Health Act should be applied by the port sanitary authority That section gave to the Corporation

  1535
  power to inspect food which was prepared or exposed for sale. It had nothing to do with cargoes of ships but was intended to deal with food in markets or shops, and by this Provisional Order it was sought to apply the section to cargoes of ships. The section said that anyone exposing unsound food for sale should be liable to a penalty of £20 or to imprisonment for twelve months. Was it seriously intended that the Manchester Ship Canal directors were to be liable to that punishment if any piece of unsound food were landed at the quay? He did not believe the President of the Local Government Board had appreciated that at all. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do was to bring in a Bill to deal with the power of inspection at all ports instead of applying a section of an Act, intended to be applied to shops and markets, to the great Manchester Ship Canal. Manchester at the present moment was in exactly the same position as Liverpool as a port sanitary authority, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that this Order would not put Manchester in the same
  position as Liverpool. It was hard enought now to get shipowners to bring their cargoes up to Manchester. If the right hon. Gentleman put this handicap upon the trade of Manchester by saying there should be this double inspection and 'this worrying of the shipowners when the Corporation had already its meat inspectors, it would drive shipowners away from Manchester altogether. It was not only an unfair proposal but it was stupid and unworkable. It was not a question to send to a Committee upstairs, but for this House to deal with in a general measure. He did not want it to be said that the Members for Manchester or the Corporation shrank from any inspection of food; but this was an improper inspection and put an unfair handicap upon Manchester. The Government ought to deal in a Bill with an important question such as that raised about canned meat.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 202; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 179.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Byles, William Pollard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fenwick, Charles

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Field, William

  Armitage, R.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clough, W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Banner, John S. (Harmood-

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Collins. Sir Wm. J. (S Pancras, W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barker, John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gibbs. G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Ginnell, L.

  Beale, W. P.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Beaumont, Hubert(East bourne

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Goddard, Daniel Ford.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crean, Eugene

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hatpin, J.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Delany, William

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

  Billson, Alfred

  Dillon, John

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff sh.)

  Brace, William

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Brigg, John

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Brodie, H. C.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Brooke, Stopford

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Joyce, Michael

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Levy, Maurice

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Vivian, Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

  Lundon, W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lupton, Arnold

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robinson, S.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

  Runciman, Walter

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Menzies, Walter

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Mond, A.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Williamson, A.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Morse, L. L

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

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

  Newnes, K. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Winfrey, R.

  Nicholls, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Younger, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Spicer, Albert

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Starkey, John R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  O'Donnel'l, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Paul, Herbert

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Pease.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Killop, W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Hammond, John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harwood, George

  Meagher, Michael

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Boland, John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hazelton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cairns, Thomas

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Grady, J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Corbett, C. H.(Sussex E. Grinst'd

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jenkins, J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Jowett, F. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Richards, TAF(Wolverhampt'n

  Duckworth, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ridsdale E. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Russell, T. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Seddon, J.

  1538

  1539

  Shackleton, David James

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Walsh, Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wardle, George J.

  Charles Schwann and Mr.

  Summerbell, T.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Kelley.

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  INTERMEDIATE BOARD (RULES).
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.)moved an Address to His Majesty praying that the Rules of the Intermediate Board for the year 1907 be disapproved of, and that other Rules be substituted in conformity with the Resolution of the House on 21st May last.† He said this was an exceedingly important Motion which deserved the serious attention of hon. Members who had any regard for the powers of this House. It would be remembered that on 21st May last a Resolution was carried unanimously demanding that the Intermediate Board of Ireland should alter the rules which they first published. The Motion which was then carried had been on paper for a week. The Board refused, however, to adopt the changes which he then suggested, namely, that better facilities should be given for the teaching of the Irish language in the Intermediate Board's programme. Their refusal to grant this demand was based upon the grounds that they were of opinion that for intermediate students the study of French and German was of far greater educational advantage and practical value. That was the reason they then urged for not accepting the suggestions. Some time afterwards they were again asked whether they had decided to adopt the resolution of the House, and the second excuse they made was that they were unable to make the changes because if they did the Rules could not be laid on the Table forty days before the House rose, and consequently there would be no intermediate programme and nothing for the students to go on with. Neither of these excuses was sincere. The only reason why the
  † See (4) Debates, clvii., 1072.
  1540
  Board had not done what the House had asked them to do was that they felt that the Irish language was getting better placed in the programme through the action of the House than they were determined it should be. He would ask the Chief Secretary to give them some assurance that they were going to obey the decision of the House. The Board had declared that they were not going to be intimidated by the Gaelic League and that was the kernel of their refusal to adopt the suggestions contained in the Resolution. He would like to ask whether there was any precedent for the condition of affairs in which they found themselves tonight. By the unanimous resolution of this House certain suggestions were made, and without any apology whatsoever the Intermediate Board, one of the forty by which this country governed Ireland, said "No, we spurn, we reject with contempt the unanimous vote of the House of Commons." If the House now voted against the Address to His Majesty it would stultify itself, and say it was powerless when one of these Irish boards came in opposition to it. The Chief Secretary, when the Resolution of 21st May was discussed, said he was hopeful that there would be no difficulty in carrying out the changes which were then suggested. He had sent to the right hon. Gentleman a few circulars showing what the Board did on previous occasions. In September, 1905, when the House was not sitting, and when the school year had begun the Intermediate Board changed their programme. On May 21st when his Motion was brought forward, the Board refused to adopt alterations which were not nearly so radical or so difficult as had been proposed to be brought into operation in the previous October. He maintained that this was one of the old boards, one of the remnants of the old garrison which had destroyed their country and deprived their children of education, which

  1541
  education it still refused to give when it was afraid its days were numbered.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDin seconding the Motion, said that he rose for the purpose of pressing on the House of Commons the extraordinary character of this Board. Certain boards in Ireland did their work very well, because they were responsible to this House through Ministers who had to answer for their action; but this was a very different kind of board. Not only was it not responsible to the public opinion of Ireland or England, or even this House, but it was absolutely independent, and there was no means of bringing it to book, unless the Chief Secretary were to dismiss it altogether or unless this House were to refuse funds to carry on education in Ireland. Was not that an extraordinary illustration of the system by which the Government of Ireland was carried on? It would not be tolerated in any other country in the world. For instance, what happened the other day? Under the Statute the rules for carrying on intermediate education in Ireland had to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons for forty days, in order that the House might choose to refuse or sanction those rules. The House of Commons decided that those rules should be altered. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether it was true that this Board had passed a resolution immediately after the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons absolutely refusing to carry out the directions of this House? He thought the House of Commons was entitled to ask the Chief Secretary, who was not responsible in this matter, whether it was a fact that this Board had decided to reject the decision of the House of Commons and despised it? Further, he thought the minutes of the Board should be published, together with the names of the gentlemen who overthrew the decision of the House of Commons. The House of Commons was entitled to a frank answer on this matter. He believed that the Board had taken up the attitude that it was too late to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons in time for the examinations
  1542
  for next year. He had received a communication from Monsignor Molloy, which he was empowered to quote, that that right rev. gentleman personally approved of the changes which the House of Commons had made, and that, from his long experience in the working of the Board, in his judgment there would have been no difficulty, with the time at their disposal, in carrying out the changes authorised by the Resolution of the House of Commons. He acknowledged that the Chief Secretary's task in Ireland was difficult; but the only chance the right hon. Gentleman had of successful administration was not to permit himself to be bullied by these boards; and if they insisted on ignoring the Resolution passed by the House of Commons he should instantly dismiss them and appoint another body in their place. The effect of that would not only be beneficial on the Intermediate Education Board, but on all the other boards in Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Rules of the Intermediate Board for the year 1907, sealed the 19th day of June, be disapproved of."—(Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.)
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that at the outset he begged to say that he entirely sympathised with and supported the strong appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to the Chief Secretary that the minutes of the Intermediate Education Board should be made public. He would, however, remind the House as to how this matter had arrived at its present stage. The Board was the creation of this House. It consisted of twelve members, including the present Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Father Finlay and Monsignor Molloy; and when the rules came before the House on May 23rd last, the Chief Secretary who threw them over forgot that they had received the approval and signature of the Lord-Lieutenant, who was the chief of the Irish Government. The Chief Secretary voted in favour of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Kerry on May 23rd which was an unprecedented action, on the part of the

  1543
  Chief Secretary. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion made a great mistake in throwing over with a light heart the rules which had been ratified by the Lord-Lieutenant. The hon. Member for Waterford said the House of Commons decided by a certain vote a certain thing, and that the Board had defied the action of the House, and from the information he had received the Board had passed a resolution not to comply with the decision of the House. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say on June 20th† that the Board had not refused to carry out the decision of the House of Commons.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that was perfectly true.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLwas ready to accept the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but he thought in justice to the Board the right hon. Gentleman ought to lay the resolution of the Board on the Table of the House.
  MR. BRYCE: I never refused. What I said was that there was a correspondence going on, and that, at that time, I could not do so.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the Board wished the minutes to be submitted, and the time was surely come when the Chief Secretary should do what was asked by everyone interested. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had got himself into a difficult position in this matter, but the exact position should be known to Members of that House. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Kerry was brought up and passed by this House in the ignorance of most of the Members that these rules had already received the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant and of the Irish Executive. He could only agree and sympathise with the demand that had been made on the right, hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he was sorry that he would have to detain the House rather longer than he intended. The matter
  † See col. 178, et seq.
  1544
  was very simple, but so much extraneous matter had been introduced, particularly by the hon. Member for the Dublin University, that he was obliged to give the House the facts of the case. This House passed a Resolution on the May 21st last expressing dissent from many points in these rules. He did not dissent from them all. He expressed an opinion on one of them. The Motion was made by the hon. Member for West Kerry, and he then gave the House all the details that the Board had given to him, and no statement could be more inaccurate than the statement just made by the hon. Member for the Dublin University when he said that he (Mr. Bryce) had not defended the Board by giving this statement to the House. The rules had received the formal sanction of the Board itself. It was a purely formal sanction, and was not accompanied by any suggestion as to the facts that influenced its decision in changing the rules. There was nothing to call the attention to the Lord-Lieutenant to the fact that this was likely to become the subject of controversy. There had been cases where similar sanction had been given by a department to rules and schemes where the Government of the day after the rules had been brought up had refused to alter them. Those were English precedents which amply justified him in the action he took when he made his statement to the House. On this matter he was careful to guard himself from answering the question as to what the Board had done, and merely stated the case which was put to him by the Board that they were not then declining to comply with the Resolution of the House. He did that in order to give them an opportunity to retreat from what he held to be an untenable position. He said it was impossible to make a full statement, because correspondence was passing between the Government and the Board and that it would be impossible to quote letters or give the effect of the communications until the whole of the letters were given and the whole matter was put before the House. Everything he said was literally and actually true, and he conceived it would be an injury to the Board to go beyond what he said. He had no objection to produce the correspondence, but the minutes of the Board were not under his control.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Board for them?
  MR. BRYCEsaid certainly. If the Board chose to send in their minutes he had no objection to produce them. It was, however, an unusual course, and he hoped it would not be taken as a precedent. He had no objection to ask the Board for the minutes, but he would not press for them. As to the singular system under which the Board administered education, he might say it was not the fault of the Board but of legislation in this House. As the matter stood at present it was inevitable that the House should refuse the Motion of the hon. Member, but that was not due to the merits of the rules but to the position in which they found themselves. He had no power whatever over this Board.
  MR. FIELD: Why not evict them?
  MR. BRYCE: And this was purely a matter of time. On May 21st the House disapproved of these rules and the effect of the disapproval was not, lie thought, what hon. Members opposite intended. Its effect was to extinguish them.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Was not that all the House could do?
  MR. BRYCE: The Government advised the Intermediate Board that the effect of the Resolution was to extinguish the rules altogether. The Board declined to alter its rules in any way, but when the effect of the Resolution was intimated to them the Board reconsidered their position and proceeded to consider two alternatives. One was to formulate a new set of Rules in accordance with the Resolution of the House. That course they appeared to have dismissed because of the lack of time at their disposal. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that he
  1546
  was told by a member of the Board that it could be easily done. That, at any rate, was not a view in which the Board as a whole could concur. He certainly thought the question was more complicated than the hon. and learned Member was disposed to believe, and that there were real difficulties in making a new scheme which, while affording a satisfactory plan for intermediate education, would comply with the decision of this House. These difficulties, however, he hoped might be surmounted. The Board arrived at the conclusion that they could not amend their rules in the time allowed, and they came to the further conclusion that the only course possible for them was to submit the old rules framed in 1905, and which had been in operation during the present year. They said that after all those rules had been approved by the House, and therefore at any rate there could be no great objection to them That course accordingly was taken and was communicated to the Lord Lieutenant, who, in giving his sanction, of course expressed no opinions whatever as to the intrinsic merits of these rules, and he was perfectly free for the future as to any action that might be taken. He would tell the House exactly how the matter stood. It was necessary for the purpose of Intermediate Examinations that there should be rules which it was certain would be in force by the beginning of August. That was the latest time at which these schools could begin to prepare for the examinations of 1907. It was also necessary that the rules should lie for forty days upon the Table of this House. In other words, the rules had to be submitted by the end of June if they were to be in force by the month of August; otherwise the whole machinery of intermediate education would come to a dead stop. Under these circumstances there was no course open to the Lord Lieutenant but to accept the rules. The matter would have to come

  1547
  up again and the House would have ample opportunity of considering the whole matter, which was not prejudiced in any way by the action which they were asked to take to-night. In the interests of the teachers and pupils the hon. Member would be very ill advised if he stopped the machinery and deprived them of their fees and opportunities.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Intermediate Education Board of Ireland, who were appointed by the British Government, had set the Minister of the Government at defiance. After delaying the matter for five weeks, the Board took a course which absolutely defied the will of the House of Commons, and deliberately abstained from putting forward the old rules until it was too late for the House of Commons to alter them. They held a sword over the heads of Members of this House by threatening to paralyse the whole system of intermediate education in Ireland if they dared to interfere. It might be imagined from the remarks of the Chief Secretary that the Board had yielded in some way to the House of Commons. They had deliberately delayed the matter until it was too late to make any alterations in either the new or the old rules, and then they put forward the old rules which were far worse than those to which objection was taken in certain particulars by the House on the last occasion. That was the way in which this intelligent Irish Board proposed to carry out the will of the House of Commons! The right hon. Gentleman was surprised that the matter should have got into the Irish newspapers. Within five days after the House of Commons passed the Resolution there appeared in the Irish Times of Dublin a most insolent article, written by one of the members of the Board, in which the whole of the information which the right hon. Gentleman had been refusing to give the House of Commons was
  1548
  disclosed, accompanied by every form of insult, in which the right hon. Gentleman was told that he would soon find out that he had tackled a body which would not tolerate his dictation of that of the House of Commons. The Board had triumphed so far and had persisted in their defiance. They had performed a flank movement, defeated the Chief Secretary, and made fools of the House of Commons at whom they were now laughing. Their threat that unless the House of Commons swallowed the rules they would paralyse the whole intermediate education of Ireland was simply a piece of bluff, and he trusted the House would not sit down tamely under it. Last year, when the House of Commons had adjourned, there were three alterations at least as important as those made on the rules, and they were never tabled at all. Nevertheless the whole system of examinations was carried on last winter. By voting for the Resolution they would not be voting against the Chief Secretary in any way, but would be vindicating the right hon. Gentleman against the grossest piece of insolence on the part of this Board.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said he was present when the Amendments were made, and he had doubts in his mind at the time as to whether the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have asked for time to consider the matter. But now that the thing was done he would be no party to allowing this Board to dictate to the House. He knew the Board, and if the House took this matter lying down it would have to take a great deal more. If his hon. friends went to a division he should certainly vote against the Board.
  MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)said it was hardly reasonable that there should be a deliberate attack made upon a highly honourable body of men who were appointed to do a particular work. They were men of the highest standing

  1549
  and character. The Chief Secretary himself had admitted that this matter was not one which could be dealt with at once, but that there were great difficulties in the way. Before accepting any alterations in the rules, the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to have ascertained whether it was possible to give effect to the alterations or not. The Board had done the only thing that was open to them, and that was to take up the rules which had been approved by the Lord-Lieutenant. These were the rules which were to be in operation for next year, and it would be most unfortunate, no matter who had blundered when the Resolution of 21st May was passed, if they were to be altered now. The Motion should be negatived in order that the work of the Intermediate Board should not be brought to a stand still.
  MR. MORTONsaid it could not be doubted that the Intermediate Board tad delayed dealing with the suggestions until it could be pleaded that there was not the necessary time to include them in the programme for this year. After the disclosures which had been made to-night it appeared that what was called government in Ireland, even in the hands of a Liberal Government, was a travesty of good government. He was not surprised that the representatives of Ireland should ask for Home Rule.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid an attempt had been made to throw blame on the Chief Secretary. Whoever was to blame, it was not the right hon. Gentleman. If there was blame in the matter it must be shared by every Irish Member. What interest had the right hon. Gentleman in getting Liberal Members to vote
  1550
  for maintaining these rules? There were a number of friendly Englishmen below the Gangway who would be only too happy to join the Irish Members in expressing their detestation on this matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman remember that those gentlemen in Dublin Castle had no more regard for him than they had for the door porter outside. Their one idea would be all through the right hon. Gentleman's regimé at every step he took to trip him up, to thwart him, and to baffle him. By the strong pressure which he was at present putting on his supporters he was giving these men a triumph over the Irish representatives, and, what was more, a triumph over himself. He fully appreciated the point that if the rules were disapproved of again these men would take the bit between their teeth and refuse any rules by which money could be taken. They would thereby inflict a grievous wrong on every school and college in Ireland, and their names would stink in the nostrils of the people. Was not that a consummation which the right hon. Gentleman desired as strongly as the Irish Members? A better lesson could not be taught to young Irishmen as to the way in which their country was governed than to show them, when they had been grinding up for examinations for twelve months, that they would be deprived of their just reward by the action of this Board. He asked that the Government should in this matter leave the responsibility with the Irish Members. They would take the responsibility.
  MR. DODD (Tyrone, N.)said that if the House passed the Motion as it stood they would merely be repeating the declaration which they made on May 21st. The ruling by which the Motion had

  1551
  had to be put in its present form seemed to suggest that any alterations in the rules were not competent. The Chief Secretary, in asking the House not to pass this Motion, expressed the hope that alterations might be made in the rules. If alterations could not competently be made, he should like to know from the Chief Secretary how he suggested that alterations might be made. The House of Commons presumably had power over these rules, or else they would not be laid on the Table.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that if those rules were included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry no pupils would have been able to get their exhibitions this year. [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] He had been instructed that that was so. He could assure his hon. friend that the Lord-Lieutenant had power to deal with any rules sent up to him by the Intermediate Education Board, that they would be carefully considered, and that every attempt would be made to comply with the Resolution of the House of Commons.
  MR. DODDsaid that the eminent judges and distinguished men who were on the Intermediate Board insisted on obedience to their orders and they ought to have complied with the wishes of the House of Commons.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORbelieved the Chief Secretary was mistaken. The Board had time enough to deal with the matter. The Irish Members who had children in the schools would take the responsibility, if this Motion were acceded to, and he hoped the House would teach the Board a much-needed lesson.
  MR. DILLONagain appealed to the Chief Secretary to leave this matter to the House of Commons.
  MR. HELMEsaid there had evidently been a misunderstanding, and he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that the Motion for the adjournment had been inspired by the Government Whips, and protested against the matter being decided by a fresh House when the Members for Ireland who had already spoken were effectually silenced.
  MR. HELMEsaid his action was entirely spontaneous.
  MR. T. M. HEALYaccepted the hon. Member's statement, but suggested that the Motion should be withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONalso hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion in view of the powerful argument brought forward by the hon. Member for North Louth that hon. Members who had presented their case to the House against the Board could not speak again. But for that argument he should have been in favour of an adjournment.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLurged that the House was not in a position to decide the case, although that was not the fault of the Irish Members, because they had asked to have the correspondence and papers laid upon the Table. In justice to the Board, however, he must say that he did not think the House was in a position to act.
  ME. THOMAS O'DONNELLhoped the right hon. Gentleman Secre-

  1553
  would not hesitate to take strong steps with this Board, which had insulted the House of Commons and the Irish Members for the last twenty years.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid that if they went to a division it would not be against the Chief Secretary, because the Irish Members were in sympathy with him. The Board had, however, offered no answer to the charge made against them.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the responsibility of carrying out the system of education was upon the Executive Government [NATIONALIST cries of "We ought to be the Executive Government."] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen ought to be, but at present the responsibility of keeping the educational machinery going was on the Irish Executive. He was obliged to make this a matter of Government and executive duty. [NATIONALIST cries of "The same old thing]. He asked hon. Members not to support him or to support this Board, but to do their duty by the teachers and pupils in Irish schools, who ought not to be deprived of their privileges.
  Motion for the adjournment of the debate, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.),criticising the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, said he was a disappointed man. He advised the Chief
  tary to stand to his guns and he would then overcome the bitter opposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was animated by personal motives.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was not the first time he had been attacked by the hon. Member in this way. Was the hon. Member in order in imputing personal motives to him?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the hon. Member was not actuated by personal motives.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLrepeated that the hon. Member had accused him of being actuated by personal motives.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he was bound to admit that he had said that the hon. Member for South Tyrone might possibly have been actuated by personal motives.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member said that, it was certainly disorderly.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Then I withdraw it.
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 72; Noes,. 118. (Division List No: 180.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Dillon, John

  Gill, A. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dodd, W. H.

  Ginnell, L.

  Brace, William

  Dolan, Charles Joseph.

  Halpin, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duffy, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Crean, Eugene

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hazelton, Richard

  Cullinan, J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Delany, William

  Field, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Seddon, J.

  Kelley, George D.

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Grady, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  O'Malley, William

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Reddy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Killop, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Meagher, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Patrick O'Brien and Mr.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Boland.

  Murphy, John

  Russell, T. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Essex, R. W.

  Morse, L. L.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nicholls, George

  Astbury, John Meir

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barker, John

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Paul, Herbert

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Beale, W. P.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pollard, Dr.

  Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Gulland, John W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Robinson, S.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleve'and)

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Burns, Rt. Hon John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Strass, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Clough, W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinstd

  Levy, Maurice

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Whitehead, Rowland)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Courthops, J. Loyd

  Lough, Thomas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Williamson, A.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Maddison, Frederick

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Duckworth, James

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

  Mond, A.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Pease.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Montgomery, H. H.

  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is an insult to the Irish representatives in this House.
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr.
  1556
  SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes after Two o'clock.