Commons Sitting of 26 June 1906

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]. As; amended, considered; to be read the third time.
St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill. As amended considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP I).
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS informed the House that the Committee on Group I of Private Bills not being appointed to meet until Thursday next,

749
the parties promoting the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [Wanstead and Woodford Order], which was set down for consideration on the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Dr. John C. Thresh, medical officer for the county of Essex, was essential to their case, and that his evidence could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
Ordered, That the said Dr. John C. Thresh do attend the Committee on Group I of Private Bills on Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Grocers' Licences (Scotland) Bill. Second Reading upon Friday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment:—
Amendments to—Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [Lords]; Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [Lords]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education, under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the Councils of the Administrative Counties of the Parts of Kesteven, Surrey, and Warwick, and the Municipal Borough of Faling to put in force the
750
Land Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, &c.) [Lords].
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, &c.) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 273.]

PETITIONS.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Haverfordwest, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Bedlington (two); Caerleon; Farndon; Findern; Flookburgh (two); Himley; Hitchin; Leaton; Marbury; Meriden; Radford; Rickling and Quendon; and Shrewsbury; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Liscard (two); Long Marston; and Menheniot; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law; from Canterbury; and, Romsey; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; from Barry Dock or South Glamorgan; Burnley; Devizes (two); Doncaster; Ilkley; Maidstone (two); Otley; Seacombe; Winchester; and, Woolwich; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [LORDS].
  Petition from Shoreditch, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDEN) BILL.
  Petition from Royal Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Paper [presented 25th June] to be printed. [No. 213.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (IRELAND) (FEMALE INSPECTORS).
  Return [presented 25th June] to be printed. [No. 214.]
  LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of précis of the evidence given before the Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1905. Part II. Salmon Fisheries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOROUGHS (RATEABLE VALUE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th April; Mr. John Tennant]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3653 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council continuing certain provisions in the Order in Council of 6th March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Settlement of Isle of Lewis Cottars in Ross-shire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state in what districts of the mainland of Ross-shire it is proposed to settle cottars migrated from the Island of Lewis.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) In 1901 inquiries were addressed to the Lewis Landward Committee upon this subject, who replied in the negative in December, 1905. Since then the Landward Committee report that there may be a prospect of some crofters or cottars being willing to migrate to the mainland. But the funds now at the disposal of the Board for purchase are very limited, and it is the opinion of the Board that, pending legislation, which the hon. Member knows is in course of preparation, no immediate steps can be taken in connection with the formation of new settlements.

  Withholding of Increment due to Senior Telegraphists.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain increments of salary due to senior telegraphist in the Central Telegraph Office on the April 1st, 1906, have been withheld; that the officials concerned have not been informed of the cause of their punishment, no reason, in fact, being assigned; and whether he will now let these officials know how they have been in fault, and give them an opportunity of defence before withholding the increments of salary they have earned.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question whether the increments of certain overseers and senior telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office can be allowed is under consideration, and I am not yet prepared to announce a decision. The officers concerned were informed in March last of the grounds on which the allowance of their increment was in doubt, and were invited to offer any explanation they might have to give.

  Forcible Removal of Fishermen to Facilitate Naval Shooting Practice.
  MR. MILDMAY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the action of H.M.S. "Theseus" in sending a launch to remove four fishermen from their fishing ground on the Skerries Bank in Start Bay on April 27th last, compelling them to abandon their crab pots under protest; whether their claims to compensation for loss of the day's work will be considered; and whether it will be possible to conduct the firing practice elsewhere along this coast, in view of the importance of this particular crab-pot ground to the poorer fishermen of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) My attention has been drawn to the

  Year ended 31st March.

  Number of years' purchase of first-term rents.

  Number of years' purchase of second-term rents.

  Number of years' purchase of yearly rents, leaseholds, &c.

  Number of years' purchase of annual value of untenanted land.

  1901

  15½

  —

  15

  28

  1902

  15

  18¾

  15

  28

  1903

  17

  18¾

  16

  25½

  1904

  19

  21

  19½

  28½

  1905

  18¾

  20½

  18¼

  27¾

  1906

  18

  21¼

  18

  29

  Average price for the six years

  17¼

  20

  17

  27¾

  In this statement the number of years' purchase paid for land on all the estates bought in each year have been added together and divided by the number of estates concerned, without regard to the quantity of land bought in each estate.

  Expedited Publication of South African Blue-Books.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to supply the House with Papers on South African questions at shorter intervals.
  incident, and inquiries are being made, the result of which I will communicate to the hon. Member; but as the allegations of fact are conflicting there may be some little delay in clearing up the question.

  Irish Land Purchase—Average Prices.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH (Sligo, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the average price in terms of years purchase paid by the Congested Districts Board for lands purchased by them in each of the years ended on March 31st, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The average prices paid by the Congested Districts Board for lands purchased by them in each of the years ended on March 31st from 1901 to 1906 were:—
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Papers on the labour question in the Transvaal were published in December and in February, and it is proposed to issue further Papers of a general character in the course of next month. The House has been placed in possession of all the material information on the various topics to which its attention has been directed, by Questions addressed to me by hon. Members, through the medium of the Answers as well as by the statements made by me in the course of the Debates which have taken place, so that I do not

  755
  think that the hon. Member can complain of lack of information. But the preparation of a new Blue-book shall be expedited.

  British Policy Holders in American Insurance Companies.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interests of British policy holders in American insurances, he will communicate with the United States Government Insurance Department of State, as to the recent investigations in New York respecting American insurance companies, and give report of the same and also of the laws recently passed by the New York Insurance Department for the protection of policy holders; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Life Insurance Act of 1870.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As stated in my reply yesterday, a Committee of the House of Lords is now considering what steps should be taken to provide adequate security for British policy holders in America, and other assurance companies which have their chief office outside the United Kingdom, and I propose to bring the hon. Member's Question to the notice of that Committee.

  Oxfordshire Pupil Teachers' Centre.
  MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.): To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have, through their inspector, recommended that the Oxfordshire pupil teacher centre, which is under the control of the local education authority, shall be closed, that the male pupil teachers attending such centre shall be sent to the Oxford high school, and the female pupil teachers to the convent school; whether he is aware that in neither of these schools is there any laboratory; that excellent results have been secured at the centre, under a head teacher who has had experience as training college tutor and organising inspector; will he say whether this policy has received his sanction; and, if not, whether he will take steps to retain the pupil teachers in an institution under public control and free from denominational influences.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The general situation in regard to the existing pupil
  756
  teacher centre, carried on by the Oxford City Council, to which, I presume, the hon. Member refers, has been brought to my notice. The facts, as known to the Board of Education, differ somewhat from the account of the case given in the Question. The centre was stated by the Board to be unsatisfactory more than two years ago, and grants were refused four months ago, in consequence of the continued failure of the local authority to improve matters. Every effort has been made by the Board to secure better provision being made by the local education authority, but so far without effective results. I understand, however, that the higher education committee of the city council have now considered the matter, and concur in the necessity of the arrangements suggested by the Board.

  Sale of Lands of the Prynces Charity.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether any application has been received from the trustees of the Prynces charity in the parish of Holme Lacy, in the county of Hereford, for authority to sell the charity lands; whether any memorial against such sale has been received, or any request for a public inquiry; and whether the Charity Commissioners will undertake to postpone the sale, if any, until a public inquiry has been held, and if such sale is allowed, to order it to be by public auction.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) The present administrators of the charity have approached the Commissioners with reference to a sale of the charity land, but they have not yet made any formal application for authority to sell, and no memorial with respect to such proposed sale, or request for a public inquiry, has been received by the Commissioners.

  Working of the Teachers' Register.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the working of the Teachers' Register contravenes the Act of 1899, by making an invidious distinction between teachers in different categories of schools, and fails to carry out the intentions of Parliament as testified to by the memorandum of the

  757
  Board of Education [Cd. 3017]; and, if so, whether he contemplates rectifying this state of things, in view of the intention of His Majesty's Government to drop Clause 36 of the Education Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the reply given to a Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire on this subject this afternoon, except to say that I must not be taken as endorsing the accuracy of the description of the position of affairs contained in the two paragraphs of the Question.

  Exchange Compensation Allowances to European Officers of the Indian Services.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return containing copies of all the Resolutions issued by the Government of India, with regard to the grant of exchange compensation allowance to European officers of the Indian Services.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no objection to the publication of a Return containing the Resolutions regarding exchange compensation allowance which have been issued by the Government of India.

  Temporary Assistant Land Commissioner.
  MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, prior to March 31st last, there is any official record of a case in which the services of a temporary Assistant Land Commissioner were dispensed with on the expiration of the period for which he had been temporarily employed, except on reduction of staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) There are official records of three such cases, two of which occurred in the year 1890, and one in the year 1897.

  Payment of Fees for Teaching of Irish.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed scheme, as recently outlined by him, for the payment of fees in respect of the teaching of Irish in national schools originated with the Board of National Education; or whether
  758
  it was recommended in the first instance to the Board by the Irish Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It would be contrary to the established practice to disclose any confidential communications which may have passed between the Irish Government and this or any other Board.

  Dismissal of Assistant Land Commissioners.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether four of the five Assistant Land Commissioners, whose employment was recently discontinued, notwithstanding several years of approved service in each case, were subsequently reappointed for brief periods; and, if so, what were the circumstances which led to their reappointments.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer is in the affirmative. The gentlemen in question were, upon the recommendation of the Land Commission, reappointed for periods ranging from five to twelve weeks in order that the cases in which they had been engaged, but which has not been completed at the expiration of their term of office, might be disposed of without the necessity of incurring delay and expense in having the cases re-listed and re-heard.

  Civil Examination for Assistant Land Commissioners.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the opinion of the Irish Land Commissioners, the arrangement made with their approval some years ago for testing, by independent examination, at the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners, persons proposed to be appointed for the first time to the position of Assistant Commissioner, has worked satisfactorily; whether the views of the Land Commission were ascertained before it was recently determined to set aside this arrangement; and whether it has been decided to abrogate the arrangement in the cases of future similar appointments.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Without expressing any disapproval of the arrangement by which some years ago, certain persons were examined by the

  759
  Civil Service Commissioners for the position of Assistant Land Commissioner, the Irish Government considered that an examination is not necessary where there existed ample evidence, aliunde, not only of the fitness but of the special merits of certain of the candidates who offered themselves for these posts. It would be improper to state the nature of confidential communications which passed between the Land Commission and the Government. The Lord-Lieutenant has not arrived at any decision as to whether the method of examination by the Civil Service Commissioners will be used in the future or not.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the date of the Land Commission rule prescribing qualifications for the position of Assistant Land Commissioner; whether he will enumerate these qualifications; whether contemporaneously with the making of the rule the Irish Government arranged, with the full approval of the Land Commission, that all persons proposed thereafter to be appointed for the first time to the office of Assistant Commissioner should be required to undergo examination, conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, in order to test their qualifications as set forth in the rule; and in what manner, without such independent examination, were these qualifications specifically tested in the case of the five now Assistant Commissioners who were recently appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The date of the rule is March 13th, 1899, The qualifications are prescribed in the following provision of the rules:—The following persons shall be competent to be appointed for the first time to the office of Assistant Commissioner:—Practising barristers and solicitors of not less than six years' standing; Persons possessing the following qualifications:—(a) A practical acquaintance with the value of land in Ireland, and knowledge of the methods of land valuation; (b) Knowledge of the principles of land surveying and mapping, including skill in computing areas from maps and plans; (c) General educational fitness; and (d) Physical health, and capacity for outdoor work in connection with land valuation. There is nothing to show that the
  760
  arrangement as to Civil Service examination was intended to apply generally to all persons proposed thereafter to be appointed. No arrangement of the kind, even if contemplated, could have been binding, because the appointments in question are made by the Lord-Lieutenant for the time being, who may adopt any method he thinks suitable for satisfying himself that the persons to be appointed possess the prescribed qualifications. As to the concluding inquiry, I beg to refer to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on May 10th, 1906.†

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Jeremiah Murphy.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Iroland whether the Estates Commissioners have caused any inquiry to be made into the claim of Jeremiah Murphy, an evicted tenant on the estate of Bowen Colthurst, at Aharrin, Coach-ford, county Cork, for reinstatement; has the middleman, J. H. Weldon, Kilmallock, been approached in the matter, and, if so, with what result; and will he further state whether the negotiations for a sale of this estate have yet been concluded.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have had the holding in this case inspected, and having intimated to the middleman mentioned the price at which they would be prepared to purchase the holding if he should be in a position to sell it. Mr. Weldon has, however, refused to accept this price. The Commissioners are making further inquiries into the matter.

  Belfast Harbour Commissioners.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any supervision over the Belfast Harbour Commissioners by any governmental department; whether he is aware that the ex-officio representation on that Board by the Belfast Corporation is not in force, the present Lord Mayor being an elected representative; whether there is any intention by the Government to reform the elective franchise of this Board, on which at present the plural votes amount to 6,000 in a total of 14,000, the highest qualified elector
  † See (4) Debates, clvi., 1459.

  761
  having 46 votes and the lowest rating-qualification being £20; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking action in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Belfast Harbour Commissioners are not under the supervision of any department of the Government. The Lord Mayor of Belfast is ex-officio a member of the Harbour Board; but it is the fact that the present Lord Mayor is also an elected member of the Board. The electorate, consisting of shipowners and ratepayers, is constituted by The Belfast Harbour Act, 1883, the lowest rating qualification being £20. Plural votes are allowed by the Act, but I have no information as to the number of plural votes or as to the total number of electors. There are many other harbour boards in Ireland constituted on similar lines. So many suggestions for legislation on various subjects are made to the Irish Government that prudence dictates extreme caution before making any promises whatever.

  Spread of Consumption in Ireland.
  MR. FFRENCH (Wexford, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant whether he is aware that during the last thirty years the death rate from consumption in Ireland, per 10,000 of the population, has arisen from nineteen to twenty-two, whilst in England it has fallen from twenty-four to twelve; and whether to prevent the number of deaths from this disease in Ireland, about 13,000 annually, the Government contemplate providing, as in England, sanatoriums for the treatment of mild cases and isolation hospitals for incurables.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the reply which I gave in the House to-day to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for West Cavan, when I stated the measures which are being taken to check the spread of consumption in Ireland. I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the Government have provided in England institutions of the kind mentioned.

  Irish Land Purchase—Application of Hugh Heavy of Tullyvilla, County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan,W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the
  762
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say why Hugh Heavy, of Tullyvilla, Curlough, county Cavan, a tenant on the estate of David Finlay, deceased, in the Land Judge's Court, has had his purchase application refused by the Land Commission; will he say what is the area of this tenant's holding; and whether he will be offered an opportunity for purchasing the holding, which has been in his possession for the past fifteen years.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that Hugh Heavy has already purchased the holding comprising. L0¾ acres on the Finlay estate, of which he was tenant. Heavy was also subtenant of 2¾ acres of land, of which, in order to facilitate the sale of the estate, he was made direct tenant. He has, however, declined to purchase this portion unless there is included in it certain land upon which he is stated to have encroached. The suggestion that Heavy's purchase application has been refused by the Land Commission appears to be founded upon a misapprehension.

  Status of Clerical Staff of the Irish Registry of Titles (Central Office).
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether steps will be taken, having regard to the interests of the public service, to ascertain and establish the status of the clerical staff of the Irish Registry of Titles Central Office, which is at present undetermined; and whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the best means of placing the members of this staff in a well-defined, and established position.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, recently introduced by my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, which contains provisions regarding the status of both the present and future clerical staff of the office in question.

  Scotch Volunteer Regiments attached to other than their own Brigade-Camp Allowance.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrew's Burghs): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention

  763
  has been directed to the case of Scotch Volunteer regiments which, owing to the local holiday time not coinciding with the period of training of their own brigades, are attached to other brigades for camp training, and thereby forfeit camp allowance under Class I, thus losing 25 per cent.; and whether, in consideration of the fact that they perform the same work and receive the same training, he will consider the advisability of granting them allowance under Class I.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been drawn to the matter. Under paragraph 535 of the Volunteer Regulations battalions cannot draw Class 1 allowances unless they attend the camp of their own brigade or a camp with the regular forces. It has, however, been decided that in the case of units allotted, under Army Order 130 of 1906, to brigades other than those to which they formerly belonged, Class 1 allowances will be granted if they camp with either their old or their new brigades, subject to the usual conditions that a brigade camp must consist of not less than three battalions.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Promotions.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what were the average and minimum ages of the officers promoted from lieutenant to commander in the last batch of promotions; and on what calculation does he base the estimate that the rank of commander will be reached at about thirty-seven years of age under the new system of providing officers for the Navy.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The average and minimum ages were thirty-two years four months and thirty years respectively. With regard to the last part of the Question—which, I understand, refers to a statement made by me in the course of the debate on Navy Vote 5—what I had intended to say was that the rank of commander would be reached at from thirty-two to thirty-seven. The rank of lieutenant
    764
    will be reached at about twenty-two-and-a-half, and it is estimated that from ten to fourteen years or thereabouts will elapse before a lieutenant becomes commander.

    Ceylon Civil Establishment.
    SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the proposal for the provision of Rs.250,000 per annum to the Ceylon Civil Establishment, in order to provide enhanced salaries on a gold standard for officials ordinarily recruited in Europe, was carried in the Ceylon Legislative Council by the votes of the European members of the council, many of them being officials who would or might benefit under the vote, in face of the unanimous opposition of the Ceylonese unofficial members of the council; and whether, seeing that a representative public meeting, held at Colombo on February 3rd, 1906, unanimously protested against this vote and submitted a memorial to the Secretary of State praying for a consideration of this protest, and in view of the feeling on the subject in the Colony, His Majesty's Government are prepared to give favourable consideration to the subject of this memorial.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): With regard to the first Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State's despatch of January 25th, a copy of which, as published in Ceylon, has been placed in the Library. The memorial referred to has been received and considered, but the Secretary of State has not seen any cause to alter his view of I the question, and the memorialists have been so informed.
    SIR H. COTTONfurther asked whether it was established by Lord Ripon in a despatch of October 9, 1894, and confirmed by the right hon. gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in a despatch of February 4, 1896, that all officers in the public service of Ceylon, whether domiciled or not, and of whatever nationality, were to be granted compensation for exchange at a common rate, and I were placed on an equal footing; and whether these orders had not been set aside by the decision of the Legislative Council to which he had already referred.
    MR. CHURCHILL: This matter was far advanced when the transfer of power from the late to the present Government took place. I understand that the object of the new regulations is to secure the salaries of officers who may be domiciled in this country being permanently payable on the sterling basis and without interfering at all with the salaries of officers not domiciled in the United Kingdom. Obviously, it is only those officers bona fide living in the United Kingdom who suffer by the fluctuation in exchange.
    SIR H. COTTON: Is the hon Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction in the island?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes. Sir, some dissatisfaction has been shown. But it is largely due, I think, to a misunderstanding; and, if the hon. Gentleman would read the despatch to which I have referred, I think he will see there was considerable justification for the late Government in embarking on this course, and for the present Government in not immediately reversing it.

    British Guiana.
    MR. BYLES (Salford, N.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is he yet able to make any statement as to what action the Secretary for the Colonies has taken or intends to take in respect of the petition forwarded by the inhabitants of British Guiana, and a further petition from some members of the Court of Policy and Combined Court of British Guiana, containing grave allegations of misgovernment, and praying for the appointment of a committee of inquiry.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State's replies to the petitions in question were despatched to the Governor of British Guiana on June 7th, and will be published in the Colony in due course. The correspondence will be presented to Parliament.

    Foreign Commercial Agents in British Colonies.
    MR. LAIDLAW (Renfrewshire, E.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing
    766
    the number of commercial agents, other than consular agents, in the service of the respective Governments of Belgium, France, Germany, the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain who are resident in the Colonies of Australia, and Canada and South Africa.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that considerable difficulty would be experienced in obtaining such a Return as the hon. Member desires; but if he can furnish me with more full information as to the object he has in view, I shall be in a better position to judge of the possibility of meeting his wishes.

    Religious Processions in Malta.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if Protestant bodies in Malta are restricted from holding processions and other ceremonies in public, and, if so, will he explain why Roman Catholics are allowed this privilege.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am consulting the Governor of Malta upon the questions raised by the hon. Member's Question and as soon as I get his reply I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Appointments to the Indian Educational Service.
    DR. HAZEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the following gentleman have lately been appointed to Bengal in the Imperial educational service, viz., Mr. E. Candler, a newspaper correspondent to the principalship of the Hooghly College, Mr. J. A. Chapman, recently a clerk in an exchange bank, to the principalship of the Calcutta Madrassab, and Mr. W. Horn, recently a private tutor in the family of the Lieu tenant-Governor of Bengal, to an inspectorship of schools; whether, seeing that high university distinction has ordinarily been considered an indispensable condition for holding such appointments, he can say what are the educational qualifications and university distinctions of each of the gentlemen named; and whether their appointments have superseded eminent Indian graduates of British universities, who are employed in the lower paid and subordinate ranks of the provincial educational service.
    THE UNDER-SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. ELLIS,): The gentlemen referred to have been appointed to hold charge of the posts mentioned temporarily, during the absence on leave of the permanent holders, and have not been appointed permanently to the Indian Educational Service. Mr. Candler was engaged in teaching in India from 1896 to 1903, and is stated to have shown exceptional fitness for work of that nature; Mr. Home and Mr. Chapman have also been employed in educational work with good practical results. Mr. Home took honours at Edinburgh; Mr. Candler is a graduate of Cambridge: as to Mr. Chapman's university career I have no information. The posts in question, which are among those allotted to the Indian Educational Service, would ordinarily be filled from this country, and are not open to the members of the Provincial Educational Service, who therefore, have not been superseded by the selection of the gentlemen above mentioned.
    DR. HAZEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Candler was Daily Mail correspondent in Thibet? Is that a sufficient qualification for the headship of a college?
    MR. ELLIS: I have no information as to the supposed connection with this newspaper and must ask for notice.
    SIR H. COTTON: Has it not been usual to appoint a man of oriental attainments to the principalship of the Calcutta Madrassah, and was it desirable to select a clerk in an exchange bank for the office?
    MR. ELLIS: My hon. friend seems to lose sight of the fact that these appointments are temporary.

    Chicago Meat Packing Trade.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a report from His Majesty's Consul in Chicago of his inspection of the meat-packing establishments in that city; and whether the Report will be published.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): A report
    768
    has been received and is being sent to the Local Government Board for their information. It was sent by the Consul for the information of His Majesty's Government, but I am doubtful as to the desirability of publishing any report except one written by an expert specially qualified to do so.

    British Relations with Russia—Massacres of Jews in Russia.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that owing to the murder of the King of Servia diplomatic relations were broken off with that country, he proposes to adopt a. similar course in consequence of the recent massacre of Jews in Russia.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: May I ask what distinction is drawn between the assassination of two crowned heads in Servia and the wholesale slaughter of these poor people in Russia?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will reply to that Question in my Answer to the hon. Member for the Elland Division.
    MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date, approximately, during the summer months it is intended, under the present arrangements, that the British fleet should pay its ceremonial visit to a Russian port in the Baltic.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: According to present arrangements, the fleet will in the course of its cruise in the Baltic call at Swedish, Russian, and German ports. It will call at four Russian ports. The exact dates have not yet been fixed, but they will be at the end of July and the beginning of August.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to appeals made in Russia to Great Britain not to send the British fleet on a ceremonial visit, on the ground that it would be interpreted in Russia as a demonstration hostile to the constitutional movement; whether he will make

    769
    inquiries as to the prevalence or otherwise of this feeling among the constitutional party in Russia; and whether, meanwhile, His Majesty's Government will delay making final and unalterable arrangements for a visit of the fleet such as has been proposed.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I can add nothing to the Answers which I have already given. It seems to me quite out of the question that a visit of the fleet which was arranged some time ago should be regarded as having any reference whatever to internal affairs in Russia, or as having any influence upon them. Such visits during the summer cruise of the fleet have always been regarded hitherto as a simple act of courtesy to the country and people to whose neighbourhood the fleet has gone. But if it is desired that any fuller statement should be made, I would suggest that it should be postponed till the Foreign Office Vote, which is to be taken on July 5th.

    Congo Free State.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the fact that the evidence of the Commission of Inquiry affecting the Congo Free State has been suppressed by King Leopold and that the rights of the signatory Powers have been repeatedly traversed especially in regard to the question of trade monopolies, he can see his way to request the other Powers concerned to join with His Majesty's Government in making urgent representation of King Leopold for a redress of the grievances disclosed by the Commission.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Congo Government do not deny that they are bound by the stipulations of Article 5 of the Berlin Act. Before again approaching the Powers parties to that Act, it is necessary to see how the recently issued decrees are applied, and how far they are successful in providing a redress of the grievances disclosed by the Commission of Inquiry.

    Brixton Prison.
    MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
    770
    for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that carpenters brought from Aylesbury are being employed by the contractors now building an addition to His Majesty's prison on Brixton Hill, and are being paid wages substantially lower than those paid to London carpenters; whether the contract provides that the wages current in London should be paid; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I have made inquiry, and find that the contract in question, like other contracts made by the Prison Commissioners, requires that the wages shall not be less than the rates current for competent men in the district. The carpenters employed are actually being paid either the union rate or more. One apprentice and three improvers who came from Aylesbury are also employed; but I understand it is claimed that the trades union rates do not apply to improvers for twelve months after they have completed their apprenticeship. The Prison Commissioners report that the terms of the contract are being observed, and that no complaint has been made to them, and on the information at present before me I can see no reason for my taking any action.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Why are the additions being made to this prison?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I suppose because they are needed.
    .MR. FLAVIN: We can lend you some Irish prisons.

    Welsh Mine Inspection.
    MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Hugh Johnstone, who has been appointed chief inspector of mines for the Swansea district, has no knowledge of the Welsh language, and that the majority of the colliers in the Swansea district use Welsh as their ordinary speech; whether, before making the appointment, he had his attention directed to Section 39 (1) of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887,

    771
    which enacted that in such appointments in Wales and Monmouthshire preference should be given to persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language, and, if so, why that provision has been ignored in the present appointment; and whether, in view of the feeling entertained by all Welshmen, irrespective of party, on this matter, he can see his way to reconsider the appointment
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that Mr. Johnstone has been appointed to take charge of the Swansea district. I have not filled the vacancy in that district by promoting an assistant inspector, but by transferring to Swansea Mr. W. N. Atkinson, one of the senior and most experienced of the existing inspectors, who is at present in charge of the Staffordshire district. In making the appointment I gave full consideration to the provision in the Act to which the hon. Member refers, which requires preference to be given to Welsh-speaking persons among candidates "otherwise equally qualified." In my judgment the South Wales coalfield is the most important of all, because of its particular liability to great disasters. In this matter, therefore, a very direct responsibility rests upon myself, and I felt it my duty to appoint an inspector whose standing and well-known experience specially qualify him for this post.
    MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the three inspectors on the staff at present, Mr. Pearson of Scotland, Mr. Matthews of Liverpool, and Mr. Lewis, have passed their examinations, have been for several years on the staff, and are perfectly qualified to fill this post?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I quite follow my hon. friend, but I cannot add anything more to what I have said. In my judgment the best qualifications are standing experience and ability, and without disrespect to the gentlemen named, Mr. Attkinson's qualifications are considerably higher than those of anybody else. That being so, I felt it my duty to the district in question to appoint a man qualified by experience and ability for the duties of the post.
    MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: Does Mr. Attkinson know Welsh?
    MR. GLADSTONE: He does not know Welsh, but I am advised that, although it is quite desirable that Welshmen should be appointed as far as possible, yet so far as the necessary duties are concerned a knowledge of Welsh is not essential.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentleman he has appointed to this most dangerous district has, according to his own admission, no experience whatever of the Welsh system of mining, and no acquaintance whatever with any Welsh colliery at all?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. I am not aware of that; but after the most careful inquiry and consultation with mining engineers of practical experience of the subject I am quite satisfied that Mr. Atkinson is the best qualified man.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of this important fact, will he kindly stay the appointment until he has ascertained whether this man knows anything about the Welsh system of mining?
    MR. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether South Wales coalfields are not. particularly liable to explosions from coal dust; whether Mr. Atkinson has any particular knowledge of that subject, and whether in that respect he is well qualified to deal with mines of the character of the Welsh coal mines?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: May I ask this Gentleman, if he is allowed to give an opinion, to explain the difference in Welsh between—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! The hon. Member is not entitled to ask a private Member a Question.
    MR. BRACE (Glamorganshire, S.): Arising out of this Question or discussion; may I submit to the Home Secretary

    773
    that this matter is so important to us—and we speak on behalf of 150,000 Welsh miners—that if he cannot agree to the reconsideration of it, we should have the opportunity of having the House adjourned later in the week, in order to debate the question fully.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I would point out to my hon. friend that the debate on the Home Office Vote is bound to come on in the next two or three weeks, when there will be ample opportunity for a discussion of this very important question. For my part I make no complaint.
    MR. BRACEasked whether the Home Secretary would defer the confirmation of the appointment until after the Home Office Vote was taken, so that they might give their reasons to him for accepting their opinion on the matter as that of men who really did know something of the needs and requirements of the miners of South Wales.
    COLONEL HERBERT (Monmouthshire, S.)also asked the right hon. Gentleman to ascertain whether the officials of the Home Office were aware of the difference between the coal mines of Wales and those in the North of England and Scotland.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had come to a decision after careful and close examination, and he could not delay the appointment.
    MR. BRACE: Then we will raise the question again.

    Maghery (Moy) Post Office.
    MR. McKILLOP (Armagh, S.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the reasons for the removal, in October last, of the post office, which has been situate at Maghery, Moy, county Armagh, for the past sixty years, to Derrylee, two miles distant, and in the same delivery and only two miles distant from Tamnamore; and whether, seeing that Maghery is an important navigation station and tourist resort on the shore of Lough Neagh, and Derrylee an inland hamlet of a few houses only, and in view of the public meetings held in the district protesting against the change, he will say what postal and telegraph facilities are at present provided for the residents
    774
    of Maghery, and for the requirements of the local industries in its neighbourhood, and state what steps are being taken to establish a post office and telegraph station in Maghery.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I will look into the matter.

    Sea Encroachments.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have yet received the-report of Mr. Matthews, as to the effects, of the recent encroachments by the sea in the south-east corner of the East Riding of Yorkshire; and whether the-Government intend to take any steps to prevent the recurrence of such encroachments during the approaching; autumn and winter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The Board of Trade have received the joint report from Captain Frederick, one of their professional advisors and Mr. Matthews, C.M.G., as to the encroachment by the sea at and near Kilnsea. The report is receiving, careful consideration, and I hope to be able to say shortly what conclusion has been arrived at.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Can I see. the report?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.

    The Wreck of the "Courier."
    SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the Report of the local inquiry into the wreck of the "Courier" off Guernsey on April 30th last, whereby seven passengers, including five women and children, were drowned; and whether, in view of the-evidence given, and of the differences in regard to regulations for merchant shipping obtaining in the Channel Islands, from those observed in the British Isles, he will cause further investigation to be made into the circumstances connected with this disaster.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have seen the Report of the inquiry held in Guernsey

    775
    into the wreck of the "Courier." With regard to the differences between the the laws of the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, I understand that communications are passing between my right hon. friend the Home Secretary and the Channel Islands authorities on the subject. The Board of Trade will be glad to co-operate in any measures that may be taken to bring the laws of the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom into harmony so far as it may be necessary to do so.
    SIR W. J. COLLINSasked whether the Government would consider the propriety of introducing a new clause into the Merchant Shipping Bill making it applicable to the Channel Islands.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We could hardly legislate for the Channel Islands. We do not legislate for the Colonies. We approach them, if necessary, to bring their legislation into line with our own.

    Railway Working—Precaution against Accidents.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the practice of banking passenger and other trains up inclines on the London and North Western and Midland Railways, without either the engine in the rear being coupled to the train in front or any continuous brake connection being formed; and whether, in view of the possibility of accident to the front engine or train, and with a view to securing safe working, especially at night, he will say what steps he proposes to take, if any, to avoid such risk.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am in communication with the railway companies referred to, and hope to be able to give my hon. friend a reply if he will put down his Question again in a few days.

    Ill-Treatment of Ship's Apprentices.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether complaint has been made to him that four lads who, by apprentice indentures, became apprentices to Messrs. Gibson and Clark, of Glasgow, and in July, 1905, joined the ship the "Pass of Killi-crankie," were on the voyage from Antwerp to Los Angelos, treated with cruelty
    776
    by the second officer, that proper medical attendance was not afforded, that sufficient and proper food was not supplied, that the captain neglected to properly supervise his under-officers, that the log book is defective, and that the master's reports are incorrect; and will he state what action he is taking in the matter.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Attention has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I am having inquiries made, into the circumstances so that I may be in a position to decide what, if any, action should be taken by the Board of Trade in the matter.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware complaint was made to the Consul at Los Angelos? Will he get his report?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is one of the inquiries we are instituting.

    The Technological College.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can now state what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Royal College of Science, &c.; and whether any reorganisation of the University of London is contemplated, with a view to the association with it of the proposed Technological College.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W., for Mr. BIRRELL): The Board are at present engaged in the preparation of a scheme for the establishment of a new institution on lines corresponding as closely as possible to those recommended by the Departmental Committee. The Board agree with that Committee in regarding it as of first importance that there should be no delay in the organisation of the institution, and with the recommendation of the Committee that its relation to the University of London should, in the first instance, be that of a "school of the University "—a recommendation in which the senate of the University have informed the Board that they concur. In considering the constitution of the new institution, the Board have had under consideration the suggestion of the Departmental Committee (No. 94, page 27) that without delaying the

    777
    commencement of the new institution's work, a Royal Commission should be appointed to consider whether changes could advisedly be made in the character and constitution of the University which might make it desirable and possible to amalgamate the two institutions. They have also had before them the Resolution of the senate of the University deprecating the appointment of such a Royal Commission within so short a period after the reorganisation of the University, and expressing the desire that opportunity should be afforded for conference between the Board and the senate as to any changes of the kind suggested. In the course of the conference, which took place on March 9th, between the Board of Education and a deputation from the University senate upon these matters, the suggestions thrown out by the University deputation seemed to be contingent, practically, upon the incorporation of the new institution within the University. As this would necessitate a prolonged delay in the starting of the institution, which the Committee specially recommended should be avoided, the Board have found it impracticable to proceed on those lines, but are hastening as much as possible the preparation of a draft charter on the lines of the report of the Departmental Committee.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS: Will an opportunity be afforded for further communications on the subject with the University of London?
    MR. LOUGH: No doubt.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Will the senate of the University of London have an opportunity of considering the scheme or draft charter before it is finally adopted by the Board of Education?
    MR. LOUGH: I should like notice of that Question.

    Registration of Teachers.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that Clause 4 of the Board of Education Act, 1899, does not make preparation of the register of teachers obligatory, but only declares its preparation to be lawful, and that the teachers in Column B have paid
    778
    fees for registration, he will consider the advisability of dropping Clause 36 of the Education Bill and cancelling the repeal of paragraph (a) of Clause 4 of the Board of Education Act, 1899, in the second schedule to the Bill, or, if such course be deemed inexpedient, of amending Clause 36 of the Bill by authorising the formation of a register of all teachers of approved training, irrespective of service in any particular type or class of school, with qualifications not less than those required for a university degree, competent to instruct children of school age.
    MR. LOUGH: The points referred to in the Question will, I hope, receive full discussion in this House during the consideration of Clause 36 by the Committee. I do not think it wise to forestall that discussion by dealing with the matter beforehand by Answers to Questions such as that put to me by the hon. Member.

    Miners' Association—Registration of Rules.
    MR. RICHARDSON (Nottingham, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in the year 1901 the Registrar of Friendly Societies registered the rules of the Derbyshire Miners' Association, containing as one of the objects of the association the promotion of legislation and labour representation, and that, on application being made by the NottsMiners' Association to register revised rules, he now requires the deletion of the same object from those rules; and will he explain why this distinction is being made.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The chief registrar informs me that his action with regard to the Notts Miners' Association was based upon the interpretation, which he places upon the definition of a trade union as given in Section 16 of the Trade Union Act (1871) Amendment Act. The action referred to in 1901 was taken by the predecessor of the present chief registrar, presumably upon a different interpretation of his duties under the Act.

    Pupil Teachers' Grants in Scotland.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, in the new regulations for pupil teachers in England,

    779
    an additional grant of £2 per head is given to county councils for the travelling and other incidental expenses of pupil teachers, making a total grant of £9 for each pupil teacher; and whether, in addition to the £8 per head allowed for the junior students in the minute for training of teachers in Scotland, he will endeavour to socure a similar grant for Scotland.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The cost to the Treasury, under the new regulations for England, of a pupil teacher who completes a three years course is £6+ £9 + £9 =£24—exactly the cost of a junior student who completes his course under the regulations for Scotland. But a large proportion of the pupil teachers in England take only a two years course, in which case their cost to the Treasury is only £9+£9=£18—less than in Scotland.

    South Leith Manse Assessment.
    MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in Edinburgh and Leith against the proposal to levy an ecclesiastical assessment for repairs on the manse of South Leith parish church; whether he is aware that these repairs cost £589, to which is to be added the cost of collection, amounting to an additional £400, and that an assessment of five-eighths of a penny per pound is to be levied, which will produce £1,250; whether he is aware that meetings have been held pledging the heritors to resist the imposition of the assessment; and if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent the levying of such assessments.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the facts disclosed in the South Leith manse assessment case, he will propose legislation to abate such impositions in Scotland.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was also aware that at a kirk session an intimation was given that relief would be given to heritors under £50 and that those over £50 would be relieved to the extent of the assessment.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Opinion among the heritors appears to be divided, and I am informed that the cost of collection did not amount to £400. With these exceptions, my hon. friend's statement of the facts, so far as it goes, seems to be correct. In reply to his last Question and that of my hon. friend the Member for Leith I may remind them that in 1900 the late Government passed an Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Act. The procedure laid down by that Act is apparently being followed by the heritors in this instance, and will be closely watched by the Government with the view of considering the advisability of introducing further legislation.
    MR. MCCRAE: IS my right hon. friend aware that yesterday at a meeting of the heritors, amid disorder, a motion was said to be carried to impose the assessment? And will he give facilities for a Private Member's Bill dealing with the matter?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I know nothing about the meeting, and cannot give any undertaking as to a measure till I have seen it.

    Sound of Kilbrennan—Herring Fishing
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, in the Sound of Kilbrennan, herring fishing is being systematically prosecuted during daylight hours, in contravention of the Act 52 and 53 Vic, c. 23, s. 5; and whether, in view of the injury thereby done to those fishermen who abide by the law, he will now direct the Scottish Fishery Board to perform their duty in securing the enforcement of the statute.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am not aware that there has been systematic contravention of the Act 52 and 53 Vic, c. 23, s. 6, but on Friday last the Fishery Board for Scotland received a complaint on the subject, and telegraphed to the commander of the fishery cruiser "Vigilant" instructing him to proceed to the Sound to inquire and report on the matter. If the complaints prove to be well founded, steps will be taken to enforce the law.

    Cork Magistracy.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, of the nine magistrates appointed in the county of Cork from May, 1905, to March, 1906, eight are Protestant Gentlemen and only one Catholic; and whether, in view of this disparity, representations will be made to the Lord Chancellor to appoint some of the gentlemen who have recently been recommended by district councils and other popularly elected bodies.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I am not aware, except from what the hon. Member tells me, of the religious beliefs of the gentlemen appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the county of Cork during the period mentioned in the Question. The appointments referred to, I am informed, were all made before the present Government came into office. Any representations which I may receive from district councils or other elected bodies recommending the appointment of gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace, I shall with pleasure submit to the Lord Chancellor, and I am sure that he will give them his most favourable consideration.

    Cooscroum (Kerry) Pier.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the necessity for building a slip or pier at Cooscroum, county Kerry, was brought to his personal knowledge when in that district, and that the local district council has passed a Resolution in favour of the scheme, that there are no facilities for landing afforded to the thirty fishing boats which use the cove, and that, owing to the presence of massive boulders, it is impossible in stormy weather for more than one boat at a time to be hauled up, he will urge upon the Congested Districts Board the necessity of providing landing facilities, or else avail himself of the powers under the Marine Works Act, in conjunction with the Congested Districts Board, to construct a pier.
    MR. CHERRY (for Mr. LRYCE): On the occasion of my recent visit to the locality, I received a memorial from the fishermen of Cooscroum asking for the
    782
    construction of a landing place there, and was impressed by the facts therein brought before me. The memorial will be considered by the Congested Districts Board at the next meeting.

    Irish Fisheries—Boat Building Return.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Return as to the building of boats for the various Government Departments connected with Irish fisheries, ordered by this House earlier in the present session, will be laid.
    MR. CHERRY: The Return is, I understand, approaching completion, and will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.

    Marine Works Act
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I bag to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give a Return, showing the result of the inquiries made by the Board of Public Works in Ireland, in connection with the investigations conducted by the late Government with a view to the extension of the operations of the Marine Works Act to districts outside the congested districts, and referred to in this House by the late Chief Secretary in March, 1905, and by his predecessor in July, 1904, and March, 1904.
    MR. CHERRY: I am informed that there is no record of any investigation having been conducted by the late Irish Government with the view indicated in the Question, and that the Board of Works have made no inquiries in the matter. I cannot find that either of my predecessors in office referred to the subject in this House at the dates mentioned, but if the hon. Baronet will give me a more precise reference I will have the matter further looked into.

    Artisans' Dwellings in Irish Urban Districts.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, pending legislation for the granting of facilities for the erection of artisans' dwellings in urban districts in Ireland, steps will be taken by a departmental arrangement to enable urban authorities

    783
    to borrow on easier and cheaper terms money required for the better housing of labourers in the towns.
    MR. CHERRY: I am afraid that what the hon. Member asks is not possible without legislation. If reference be made to Section I of the Public Works Loans Act, 1897, it will be seen that loans to local bodies can only be made at rates which will not involve loss to the local loans fund, and I am informed that the rates now charged are only such as are necessary to keep that fund self-supporting. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for West Kerry on Thursday last.†
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): Is not money raised at 3 per cent. and lent to the local authorities at 4¼ per cent.?
    MR. CHERRY: That Question should be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a strong feeling in Ireland that working men living in towns should be afforded equal facilities with those in the country for buying cottages? Will he bring in a legislation to secure that?
    MR. CHERRY: In view of the state of business I do not think legislation would be possible this year.
    MR. FLAVIN: Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that in urban areas the wage of the artisan is little more than that of the agricultural labourer?
    MR. CHERRY: Yes, and I certainly think the labourers in urban districts deserve consideration.

    Irish Land Purchase—Average Prices.
    MR. P. A. MCHUGH (Sligo, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the average price in terms of years' purchase paid by the Congested Districts Board for lands purchased by them in each of the years ended on March 31st, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906.
    † See Col. 374.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Answer to this Question contains a tabular statement of figures which could not be made very intelligible in an oral reply, and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the Answer with the Votes.‡

    Price of Congested Estates.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, in terms of years' purchase, the average price paid by the Estates Commissioners for congested estates purchased by them in each of the years ended March 31st, 1904, 1905, and 1906 respectively.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet completed the purchase of any congested estate. They have agreed during the year ended March 31st, 1906, to purchase one congested estate and the price to be paid for tenanted portion of this estate is 22 2 years purchase.

    Clare Evicted Tenants.
    MR. HALPIN (Clare, W.): I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of evicted tenants in West Clare and in East Clare respectively who have applied to the Estates Commissioners to have them reinstated in their holdings; and whether he is aware of the number of evicted tenants in both divisions who have not yet applied to be reinstated, but who are just doing so.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received applications from 217 persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants in the entire county of Clare. The Commissioners' records are not kept by Parliamentary divisions. They have no information as to the number of evicted tenants who have not yet applied, but are about to do so.

    Evicted Farms in County Clare.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make inquiries from the Estates Commissioners why their inspector, who went to West Clare and to East Clare to inspect evicted tenants'
    ‡ See Col. 754.

    785
    holdings, has not yet inspected several of these holdings; whether he will give instructions to the Estates Commissioners to have their inspectors visit every evicted farm in Clare as soon as possible; and whether, in view of the fact that some of those people have had to go into the towns and villages to earn what will support their families, he will request the Estates Commissioners to apply to honorary secretaries of the local branches of the United Irish League to give them information in reference to the evictions, especially of those who have not yet applied to them for reinstatement.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform mo that their inspector in Clare is inquiring into the applications of evicted tenants in that county as rapidly as possible. Over 200 applications have been received, and inquiries into all these cases must obviously take time. The Commissioners tell me that they will duly consider any useful information regarding evicted tenants which may reach them from any source. I infer that they do not propose to make inquiries into the cases of evicted tenants from whom no application is received.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the settlement of this question is really bound up with the public peace in Ireland?
    MR. BRYCE: Yes, and I am sure the Estates Commissioners fully appreciate the importance of dealing with these cases as soon as possible.

    South Cork Fisheries.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has satisfied himself that the fisheries in Unionhall and other centres in South Cork, as well as mineral resources of Benduff and other quarries in the neighbourhood of Rosscarbery, cannot le effectually developed without the construction of a local railway for the more rapid transit of fish, slate, and other products; and, if so, will steps be taken to carry this project into effect.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to the reply given on my behalf by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for
    786
    Ireland to the hon. Member's previous question on May 17th.† It was then stated that the subject of railway extension to the district in question will be duly considered should there be a prospect of obtaining funds for the purpose. I have since then visited the district and should be glad to see its resources further developed, but so many plans for developing different parts of Ireland have come before me, all involving large expenditure, that I cannot venture at present to give an undertaking regarding the particular extension desired by the hon. Member.

    Muckross Barytes Mines.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether seeing that the working of the barytes mines at Muckross, Ardfield, Clonakilty, has been suspended some time, thereby throwing a number of skilled workmen in that district out of employment, and seeing that those mines yield the best mineral of that species in the South of Ireland, and in view of the number of miners in that district awaiting the resumption of work at these mines, steps will be taken to induce the Department of Agriculture to send down an inspector to report on their condition and capabilities.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture intend to have the locality in question visited by their expert, but owing to the pressure of prior engagements it will not be practicable for him to make inspections in that locality for some time to come.

    Loans for Labourers' Cottages.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of representing to the Treasury the great convenience which would result to several rural district councils in Ireland, and to hundreds of labourers whose applications for cottages have passed all the Local Government Board inquiries, if arrangements could be made in the Labourers Bill whereby loans could be issued at the reduced rate of interest immediately on the Royal Assent being given to it in all
    † See (4) Debates, clvii., 659.

    787
    cases in which schemes are at present perfected.
    MR. BRYCE: I will convey to the Treasury the suggestion made by the hon. Member, but he will realise that the adoption of any earlier date than that mentioned in the Bill might involve administrative difficulty.

    Constable Masterson, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any information is forthcoming of the whereabouts of Constable Masterson, Royal Irish Constabulary, late of Mount-mellick, who was returned for trial to the Queen's County assizes for an assault committed on Edward Carroll, Rosenallis, on March 17th, 1905; and whether he can say why Masterson was permitted to abscond pending trial, and the payment of damages obtained against him in a civil action arising out of the same case.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a verdict for £100 damages and costs was obtained by a labourer, named Edward Carroll, Lacken, Rosenallis, Queen's County, against Constables Masterson and Cryan, Royal Irish Constabulary, late of Mountmellick, for an assault committed on March 17th, 1905; can he say if the damages have been paid; and, if not, will he see, considering Carroll's health has been permanently injured, that Constable Cryan, who is still in the force, does not evade his responsibilities in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Inspector-General informs me that no information is forthcoming as to the whereabouts of ex-constable Masterson. The matters referred to occurred before the present Government came into office, and I find that my predecessor made a full statement upon the matters in reply to Questions put by the hon. Member. As regards the case of Constable Cryan, I am informed that no change has taken place since I answered the hon. Member's previous Question on March 1st last. † The plaintiff does not appear to have accepted the constable's offer to pay his share of
    † See (4) Debates, clii., 1270.
    788
    the damages by instalments. The question of proceeding for the recovery of the damages is one for the plaintiff.

    Cappamore Evicted Tenants.
    MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that William O'Brien, of Curraghlahan, Cappamore, county Limerick, has been since August, 1899, evicted from his holding; and will he take steps, through the Estates Commissioners, to reinstate O'Brien in his farm or in a farm of equivalent value elsewhere.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received from William O'Brien an application for reinstatement as an evicted tenant. The Commissioners will have the case enquired into, but until their inspector's report has been received they are unable to state what action they may take in the matter.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.): Has the inspector gone down to this place yet?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware, but I do know the Commission are doing all they can to dispose of these cases.

    Lloyd Estate, Cappamore.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Lloyd estate, Portnard, Cappamore, county Limerick, negotiations for sale and purchase, as between landlord and tenants, were opened about six years ago, before the Judge of the Land Court, under the fortieth section of the Land Act of 1896, but were adjourned until the rental could be arranged; that about a year later the mortgagees on the property offered to sell at nineteen years purchase, the tenants offering eighteen years; and will he take steps, through the Estates Commissioners, to open negotiations again for the sale.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that the only estate in the district referred to in regard to which a request under the section quoted was lodged with the Commissioners was the estate of William Thomas Lloyd. The holdings on this estate were with one exception sold to the tenants in the year

    789
    1901. If the hon. Member refers to the estate of R. E. Lloyd, no proceedings have, I am informed, ever taken place under Section 40 in regard to it.

    Irish Intermediate Education Commission.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Intermediate Education Commissioners changed their programme last year, two months after the school year began, by replacing botany as a special subject counting for an exhibition, after they had deposed it and hygiene, amongst other subjects, in the rules issued in 1906; and whether, seeing that the Board did make these alterations in their programme in the month of October, when the House was not sitting, he will explain why they refuse now to make alterations involving no greater difficulty.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education that the facts are as stated in the Question. The alteration made in the month of October, 1905, in the rules for 1906 affected a very small number of candidates and did not in any way influence the conditions of passing the examination generally. The alterations now in question would concern a very large number of candidates and the character of the pass examination would be modified.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is it not a fact that the alterations which this House adopted were not at all as difficult as the alterations adopted by the Board without the consent of the House?
    MR. BRYCE: That is not the case according to the information given me by the Board.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is it not a fact that members of the Board have stated that it is misleading to say that there is any difficulty whatever in adopting the suggestions of the House?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not know.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Can we get a day to discuss this matter, because it is a very serious one.
    MR. BRYCE: The business of the House is not under my control, as the hon. Member knows.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to give an Answer to the Question I addressed to him the other day—is it true that after this House unanimously passed a Resolution altering these rules the Board of Intermediate Education passed a Resolution refusing to alter them?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not think that arises out of the Question, but at any rate I am not in a position to announce the terms of the correspondence.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S): Is it a fact that this House has no control over the Commissioners?
    MR. BRYCE: Hon. Members can look at the statute under which the Board was established and they will see what the legal position is.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has not the Board control in this respect, that if the Board disregard the action of this House the right hon. Gentleman or the Government can dismiss the Board?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware that that is so.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Is not the Board by its very constitution bound by a Resolution of this House?
    MR. BRYCE: I venture to think, Mr. Speaker, that these questions do not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

    Protection of Irish Fisheries.
    MR. POWER (Waterford, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Admiralty place at the disposal of the Scotch fishery authorities gunboats, to assist the gunboats provided by the Fishery Board for prohibiting illegal fishing, and in view of the injury done to the Irish fisheries by steam trawlers, and the extent of coast to be patrolled, he will make application to the Admiralty to supply gunboats to assist those at present employed by the Irish fishery authorities for the protection of the Irish Fisheries.
    MR. BRYCE: The question of the assistance to be rendered by the Admiralty in the protection of Irish Fisheries has from time to time been the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the Admiralty, from which it would appear that the function of the Admiralty is confined to the protection of Irish territorial waters from foreign vessels. Admiralty cruisers are employed for this purpose in Irish waters as occasion requires, and I understand that a conviction was recently obtained in Ireland against a foreign vessel captured by an Admiralty cruiser. The areas around the Irish coast in which steam trawling is prohibited are effectively patrolled by the Department of Agriculture's steam cruiser "Helga," with the occasional assistance of the steamship "Granuaille," which belongs to the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. POWER: But the Admiralty do afford assistance to Scottish fisheries.
    MR. BRYCE: Yes, but only for one purpose. There is a difference between the law of Scotland and of Ireland, but it does not affect the general duty of the Admiralty as regards trawlers.
    MR. JOYCE: And only yesterday a Minister of the Crown promised protection to the Cornish crabbers.
    MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

    Kilcloney Evicted Farm.
    MR. HAMMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the caretaker, O'Neill, is still in possession of the evicted farm known as Kilcloney, near Borris, in Carlow County, and that within the past two weeks he cut down and had carted away some trees planted on the holding by the Waters' family, which he had no right to do; will he say if the Estates Commissioners have purchased this Kilcloney farm; and, if so, on what date, and will Mr. Waters be reinstated.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners understand that O'Neill is still in occupation of the farm in question, but they inform me that they have decided
    792
    not to sell the farm to him. The offer which the Commissioners are about to make for the purchase of the estate, provides for the sale to them of this farm as untenanted land. Patrick Waters has signed an undertaking to purchase it from the Commissioners in the event of their acquiring the estate, and he will be reinstated if their offer should be accepted. The Commissioners have no information as to the alleged cutting of trees by O'Neill.

    Dunmore Fishery.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many local fishermen are now employed in beam trawling and line and trammel fishing at Dunmore East, county Waterford; is he aware that more than twenty beam trawlers were employed at Dunmore before steam trawling was introduced, and that the supply of trawl fish has decreased, and the price of the same increased since the introduction of steam trawling.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture are aware that there is one local boat using a beam trawl at Dunmore East, and a few small boats that occasionally fish with lines. About ten years ago, before the steam trawling began, a number of English and Irish herring boats frequented Dunmore East for the purpose of trawling. At an inquiry recently held at Dunmore East, evidence was given that the price for trawl fish in Waterford was higher since the advent of steam trawling. I have no information as to whether the supply of trawl fish has decreased.

    Inspection of Bilingual Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to secure that the inspection of bilingual schools shall be competently conducted; whether ho is aware that the teachers of a bilingual school at Partry, Ballinrobe, have been condemned on the report of an inspector who is not qualified to inspect a bilingual school; and whether it is proposed to act on this report.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that

    793
    schools in which the bilingual programme has been sanctioned are inspected by inspectors who have a competent knowledge of Irish, and the annual inspections are in all cases conducted by these officers. Incidental visits to such schools are also paid by the inspector of the district, and in the case referred to the district inspector has reported serious defects in the teaching. As a result, the Commissioners have informed the manager that unless a marked improvement in the proficiency of the pupils should take place, the retention of the bilingual programme in the school will be re-considered. The action which the Commissioners may take in the matter will depend upon the character of the next Report to be furnished by one of the inspectors specially in charge of the bilingual schools.
    MR. BOLAND: Did not the inspector state in this case that too much attention was given to Irish; what can be his definition of a bilingual school?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of that statement. There is nothing so dangerous as to give definitions.

    Fees for Irish Instruction.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the number of schools in which, according to the latest Returns, fees for Irish were paid during the last year; the number of pupils paid for instruction in Irish in these schools during the past year, the number of pupils in standards higher than first, in average attendance at these schools during the past year; the amount of special fees for Irish paid in these schools during the past year; the amount of fees which would have been paid in these schools if payment under the proposed new regulations was made for every pupil in the school in average attendance in standards higher than the first.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the number of schools in which fees were paid for Irish during the past year was 1,234, and the number of pupils in respect of whose instruction in Irish fees were paid was 25,265. No Returns are, I am informed, available from which it can be ascertained how many pupils, in standards higher than the first, were in
    794
    average attendance during the past year. The amount of special fees for Irish paid in these schools last year was £11,613. The Commissioners cannot estimate the amount of fees which would have been paid in the circumstances mentioned in the last paragraph.

    Prevention of Consumption in Ireland.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a pamphlet from the Ulster branch of the National Association for the Prevention of Consumption in Ireland, setting out that in the last thirty years the death rate from consumption per 10,000 of the population has fallen in England from twenty-four to twelve, while in Ireland the death-rate from this preventible disease has risen from nineteen to twenty-two per 10,000 of the population, and that annually nearly 13,000 people die in Ireland from this disease; will he say if this sacrifice of life is having the attention of the Government; and will the whole matter be immediately dealt with by legislation or otherwise.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received the pamphlet referred to. The figures are substantially, though not precisely, as stated. The fall in England during the last thirty years was from twenty-one (not twenty-four) to twelve per 10,000. The rise in Ireland was from eighteen (not nineteen) to twenty-two. The Local Government Board are about to issue circulars to local authorities and medical officers of health containing recommendations and instructions as to the means to be adopted to check the spread of consumption. The subject has been receiving, and will continue to receive, the careful consideration of the Government.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to an order issued by the Scottish Local Government Board on this subject?
    MR. BRYCE: Yes.

    Fair Rent Appeals
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many fair rent appeals are pending before the Land Commission; how many

    795
    of these appeals are from the Sub-Commission and the county court respectively; how many of these appeals have been lodged by the tenant to June 1st, 1906; and how many by the landlord, excluding cases of cross appeal.
    MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform me that on June 1st, 1906, the number of fair rent appeals pending before them was 9,264, of which 8,503 were cases from sub-commissions, and 761 from county courts. It would not, I am informed, be possible to state how many of these appeals were lodged by the tenant and landlord, respectively, without an examination of the notice of appeal in each of the 9,264 cases, and this would take a very considerable time.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the hearing of these appeals will be expedited?
    MR. BRYCE: I will do my best, but the matter is not under my control.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these appeals were entered four or five years ago, and are not yet listed for hearing?
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to that.
    MR. FLAVIN: I have personal knowledge of it.

    Congested Districts Board Clerks—Ex-amination Papers.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether officials of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland mark the papers set at the examinations for temporary clerks in their offices; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of employing capable outsiders independent of the Board for the purpose, in view of complaints among candidates as to the marking of their papers by possibly influenced or prejudiced officials.
    MR. BRYCE: The examination papers of candidates for temporary clerkships in the office of the Congested Districts Board are marked by the secretary, assistant secretary, and chief
    796
    clerk, who have before them the candidates' examination numbers only. The employment of outside examiners would be a considerable charge on the Board's funds, and is not considered necessary. No complaint as to the marking of examination papers has ever been made to the Board, but it is perhaps hardly to be expected that all unsuccessful candidates should be satisfied with the results.

    Irish Bankruptcy Law.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee which has been appointed to inquire into the Bankruptcy Laws has received instructions to investigate the state of the Law in Ireland; and, if not, whether, having regard to the desire in Ireland to have the Law altered so as to conform with the English Bankruptcy Law, he will arrange that the question of Irish Bankruptcy Law shall be inquired into.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The terms of reference to the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade are wide enough to include Ireland; but the Committee has no representative of Irish opinion upon it. It is a purely Departmental Committee, and as the powers of the Board of Trade in relation to Bankruptcy matters do not extend to Ireland they would not be justified in investigating the question of the Irish Bankruptcy Laws except with the assent of the Irish Office. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the statement of the Chairman of the Committee as to the course which it is intended to pursue on that point.

    Irish Finance.
    MR. THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the amount of interest to the end of June, 1906, realised by the arrangements made last year for the utilising of the current balances of certain Irish public funds by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he will continue the inquiry initiated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of ascertaining whether further funds credited to Irish public departments, or held by the Treasury for Irish purposes, can be similarly utilised with a view to increasing the sums now available

    797
    for the purposes of Irish development; and whether he will arrange to have a separate account of the sums realised under the existing arrangements and under any further arrangements shown annually in connection with Irish Estimates or in a Parliamentary Return.
    MR. McKENNA: As shown in the Annual Report under the Ireland Development Grant Act (Command Paper No. 2937) the amount received by the Development Grant Fund during 1905–6 for interest on monies placed on deposit at the Bank was £751 11s. 8d. The amount received as interest by the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board are shown in statements appended to the annual Appropriation Accounts, and similar receipts are shown in the accounts rendered to Parliament in respect of other funds. I understand that the result of inquiries made last year was to show that the available balances in the hands of Irish Departments were duly turned to account. I have no reason to doubt that such is still the case.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsuggested that a general statement might be got out showing the amount derived annually.
    MR. McKENNA: These figures are already given fully. I do not think it would be worth while to make a special return.

    The Unemployed.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in any proposals that His Majesty's Government may make for dealing with the problem of the unemployed they will take care that men and women now in employment are not thrown out of employment by the diminution, through taxation, of funds now spent by private persons in giving employment to the wage-earning classes.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): My hon. friend's Question is rather in the nature of a friendly admonition than an ordinary interrogation; but I may tell him that we are quite alive to the importance of the point to which he directs our attention.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill: Mr. Secretary Gladstone and Sir Charles Dilke; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Leif Jones and Mr. Wiles.
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Higham; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Charles Hobhouse.
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Charles Hobhouse; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Higham.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill: Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Clancy, Mr. O'Shee, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Halpin; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Power, Mr. Murnaghan, Mr. Swift MacNeill, and Mr. Hugh Law.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members, in respect of the Bills of Exchange Act (1882) Amendment Bill: Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Sir Arthur Bignold, Mr. Holden, Mr. Hambro, Mr. Napier, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Godfrey Baring, Sir George Kekewich, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Walker, Mr.

799
Waldron, Mr. John Philipps, Sir Thomas Glen Coats, and Mr. Nicholls.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
Ordered, That the Report do lie upon Table, and be printed. [No. 216.]
Ordered, That the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee be printed. [No. 216.]
Ordered, That the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and be printed. [Bill 272.]

NEW BILL.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  "To amend The Infant Life Protection Act, 1897," presented by Mr. Staveley Hill; supported by Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Arthur Lee, Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Walrond, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Hills, and Mr. Nicholls; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, July 3rd, and to be printed. [Bill 274.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, with respect to bridges," presented by Mr. Patrick O'Brien; supported by Mr. O'Mara and Mr. Meagher; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 275.]
  CANALS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Canals," presented by Mr. Barran; supported by Mr. Channing, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Cross, Mr. Field, Mr. Steadman, Mr. Ridsdale, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Wiles, Mr. William Lever, Mr. Brunner, and Mr. Mond; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, July 10th, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]

  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)moved for leave to introduce a Bill to appoint
  800
  Commissioners to inquire as to the growth in numbers of conventual and monastic institutions in Great Britain and Ireland; and whether any further regulations of such institutions are required. He said that these institutions had increased in England and Wales from fifty-two in 1850 to 1,057 in 1905, while in Ireland there were 592 such places, and sixty-two in Scotland. At present there was no regulation and no inspection of these institutions. They were a law unto themselves. England was, he believed, the only country in which such a condition of things existed. The result of the action of foreign Governments had been an immense influx of expelled orders into this country during the last twelve or eighteen months, and if His Majesty's Government would but grant the inquiry the Bill proposed, the figures would be found startling. He believed he was not overstating the case when he said that there were tens of thousands of men and women within the walls of these institutions who had no appeal to, and no protection from, the common law of the State. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bosh!"] He was not sure that "Bosh!" was a Parliamentary expression, but if the hon. Member who used it doubted the truth of the statement just made, lot him agree to an inquiry. The granting of unchecked and unbridled power to the heads of these institutions meant, at all events, the possibility of tyranny and cruelty.
  THE SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that ho had exceeded the limit of time usually accorded to Motions of this character.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Then, Sir, I will only formally move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill, to appoint Commissioners to inquire as to the growth in numbers of Conventual and Monastic Institutions in Great Britain and Ireland; and whether any further regulations of such Institutions are required."—(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
  MR. T. P. CONNORsubmitted that the conduct of the hon. Member was an abuse of the rules of the House.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the hon. Member was in order in charging him with having abused the rules of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the frequent repetition of the use of this form would have a tendency to become an abuse, but, so long as the rule was only put into force occasionally, he could not say it was an abuse of the forms of the House. There had not been an instance of this kind for some little time, and therefore he could not consider that the action of the hon. Member was an abuse. But if it were frequently put into practice, he should have to say that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division was right in the terms he had used.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Does the hon. Member withdraw the expression?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing to withdraw.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Except the Bill.
  MR. O'CONNORsaid the Nationalists had listened to a speech which was in some respects an attack on that which they held most dear. Two sets of figures sufficiently indicated to the House the reason of this proposal. This was the 26th June, and it had been announced by the Government that the Session would come to an end about the 4th August. The hon. Gentleman must therefore be perfectly aware that there was not the smallest chance of his Bill becoming law this session. Therefore the hon. Gentleman did not bring in his Bill with any hope of its passing into law. He would
  tell the House why the hon. Gentleman brought in this Bill. It was now exactly seventeen days from the 12th July. For the benefit of English Members he might say that on the 12th July, 1690, there was fought the Battle of the Boyne. The liberties that were then supposed to be assailed had already been gained, and the hatred that was then established had been removed; therefore there was no reason why any tolerant or fair-minded man should seek by such commemorations as the hon. Gentleman would take part in to revive the sad and unhappy memories of dead conflicts and what ought to be dead religious controversies. The hon. Gentleman had brought in this Bill in preparation for the 12th July. In Ireland there was going on a movement which every honest man, Protestant or Catholic, ought to help, and which every decent Catholic and Protestant in Ireland did help, namely, the closing of the era of religious conflict, religious hatred, and religious passion, through which seas of human blood had been shed in Ireland, and the dawn of a placid epoch. There was, however, still left a gang in Ireland, some of them Irish and some of them not, some of them sincere with the fanaticism of bigotry, some of them sincere with the exploitation of politics, who were deter-mined to bring these embers into flame again, and once more to divide Catholic and Protestant. The hon. Gentleman was one of that gang. He much mistook the temper of this House if it did not ignominiously reject this ignoble attempt to revive the embers of dying bigotry.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 72; Noes, 231. (Division List No. 151.)

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Brigg, John

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Liddell, Henry

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J.(Birm.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mansfield, H. Rendal(Lincoln)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

  Clough, W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Massie, J.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Middlemore John Throgmorton

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, EGrinst'd

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Napier, T. B.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Perks, Robert William

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Winfrey, R.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Robinson, S.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  T. L. Corbett and Mr. Sloan.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lough, Thomas

  Agnew, George William

  Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall)

  Lundon, W.

  Alden, Percy

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Essex, R. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Baring, Godfrey(Isleof Wight)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Barker, John

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maddison, Frederick

  Barnes, G. N.

  Flynn, Jams Christopher

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Meagher, Michael

  Beale, W. P.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mond, A.

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Ginnell, L.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Glover, Thomas

  Mooney, J. J.

  Bertram, Julius

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hall, Frederick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Billson, Alfred

  Halpin, J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hammond, John

  Murphy, John

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Harwood, George

  Murray, James

  Blake, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicholls, George

  Boland, John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Henderson, JM.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Cairns, Thomas

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shee, James John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Paul, Herbert

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kelley, George D.

  Pearce William (Limehouse)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  King, Alfred John(Knutsford)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crombie, James William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lamont. Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Reddy, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

  Rees, J. D.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Dillon, John

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Richardson, A.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Rt Hn. E.(Dundee)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  804

  805

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rogers. F. E. Newman

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Summerbell, T.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Runciman, Walter

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Russell, T. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Thomas, David AIfred(Merthyr

  Williamson, A.

  Seddon, J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wallace, Robert

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon Trent

  Young, Samuel

  Snowden, P.

  Wardle, George J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Thomas Esmonds an Cap-

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  tain Donelan.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 4:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)said that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of his speech before the adjournment on the previous day, had commented upon what he considered the slender degree of support that the Government Amendments had received. The right hon. Gentleman a little under-rated and underestimated the value of the support that they did receive and ignored the0 amount they could have received had their supporters thought fit to prolong the discussion by expressing one after the other their general agreement. He was, however, perfectly willing to acknowledge that the Parliamentary history of Clause 4, whether in its original form or as amended, and also its history in the country, afforded slender encouragement to a Minister to labour to secure concessions and to establish exceptions from the general principle of a Bill which received the united and enthusiastic
  806
  support of a great Parliamentary majority, in that respect at all events compact, eager, and united. Everybody had been telling him almost every day during the last three months:—"Why do you not stick to Clause 1—plain, intelligible, in accordance with the views of the country on your side, what the country expects?" "What," they said, "do you expect to get from those for whose benefit this clause is designed? You are quenching, to some extent, our enthusiasm; you will get nothing but cold words; indeed, you will be luckly if you escape a certain amount of abuse from the people whose interests you have laboured to the best of your ability to serve." That had been said to him again and again, and he always recognised its entire truth, and it was not necessary for him to wait for the debate of yesterday or to anticipate the discussion of to-day to know the reception which this clause was almost bound to receive. He was very glad, notwithstanding the coldness of the reception of this clause, that the Government, with one accord and without any difference of opinion whatsoever, adhered to it, stuck to it, and treated it as a just though highly exceptional clause. He did not complain of hon. Gentlemen opposite because they did not receive this clause with gratitude or enthusiasm. Why should they? They took the denominational line; they said they would like all the schools to be denominational; they would put not only Rome but Lambeth on the rates, Lord Halifax on the rates, and Lady Wimborne and Dr. Clifford on the rates. Baptists, Wesleyans, Quakers, everybody should be upon the rates, and therefore it was not unnatural that they looked

  807
  askance upon a clause which he agreed did not by any means secure them the complete enjoyment of rate-aid for all their schools. How many it would secure nobody could toll, because that depended upon the four-fifths calculation which still remained to be taken. It did undoubtedly secure the Roman Catholics and the Jews—the Jews, he thought, of all their schools and the Roman Catholics of a very considerable number; while to the Anglicans there could be no doubt whatsoever that this clause, as it stood originally and as now amended, would give a considerable amount of denominational support and secure them rate-aid for denominational schools. About that there could be no doubt whatsoever. On the question of "may" or "shall," those who were in charge of the Bill had to consider how it would work supposing the Amendment were carried. "Shall" by itself would, in the first instance, put a statutory obligation on the local authority to adopt a particular course of action, and non-fulfilment would bring them before the Court of King's Bench. Now, what would the Court of King's Bench have to do in order to consider the question, aye or no, whether it should issue its mandamus or not? The Court would require to have presented to it a clear-cut issue of a refusal by a local authority to dis-charge a plain and simple statutory duty. The Court would have to consider, in the first place, whether the conditions of Clause 4 had been scrupulously and properly fulfilled. It would have to ascertain whether the wishes of four-fifths of the parents had been ascertained by ballot. It would have to consider, also, what was the state of school accommodation in the area in order to satisfy itself whether or not there was sufficient and suitable accommodation for the children whose parents did not desire those facilities. These were not legal questions, they were not questions which the Court had the means of ascertaining, nor had it in any way the machinery to enable it to determine such questions. Ami before it could issue its mandamus it would have to settle or see settled the arrangement between the local authority and the owners of the school of which the extended facilities were one of the terms and conditions. It could not take it upon itself. It would have to say to the local
  808
  authority, "You must come to some agreement with these people to give them extended facilities." No mandamus would issue in the first instance at all, because the Court had not the means of making the authority and the school come to their agreement relating to the circumstances of the facilities, how they were to be granted, on what terms and conditions, and how the school was to be taken over, subject to those conditions. In other words, the Court could not grant specific performance of an agreement containing a great number of arrangements and conditions unless that agreement had been come to. So far from the Amendment facilitating the end in view, it would render the grant of a mandamus practically impossible, because they never would be able to present before the Court a clear-cut issue as to the particular statutory duty which the local authority had failed to perform. On the other hand, under the proposals of the Government—and they had carefully thought them out—they had arrived at the conclusion that in order to make the clause workable in as many cases as possible the appeal to the Board of Education was by far the better and more suitable way in the interests of all parties concerned. The Board of Education was an administrative educational body, and it already knew the circumstances of the case, so far, at all events, as the school accommodation of the area was concerned. It was in close and constant weekly touch with those authorities. It knew the men, their temper and character, the dangers that had to be avoided, and the difficulties in the way. It also had its army of inspectors, well acquainted with the personnel of the localities. The Government by the Amendment enabled the Board of Education, in the event of no agreement being come to, in the first instance to determine what that agreement should be in all its details, and among them the condition for extended facilities. They therefore had created—what the Amendment did not do—a machinery which enabled an arrangement to be made between the authority and the school, which arrangement could be in all its terms and details forced on the local education authority, if need be, by mandamus. Nothing would be more likely to make this clause a sham than if they were to substitute the language of the Amendment for that of the Government. He therefore asked the

  809
  Committee most carefully to consider whether the interposition of the Board of Education as the great administrative body already connected by very close ties with the local authorities of the country was not far more likely to effect a peaceful settlement of disputes, and bring about a binding, complete and clear-cut arrangement. He contended that the Government plan was afair and reasonable and practical plan, and would give effect to the clause in the best possible way, whereas the Amendment before the Committee would entirely fail to carry out the wishes and desires of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, who, he thought, had given it somewhat hasty support. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, that the mere fact that the Board of Education would have an alternative, that it did not allow itself in special circumstances, if so minded, to substitute for the mandamus this standing out of a school, took the whole sting out of the mandamus altogether. The right hon. Gentleman trotted out the saying about the line of least resistance which seemed now to be the Alpha and the Omega of modern statesmanship. He understood that that was applicable to all Parties and to all purposes. The right hon. Gentleman said that the statesman or the politician, if he could pursue the line of least resistance, if he had to find a way out of a difficulty, if he could go round any dark corner, would do it rather than exercise the powers the law had conferred upon him. All he could say was that the bias of the Board of Education—whoever was in the position of its President or permanent Secretary—would always be against resorting to allowing a school to stand out in any form or shape if they could by any possibility avoid it. The Board of Education would always regard with intense dislike and ill-concealed hatred anything which would remove from the national system—from the national obligation of support, both in the form of Parliamentary grants and rates, any school in the country where children received their education. Therefore, if the idea was that the Board of Education would be astute or eager to avoid its statutory power to resort to a mandamus, and instead of that to seek to force a school to go out and suffer all the evil consequences that flowed from
  810
  standing out, it was, he was sure, an abuse of imagination. It would be the exact opposite. The Board of Education would strive its utmost and see to it that no local authority, even if it was so disposed—a thing which he did not like even to contemplate—should disobey or defy the law as defined by Parliament. The one desire of the Board of Education would be to force it to obey the law, and it would be only in special circumstances that they would resort, and that with extreme reluctance and unwillingness, to this other alternative, which was inserted only out of abundant caution, in the passionate hope and desire that, whatever happened, even in the remotest parts of the country, as little damage as possible should be done to these particular schools under this clause. The Amendment he would propose said that—
  "if under any special circumstances of the case the Board think it expedient they may instead of making such an arrangement make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school."
  In those special circumstances would, of course, be included the pecuniary circumstances of the school, its income, its endowments, its capacity for obtaining subscriptions enabling it to fill the disagreeable gap between the money which it received from Parliament and the money which was necessary in order to keep it on a good and sufficient scale. These would be among the special circumstances which were contemplated, which the clause intended should be contemplated, by this particular language. Therefore, in the case of a school where it was obvious that if it was driven to stand out it would be in a parlous case owing to its poverty, to its locality, or to other circumstances, then, indeed, that would be additional reason which would urge, almost compel, the Board of Education to rely on its statutory powers. He did really put it to the Committee quite frankly and seriously that they were under a mistake if they believed that the simple deletion of the word "may" and the substitution for it of the word "shall," would get them out of the difficulties which they imagined were before these schools. The machinery of the Government, elaborate as it was, had been devised and carefully thought out for no other purpose whatever than that of making these facilities as real as they

  811
  possibly could be and of securing to the Board of Education the power of giving effect to them. He, therefore, did think from that point of view, that the Committee ought soon to be in a position to make up its mind, and he besought hon. Members who sat behind the Government to give this matter their careful consideration and to come to the conclusion that the scheme of the Government was more likely to make the clause what it was intended to be than the alternative of substituting one word for another.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his speech spoke more than once of the cold reception which Clause 4 had received from those in whose interest it was proposed, and he spoke not only of cold words being addressed to him but of abuse.
  MR. BIRRELL: Not in this House.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDthought he could only say on behalf of those for whom he spoke that the right hon. Gentleman had received no abuse from them. They had no complaint to make to the right hon. Gentleman except that they believed that he was not able to carry out in practice the views which they believed he held. The right hon. Gentleman had more than once declared himself as a friend of denominational teaching in the schools, and their sole complaint was that he had not been able in the clause before them to give what they believed to be adequate effect to the views he held. The course the discussion had taken and the development of the new Government proposals had caused him and his colleagues most acute pain and misgiving. They had arrived at what was for them the kernel of the whole situation. Clause 4 was to be their charter. It depended on Clause 4 whether this Bill was to be tolerable for the Catholic schools, and whether the religious convictions of the parents who sent their children to these schools would be safeguarded, or whether, on the other hand that clause was to be regarded by them as an instrument of injustice and of religious tyranny in the hands of a dominant majority. Personally he had from the first been filled with the
  812
  belief and hope that Clause 4 would be so altered as to fulfil the object for which it had been introduced. Notwithstanding all that had happened he did not yet abandon the hope which he had entertained, because of the necessities of the case. The right hon. Gentleman said this was an undenominational Bill. In one sense that might be true. But let it never be forgotten that the House, by an overwhelming majority, had declared against secular education and had decided in favour of giving religious education in the schools. If religious education was to be given, then manifestly and necessarily if the Bill was not to become an instrument of religious tyranny they must take care that the religious education which was given was not such as to be abhorrent to the religious convictions of the children and their parents. The House had decided that the religious teaching in normal schools was to be what was known as Cowper-Templeism, and he desired again to emphasise the position he took up on the Second Reading of the Bill, that Cowper-Temple teaching presented itself to Catholics in an entirely different way from the way it presented itself to Protestants of any section. He would not repeat the mistake of saying that it was satisfactory to all Protestants, I but he would say that that system, if I it was not agreeable and satisfactory to all sections of Protestants, was not offensive to the religious convictions of any section of Protestants. Catholics stood in an entirely different position. They regarded that kind of religious teaching as the teaching of Protestantism. They might be quite wrong, but it was not a question of whether they were right or wrong. It was a question of whether they believed it or not, and if they believed that this system of teaching was in reality Protestantism, and therefore hostile to their religion, then they said, and he said, that the House having decided that they would not have secular education, that they would have religious education, and that the normal religious education should be Cowper-Templeism, which was offensive to Catholics, they were bound, if they did not wish to turn the Bill into an engine of religious tyranny to Catholics, to provide that in the Catholic schools

  813
  the religion taught should be such as would be consonant with the religious convictions and opinions of Catholics. He recognised most fully that this clause was intended to meet their case. He did not impugn the motive of the right hon. Gentleman In the least. He believed this clause was honestly intended to meet their case, and he confessed that he could not believe under these circumstances that either the Government or the House would attempt to palm off upon Catholics a clause which manifestly was insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended. For this belief they had good authority. He did not think the debate on this clause ought to be allowed to conclude without again having quoted to the House the words of the Minister for Education when addressing the Jews. These words had been quoted again and again, but now was the time to quote them, for this was the clause to which they were specially applicable and upon which they were entitled to call them in evidence. The right hon. Gentleman pledged himself in that famous speech that he would not allow Clause 4 to be illusory or a fraud, and that, he was sure, was the intention of the majority behind him. His business was to impress upon the Government and their supporters, if he could, the belief which he entertained, and which he was sure they would admit he honestly entertained, that the clause, if it was not changed in certain particulars, would be illusory and a fraud. The right hon. Gentleman had deprecated leaving any foothold for pig-headed obstinacy on the part of any local authority. He said it was the intention of the framers of the Bill that it should be obligatory on the local authority to provide facilities if four-fifths of the parents desired them. He then went on to say that the teachers should remain the same as they were—those who alone were qualified to give the particular religious instruction which hitherto had been given in the schools. The Nationalist Party all the more readily believed in the honest intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to give effect in the Bill to these public pledges, because they were anxious if they could to support the Bill. They recognised fully that grave injustice was done, in one particular at
  814
  any rate, to the Nonconformists of England by the Act of 1902, and they were anxious, without the destruction of the in erests of their own religion and of their schools, to join the Nonconformists in lifting the injustice off their shoulders. They did not desire to separate their schools from the general system of national education in the country. They desired their schools to be sanitary, efficient, and well-equipped schools, with efficient and well-paid teachers, and they believed that in the interests of the efficiency of their schools it would be a mistake to separate themselves from the general system of education. All that was necessary to make the fourth clause acceptable to them was that it should be made obligatory on the local authorities, so that there should be no loophole for evasion by any pig-headed bodies. They asked in addition that the voice of the parents should be heard in the selection of the teachers, and they asked for a qualification in the limits of 5,000 and four-fifths which would enable the bulk of the Roman Catholic schools to come in under the provisions of the Act. It had been said that the bulk of the Roman Catholic schools would come in Under Clause 4. There were 1,040 such schools, and 501 would be excluded from all benefit under that clause by the double operation of the 5,000 limit and the four-fifths. With regard to the question of making the clause mandatory, he said they did not distrust the elected public bodies. For his part he believed there would be as much broadmindedness and toleration to be found amongst those bodies in this country as in any country in Europe. But of course there might possibly be a few who would refuse to put the clause into operation if it were left to local option. It would be a ridiculous result of all the labours and sacrifices of this Parliament in passing this great measure if any obscure and unimportant body here and there throughout the country should have the power resting in its hands to defy the decision of the House and refuse to carry out the intentions of the Act. Parliament had decided that there should be religious teachers in the schools. It had decided that in certain schools where the children were nearly all

  815
  of one creed that creed should be taught. It had laid down these great provisions with fairness and justice; but would it be wise to allow the local authorities to trample on these provisions?
  MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)said he did not want unduly to interrupt the hon. and learned gentleman's argument, but he asked, for his own information, if this clause was made mandatory, how did he know that the local authorities would not be recalcitrant?
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not know whether they would be recalcitrant or not, but the same difficulty would arise when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education came to issue his mandamus. If the Bill passed in its present shape it would enable the local authorities to trample upon the great principle which had been laid down by the House. It would fan into life the fires of religious strife in every part of the country at every election, and at every local election in Great Britain. The question of the granting or the withholding of these facilities would be debated and agitated on every platform. And if the Bill was intended to be a settlement of the religious difficulty—as he believed the Government intended it to be—nothing could be more unfortunately enacted by Parliament than to make this a test question at every little election throughout the country. He took the strongest view on this question. He thought the settlement of the educational problem by the present proposals of the Government was mad and wicked, and from the point of view of this great Parliament cowardly—in this sense, that instead of the Government deciding for themselves and for the House whom they represented what was just and then enacting it and carrying it out, they were leaving it to be carried out by the decision of the local authorities, more or less irresponsible—at any rate to local authorities who were elected from time to time for other purposes. He came now to the right hon. Gentleman's alternative. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that if "shall" was left in the Bill there would be very great difficulty in enforcing the
  816
  law. His hon. friend who interrupted him wanted to know how the law was to be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman proposed as an alternative an appeal to the Board of Education, and that the Board of Education should step in and do what would be done without its intervention if "shall" was put in the Bill. What he wanted to say was this, that if the limits of 5,000 and four-fifths were made satisfactory, if there was some-provision for giving effect to the voices of the parents in the selection of the teachers, he, for one, would be quite content to accept the Bill, and that "may" should remain in the Bill instead of "shall." With regard to schools contracting themselves out of the Act, he entirely disapproved of it. The talk about contracting out was a mockery in this connection. What was the meaning of contracting out? It meant that parties voluntarily contracted themselves out of the Act. That was not what was proposed in the Bill. It meant that the Education Board might, whether the school owners liked it or not, kick them out of the Act. Contracting out, as the Government proposed it, meant the semi-starvation of these schools. He did not agree with the Minister for Education in his view that these would be rare cases. He thought himself that the temptation, to save money on the rates would be so great to the local authorities—and in this he agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who would be accepted as an authority, if he himself was not, in those matters—that many local authorities who, if this proposal were not in the Bill, might perhaps grant facilities, would refuse the facilities and precipitate an appeal to the Board of Education in the hope that the appeal would result in the contracting out of the school. He believed it would after a while become the usual course with the Board of Education. It would save them infinite trouble and unknown risks, and he believed in almost every case of appeal the result would be that the school would be put outside the operation of the Act. That would be a fatal thing for the schools in whose name he spoke. It was true that there might be in some parts of England a few rich Catholic schools, bodies sufficiently endowed to be able

  817
  to carry on their work if they were cut off with nothing but the Imperial grant; but taking the Catholic schools generally, he asserted that contracting out of this character—that was, taking away the rates and leaving them only the Imperial grant—would mean inefficient schools, badly paid teachers, and half starved schools, and he asked hon. Members as educationists if they were prepared to advocate such a scheme as that. It was the interest of every man In the House to take steps for the efficient education of all the children of England. It was their interest to see that the Catholic children were as highly educated as the children of any other class. It would be a fatal thing if the House adopted as a settlement of this question a scheme whereby these schools would be condemned to that state of semi-starvation in which unfortunately a good many of them were before 1902.
  MR. WALLACE: Would the hon. Member object to the contracting out clause if the grants given were sufficient for the purpose of carrying on the schools?
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDsaid that was an entirely different proposition from any that had been made, and he certainly would be very slow indeed to say he would reject any such settlement. All that he and his friends wanted was this. They wanted on the one hand that there should be sufficient provision for these schools to enable them to be efficient and on the other hand they wanted provision which would enable them to have religious teaching in their schools as satisfactory to them as the Protestant religious teaching was to the children in the Protestant schools. If a proposal such as the hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned were put forward he admitted it would not be open to many of the objections he had been urging to the present proposal. They were not afraid in the schools of their people being induced to ask for facilities when they did not want them. On the question of rent he would not dwell, because he believed when the question came to be carefully thought out it would be borne in on the mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite
  818
  that it was a shabby and mean proposal, and that its effect would be to hit that very class of school to whom the money was of most importance—that was, the schools of the very poorest of the poor. With regard to contracting out, one of the great cries of the Nonconformists in this controversy, in the country at any rate, had been the objection, the natural objection, which they entertained to pay money for the teaching of a religion with which they did not agree. He was informed by those who were in authority and knew the facts that if the rates and taxes paid for educational purposes by the Catholics of Great Britain were pooled to-morrow they would provide a fund sufficient to maintain all the Catholic schools in the country. For how many years did the Catholics go on paying for the schools of England in which they had no share, while providing their own schools—paying school taxes for the maintenance of the Board schools? And they raised no objection. Now the Government were proposing to revive that system and to say to these poor Catholic schools, "You must maintain your own schools, you must pay for your own Catholic teaching, and in addition to that you must pay rates for the teaching of Protestantism in Protestant schools." He submitted to the Committee that that was not a fair proposal, that it was not one which would commend itself to the judgment of hon. Members. To speak of such a result as that being in the nature of a, settlement of the religious question seemed to him to be an absurdity. He did not believe that such a scheme would ever pass into law, and if it did pass into law it would be the opening of a new chapter of sectarian hatred and differences in England. If this proposal was carried the inevitable result would be that before long they would find religion of all kinds driven out of all the schools. That solution commended itself to many men in the House, but he did not believe it commended itself to the majority in the, House or in the country. There were only two possible solutions. One was the secular solution; the other was allowing the creeds to have their own religion to themselves in the schools. If by this Bill they destroyed the second

  819
  alternative he was convinced they would have religion of all kinds driven from the schools. Surely there must be some way out of the difficulty. There was no inherent cause of hostility between English Nonconformists and Irish Catholics, and surely it was not beyond the possibility of statesmanship to devise some plan whereby the Catholics might be able, without interference with the great national system of education, a system suitable to the wants and conformable to the interests and wishes and convictions of a great Protestant country, to continue (and that was all they asked) to teach their own religion to their own children in their own schools built by the hard-earned money of their people.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)said that although he could not claim the indulgence of the Committee as a new Member, he could do so upon this question, as this was the first time that he had ventured to enter upon this great theological controversy. Personally lie agreed with what had fallen from the front Opposition Bench and from the last speaker. He believed that secular education, or alternatively non-denominationalism, were the only true solutions of the difficulty. He regarded the measure, and he was sure his hon. friends on that side of the House would agree with him, as an honest attempt at compromise upon a most difficult subject. What had amazed him, therefore, throughout these prolonged debates had been the tone of the criticism, not only on the Opposition but on the Ministerial side of the House with regard to it. That criticism entirely ignored the fundamental principle of the Bill, viz., that it was brought forward to satisfy the three great faiths existing in this country, viz., the Nonconformist, the Anglican, and the Catholic. He was sure that the Leader of the Nationalist Party must recognise that this Bill was as liberal a concession to the interests of the Catholic schools in this country as could be expected from a Protestant nation. It said that Roman Catholics should have separate teaching of their doctrines by separate teachers. [Cries of "May."] Well, he entirely agreed with the argument which had been
  820
  advanced that "may" in this case was better than "shall." For all practical purposes they were conceding to the Catholics of England as large and as liberal measure of religious teaching as could possibly be expected at the hands of a Protestant Government. If his hon. friend would cast his eye over to the United States, that great country of religious freedom, he would find no concession was given.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said there was no religious teaching there.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONESsaid that: was hardly correct; there was Bible teaching, sometimes combined with definite religious teaching. It was true that the 5,000 and the four-fifths were both arbitrary figures, but at the same time common sense told them that that was the only way to deal with the situation. He would like to see distinct and definite treatment meted out to the Roman Catholics, because he recognised that with the Roman Catholics it was a question not only of the teaching to be given, but of the teacher who was to give it, and that being so he regretted the want of courage of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education in not conceding to the Roman Catholics, distinct and definite treatment. So far as his own faith was concerned, he ventured to say that apart from ecclesiastical laymen of the Anglican Church, and apart from an eclectic body of ecclesiastics,. the great body of the Anglican laity were and would be content with a simple system of Bible teaching. He had spoken to hundreds of laymen on the subject, and the almost universal reply to his question was that the great body of the Church of England would be content with simple Bible teaching in the schools. But naturally the Church of England had a grievance. It was objectionable in many ways that the rural schools should be left out, that 100 per cent, of the children in the rural schools should not be able to obtain definite religious instruction, whilst 80 per cent, of the children in the urban schools could obtain it. But the Bill was a compromise, and if these facilities were given to the rural schools the Nonconformists would immediately have a

  821
  grievance. He admitted the grievance of the Nonconformists, and he submitted to the Minister for Education that the system which obtained in France might very well be adopted in this country. In France one day a week was given to definite religious instruction, and that system had, so far as he had been able to ascertain, worked most satisfactorily and harmoniously. But he ventured to suggest to his brethren in the Church that in this matter there was no other way of dealing with the question. He regretted that 100 per cent, of the children in rural schools could not get any definite religion, but everyone would admit that there must be a modus vivendi. The Nonconformists had given way in this matter; they also were parties to the compromise, and he was not sure that they had not given just as much as the Roman Catholics. It was with them a matter of conscience that they should not pay anything towards a State religion in education or in any other way. But they were now willing to waive that, and all they asked for in return was that in those areas where there was no alternative school they might have education unfettered by any religious teaching with which they were not in accord, and which was contrary to the fundamental principles of their faith.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness): Does Dr. Clifford accept Clause 4?
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid whether Dr. Clifford accepted Clause 4 or not had, in his view, very little to do with the matter. But those Nonconformists who sat in this House were, he believed, quite content to accept it. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but surely no one would suggest that Clause 4 would be a permanent or final solution of this great religious controversy. No one would suggest that this controversy could be settled by one Act. The clause was but a step in that direction, but he regarded it as a very great step. He thought there was a great deal of false dialectical force imported into the discussion of whether "may" or "shall" should be incorporated in the clause. If they put in the word "shall" they exposed the local
  822
  authorities to the risk of being shot at by the Anglicans upon the ground that there was sufficient school accommodation for the Nonconformists, and they exposed them to the same risk at the hands of Nonconformists on the ground that there was not sufficient accommodation. Whereas if they put in the word "may" they did not expose them to that risk. He could not imagine anything worse for the discharge of their duty by the local authorities than that they should be exposed to litigation which might not be very effective, but which, if it were not, would harass and hamper local authorities. But with the word "may" that could not be. If the word "may" was inserted, it would go a long way to discourage attempts upon the part of small bodies of Anglicans to disturb the arrangement which had worked very well hitherto. He did not know whether he had made it quite clear, but what he wished to convey was that if when four-fifths of the parents demanded it, the local authority was compelled to give special facilities, obviously the Anglican section would strive their utmost to whip up sufficient numbers to compel the local authority to give the facilities; but if the words were "may grant" and they were doubtful whether the local authorities would grant the facilities, they would not be so anxious to whip up the parents. The proposal of the Government was an honest attempt to meet the difficulty, and if it was worked in the spirit in which local authorities usually endeavoured to carry out the public duties which devolved upon them, he did not think those who were so anxious to maintain voluntary schools would have any reason to complain of this measure.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he had listened to every speech on this Amendment from the Ministerial Benches, and from the beginning of the discussion to the present moment not a single argument had been brought forward against it, except the allegation of the Minister for Education that there was some technical difficulty in applying for a mandamus. In the course of his professional career he had had considerable experience in regard to the process of mandamus against local authorities and others, and he would like the Minister

  823
  for Education or the Under-Secretary to be good enough to explain a little more clearly to those whose professional duty it was to try to understand the rules which regulated the granting of a mandamus, how it was that the Government could not adopt this Amendment and which particular difficulty was alleged to be so formidable. He had taken the trouble to cut out the eulogy which the right hon. Gentleman passed last night upon mandamus as a means of coercing local authorities. He said—
  "Assuming that the Board supported the appellants and thought it was reasonable that the school should be taken over on the terms of extended facilities being given, it was more unlikely that any local authority would refuse to be guided by the Board of Education. If, however, they still held out, there was a mandamus. He confessed he would not allow himself to contemplate the possibility of a local education authority anywhere refusing to obey an order of the King's Beach. Was there any county in England or Wales where the King's writs did not run? Certainly not. Therefore the mandamus was a most powerful engine whereby to effect the purpose they had in view."
  He challenged any lawyer to explain one single respect in which the principles that would regulate the granting or witholding of a mandamus differed in the circumstances contemplated by the Minister for Education from those involved in the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR. HERBERT: The late Colonial Secretary said mandamus would be perfectly useless because there were many Nonconformists and others who were still ready to go to prison.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was not thinking of the infinite discussion as to whether there were in this country Nonconformists who would not obey a mandamus, and Heaven forbid that he should embark upon that discussion. The point was a purely technical one as to whether the right hon. Gentleman was right when he came down to the House and said he could not accept this Amendment, not because it was not just, or because it would not meet a grievance which was admitted by the hon. Member for North West Durham to be genuine, but because of some supposed technical difficulty in granting this
  824
  mandamus or in making it effective when granted.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.): His right hon. friend desires mandamus to be the last resort.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the Parliamentary Secretary's admirers, of whom he was one regretted that he did not do himself more justice in these interventions. Did the hon. Member imagine he desired it as a first resort? If the local education authority would do what the Government meant it to do, there would be no necessity for mandamus. If on the other hand the local authority would not exercise those powers which had been placed in their hands either to exercise or refuse, then they would take the mandamus as the last remedy. Surely the time had come when these pitiful evasions and contradictions should be abandoned? On Clause 4 they could not expect to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education on this point had received nothing but insults from those outside the House and from those hon. Members of his own Party who sat below the gangway. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side had read some of the statements made at a very striking meeting of Radicals which met to consider Clause 4. This was what was said by the right hon. Gentleman's own friends. Dr. Clifford said that Clause 4 was fatal to a final settlement. Such was the effect produced by the Bill upon those who had most assiduously laboured upon the platform in the interests of the Government. Dr. Leach said the Amendments made the clause worse. The Rev. Hurst Hollowell said that—
  "The Amendments touched the depth of folly, and the clause staggered under the accumulations of its own absurdity."
  He went on to say—
  "Reconsider the whole position. Produce a better Bill. The clause is an outrage."
  That would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Stanley of Alderley was

  825
  certainly not a biassed or hostile critic; but he said that—
  "the Government Amendments had been Hung at the Paper without any consideration at all, and justice could not be done in the limited time to this immense new problem that was presented."
  They sympathised with the Minister for Education in being exposed to these very injurious observations, because it involved the pathetic inference that there was no reward even for drinking the cup of humiliation to its; dregs. Surely the time had come when the right hon. Gentleman should cast aside for a moment the rÔle of Issachar so far as this Bill was concerned. They were all agreed as to the objects they wanted to secure. They wanted to see that the schools should continue in the future as to-day. The Minister for Education had told them that it was his desire that these schools should go on in the future as they had done in the past. He supposed they were all agreed about that. [Cries of "No."] He thought that was the one point upon which they agreed with the Minister for Education, who told the Jewish deputation that he desired to see their schools go on in the future as in the past. Therefore, it was immaterial what hon. Members below the gangway wanted because they were not the Government. They did not intend to vote against the Government and they were therefore negligible. Apparently they could not speak for themselves, so that the Minister must be assumed to speak for them. The right hon. Gentleman desired equally with themselves to see denominational teaching preserved in the schools. If he was honest, he desired equally with themselves to see a denominational atmosphere preserved by the agency of tests for teachers. The right hon. Gentleman desired to see all these things; therefore it was for the Committee to consider whether they would be best secured by the plain simple Amendment of his hon. friend, or by the illogical labyrinth of Amendments which they did not understand, and which had been put forward as an alternative proposal. He wished to make one more observation. He knew as far as religious subjects were concerned some of them who represented Liverpool seats were considered to hold remarkable views.
  826
  He expressed no opinion on any side of the religion question which had convulsed Liverpool opinion so long and bitterly, but he would say that any proposal which would make it necessary for candidates to state at municipal elections whether they would vote for special facilities to Roman Catholics or Protestants was calamitous and reactionary. He entreated the Government to accept the Amendment. It was one which would improve the Bill; but on the other hand, if they refused it, while it might not only shatter the Bill, but have the more serious effect of shattering the Government, still they might say of the right hon. Gentleman Impavidum ferient ruinœ.
  MR. ADKINSsaid that they had just heard a speech decorated with many irrelevant epithets, and he did not intend to follow the hon. Member in so grave a controversy by such methods—methods which were more proper to a debating society than to the House of Commons. He would only suggest that during his next evening of leisure the hon. Gentleman should devote himself to a still wider research into ecclesiastical rhetoric, and he would find gems among the utterances of members of his own Party equal to any of those he had given to the country. There were not a few Members who desired to approach this great political question in a somewhat humbler spirit, and with some regard for practical difficulties. He wished to take that opportunity of thanking the Government for the alterations they had made with regard to Clause 4. He believed most thoroughly that they were improvements, and that taken altogether they did advance a very considerable step towards that solution which he trusted all Members desired, although, of course, it was difficult in such a question to approach the matter from all points of view. There was a certain reason for retaining "may" as against "shall," entirely independent of those considerations which had taken up most of the time of the Committee, The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had arranged with great skill the methods of restriction which were provided in the clause, and made the rhetorical point, of why

  827
  should there not be one final restriction which should turn "may" into "shall." It was obvious that all those restrictions already placed in the clause—restrictions with regard to the number of parents asking, with regard to the ballot—which in passing he might say was absolutely essential if this was to be a true exponent of real local feeling—all those restrictions were of a general kind which might properly apply to all parts of the country. But besides those matters there were in many districts, and there might in every district arise, considerations in which the discretion of the local authority might be perfectly well exercised, without any of those evil designs which had been attributed to local authorities with such extraordinary freedom during the debate. He would give an illustration. They might very well have in a town of some size—he could very well imagine it happening in many parts of Lancashire—four or five voluntary; schools, which applied for the "special facilities" under Clause 4. If it were made mandatory every one of those schools would be obliged to have them, irrespective of what was educationally best for the district. It might very well happen that it was better to give them to three schools—those which were susceptible of enlargement—than to give them to all five schools, and so incidentally perpetuate some small and inconvenient schools. And they who were supporting the Government in retaining the word "may," were really thinking much more of those practical; definite difficulties than of designs against the consciences of their fellow citizens, with which they appeared to be credited. He desired also to say a word on another point. It was proposed in the Government's Amendments not as; a first resort, nor as a second resort, but ultimately to give to the Board of Education a certain power which had been caricatured under the name of "contracting out." He would like to point out to the Committee that the phrase "contracting out" with all its associations was a most improper phrase to apply to this particular suggestion. He said this with diffidence, remembering what the hon. Member for North Camberwell said yesterday. He was one of those Members who on nearly every educational occasion followed
  828
  his hon. friend with affectionate docility, but in this particular he seemed to have passed from his usual keen criticism of the Bill from an educational point of view and had launched his transpontine thunders against the Government, because forsooth they had put something in the Bill which recalled to him a previous fight on different issues. What was the objection to contracting out? The objection to contracting out, when that phrase was used accurately, was an objection to allowing considerable parts of the country to get outside a national system. But the defence for the proposal of the Government was shortly this, that it could not conceivably occur in or be applied to large parts of the country. It could not come about owing to the wanton wishes, of misguided people in a particular district. It could only come about by the deliberate action of the Board of Education in a most difficult crisis, and if there was any institution in this country opposed to contracting out and to the evils of contracting out by its traditions and everything regarding it, it was the Board of Education. The Board of Education, with the natural desire of a great department to have proper control over national education, was the very last body of persons who would be drawn towards the evils of contracting out. But might he point this out. They had heard that day with the greatest candour and force from the hon. and learned Member or Waterford the statement—he would not say of the extreme, but of the full position of his co-religionists. Where they had a demand made—not for facilities, for that could be granted under the erms of the Bill, but for something far more than facilities, for what was practically the choice of the teacher, that, whether it was right or wrong, was per se inconsistent with a uniform national system. And supposing hey had—Heaven grant that it might not happen often—a particular locality and a particular denominational school, each taking the most vigorous and extreme view of what they considered their rights, then when all other resources were exhausted, he believed and he thought the Government believed, also, that the best and only ultimate safety valve was the suggestion which

  829
  had been made by the Amendment to the clause. It was no more fair to label that with the name of "contracting out" and to attribute to it all the disasters and all the evils which contracting out had led to in the past, than it was to describe a safety valve as something which destroyed the motive power of an engine. The analogy was entirely forced and wrong. Therefore, in supporting most heartily as he did these Amendments of the Government, he included not only one but all of them. He would vote for "may" rather than "shall," because with the appeal to the Board of Education he was convinced that denominationalists were secured against wanton spite, whilst at the same the proper discretion was left to the localities which they must have if they were to do their duty. He would vote for it all the more readily, because of the care and skill in detail which the Government had devoted to dealing with the method of appeal and the action of the Board of Education, and he would also vote unhesitatingly—in spite of showers of telegrams and irrelevant phrase-making in all directions—for the further clause giving power to the Board of Education in the rarest cases to arrange for a State-aided school, because he believed that that safety valve was the only means by which they could extend as far as possible the national system to which, for the sake of education, far more than for anything else, they were whole-heartedly pledged.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said that Clause 4, and in a minor degree, Clauses 5 and 6, were really the only clauses with which he and his friends were seriously concerned. He knew some misunderstanding existed on the subject, but he wished hon. Members opposite would dismiss from their minds the idea that Catholic schools which did not get relief under Clause 4 could have recourse to Clause 3. He did not believe that any Catholic schools would avail themselves of Clause 3, or that Clause 3 really covered their case, and therefore unless they were relieved from the provisions of Clause 1 under this clause they would be completely shut out from all benefit under the educational system. All their hope of biting able to accept this Bill as a
  830
  tolerable settlement for the Catholic people had been all along based on the expectation that Clause 4 would be so amended as to bring it into harmony with the conscientious convictions and difficulties of their people—and also into harmony with the declarations, of the Minister for Education himself and other members of the Government. What were those Amendments to which they had looked forward? They looked to obtain by those Amendments (1) some security that their schools would really be admitted under the clause, (2) for some modification of the restrictions, which as the clause now stood, cut out nearly exactly half of their schools from all benefit under the clause, and (3) for some security that teachers would not be forced upon their schools with the deliberate object of turning this clause into a mockery. A most remarkable speech was delivered in the course of yesterday's debate by the hon. Member for the Morley Division of Yorkshire, who was, he thought, recognised by Nonconformists opposite as one of the leaders of the extreme Nonconformist Party. The hon. Gentleman said—
  "He had always been in favour of leaving religious education in the hands of the churches, and taking it out of the hands of the State. But if it were brought home to Nonconformists that Cowper-Temple teaching was opposed to the religion of Catholics and Anglicans he believed that the bulk of Nonconformists would agree with him that the only possible solution of the question was secular education. He admitted that some means would have to be taken to secure where denominational teaching was given that the teachers were friends of the denomination."
  That was a very generous and remarkable statement from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford claimed that Catholics should have the appointment of all teachers in Catholic schools which obtained special facilities. That was not what the hon. Member for Waterford said. What his hon. friend asked for was that the parents of the children attending a denominational school, which ex hypothesi under these restrictions must be a homogeneous school composed of children of one religion only, should have some assurance of the bona-fides of the Government and of the House that they were not going to

  831
  force conditions upon the Catholic schools with the deliberate object of turning the whole of the clause into a mockery. He welcomed the fact that the hon. Member for the Morley Division agreed with that, for he said that some means should be taken to secure that where denominational teaching was given the teachers should belong to the denomination. That was all they asked for in regard to that provision. That was absolutely essential, because if it were open to anybody to object to the operation of Clause 4 and to avail themselves under this provision of the right to appoint the teacher it would have the effect of turning the whole thing into a mockery, as a teacher might be appointed who would be unable to give denominational teaching. If the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in wishing to carry out the clause, he ought to make this small concession, not to give the appointment of the teachers, but something which would carry with it an indication that the House meant that the local authority should loyally carry out the intentions of the section. As to the second Amendment with regard to facilities, it was beyond all question that under the 5,000 limit 240 of the Catholic schools would go, and that under subsection (b) with respect to the four-fifths, 275 more would go, making over 500 schools in all. But there was another restriction which came into operation even on the remnant, and that was the necessity for the provision of accommodation in other schools for the minority of the children. That provision might act exceedingly cruelly and unjustly. He thought that in many cases it was entirely unnecessary. He was amazed when he discovered the extent to which Protestant children had availed themselves of Catholic schools. He was under the impression until about two months ago that there was no considerable proportion of Protestant children in the Catholic schools. It was a. revelation to him that a minority of one-fifth would go out of the 247 Catholic schools. How did it come about that Protestant children came into these schools while in nineteen-twentieths of the cases there was ample accommodation for them in other schools? In
  832
  many of these cases where children were sent to Catholic schools they deliberately passed the doors of board schools. In other cases they were sent to Catholic schools because the distance was a little less. One of the reasons was that the parents preferred the smaller classes in the Catholic schools. In many instances the parents of froward children sent them to the Catholic schools because the nuns produced better results in making them more obedient. These children came into the Catholic schools of their own free choice, and they enjoyed the hospitality of the schools, built with Catholics' own money, and Catholics had never endeavoured to make these schools the means of proselytising. Was it now to be put in the power of the parents of those children to take away the schools from Catholics and turn them into public elementary schools? That was he thought a very cruel injustice, and he hoped the Government would reconsider the question later on. In his opinion, after careful inquiry, Clause 4 in its present shape would not even give Catholics the choice of admission to half their schools. What was to become of the other half? The Minister for Education had spoken without any bitterness and in no unfair way, but it was one thing to deal with the speeches made on behalf of the Government, and another thing to deal with the clause. How could Catholics receive otherwise than coldly a clause which gave them the very inefficient protection he had endeavoured to describe? The hon. and learned Member for South Longford had dealt with this question. What did the Government propose to do with these Catholic schools? Did they really seriously propose to take 500 of the Catholic schools and offer no manner of relief whatever? Even with the contracting-out proposal, or as they described it, "the kicking-out proposal," they were to be left on the roadside to starve without the aid of rates or taxes, or the children were to be ordered to sacrifice their consciences and to go into the common schools of the country and to submit to the Protestant teaching which was to be the normal teaching in the schools. People talked about resistance! He did not want to

  833
  indulge in any language of provocation, but could Nonconformists, while seeking to maintain and be faithful to the name and traditions of Liberalism, ask Catholics to submit to treatment of this kind, when they had set them f an example of resisting the law when endeavouring to get a grievance remedied? He had received a letter only to-day from Halifax, where the Catholics had a very fine school on which there had been spent an enormous sum of money which A had all come out of the pockets of the poor people. They had 625 children on the t roll. For cheapness this school was built outside the borough boundaries of Halifax, and it was a sad thing that many of the children had to walk two miles to it, passing on the way the doors of the palatial council schools, in the building of which Catholic rates had been used. Under the proposed restrictions the Catholic school in question would be cut: off from all relief under this Act because it: was just outside the borough boundaries, What were they going to do with these 620 children? Would the Liberal Party of England enter into a struggle with the parents after all the sacrifices they had made, in order to drive their children into the council schools of Halifax? He said they could not, and unless they made some of the modifications asked of them the Government would find they had undertaken something which would necessitate an Amending Bill later on. Catholics had been asked to trust the local authorities, but there could be no question of trusting the local authority here. He thought the local authority of Halifax would treat the Catholic school decently if they could, but they could not do it because it was outside the scope of the clause altogether. Let them consider for a moment this question of trusting the local authorities. Had hon. Members read the speeches delivered yesterday at the meeting of Nonconformists? He dared say that most hon. Members had read the speech of Mr. Hirst Hollowell. He did not say a word against Nonconformists for believing what they did, but in the face of that speech, and the declarations of other Nonconformist leaders—declarations of war against Clause 4, declarations of men representing large bodies of opinion in the country who had shown
  834
  that for their convictions they were prepared to defy the law—were Catholics to be told that they were perfectly safe in the hands of the local authorities? They trusted the local authorities to follow their own convictions. This question would be made a primary and dominant issue in every local election, and Mr. Hirst Hollowell and Dr. Clifford would be on the stump from end to end of England denouncing Clause 4 and inviting the local communities to rise in rebellion against it. If that was so, why appeal to Catholics to trust the local authorities? A Welsh Member had appealed to them by stating that the Welsh Members wished to trust Ireland with local control. He himself did not vote for the Welsh Coercion Act. The Nationalist Members were prepared to support the-proposal to set up a Council for Wales. If the Welsh Members wanted a Parliament the Nationalist Members would support them. But this was a very different matter. He would ask hon. Members opposite whether, when the Nationalist Members made a demand for Catholic education in Ireland, they would give them their support. He believed they were willing to give them the control of their own affairs, but if they would not support the claim for Catholic education in Ireland why should they expect the Catholic Members in this House to vote for measures which in his judgment would subject to disability the poor people of this country? The right hon. Gentleman had said quite truly, that what religious education meant to Catholics was not a half-hour's teaching of the catechism, but the whole tone and spirit in which the teaching in the school was conducted. That was their difficulty; and there was no concession unless the tone and spirit of the school were to be in conformity with the faith of the parents of the children. As to the-alternatives presented in the Government Amendment, it was idle for him to say that the occasions would be rare when the local authorities would refuse to give these facilities, especially when they deliberately offered to the public bodies in the country a substantial money bribe to throw the Catholic schools out of the National school system. Let them imagine an election vote, on the issue of some one, say, Dr. Clifford

  835
  saying that the voters could not only salve their consciences by the way they voted, but that they would he able to keep the rates in their pockets. That would be an admirable inducement to the electors. That, he thought, was a complete answer to the case for the alternative proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as the speeches of the Nonconformist Members were concerned, he had very little to find fault with them, but it was their votes and their action that he found fault with. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk, who was a leading Nonconformist, said, and he agreed with him, that it would be unjust to put any penal consequences on Catholics who would send their children to Catholic schools. That was their whole case. But what were they going to do with the children of Catholics who were cut off from all benefit under the Clause? Supposing they refused to go to Protestant schools! Were they going to leave them in the streets? Supposing that the system of contracting out were to be adopted, on what principles would they calculate the grant to the Catholic schools which were thrust out of the national system. When they decided, on Clause 1, to have a form of religious teaching unacceptable and objectionable to Catholics, they put themselves under an obligation from which they could not escape to give them the opportunity of retaining in their schools the religious teaching that was acceptable to them. What Catholics said was that the religious teaching might be of a variable character. It might be Bible reading; it might be teaching with a good deal of dogma; but in their opinion it was Protestant teaching. Dr. Clifford said at a meeting in the Caxton Hall the previous day—
  Cowper-Temple teaching was not Protestant in any theological or ecclesiastical sense, or he would oppose its being given at the State's expense. It was only civic Protestantism, which repudiated the Roman Catholic idea that the education of children should be under the control of the Church"
  Accepting Dr. Clifford's definition for the sake of argument, that was just what Catholics objected to. They objected to the teaching probably more as civic Protestantism than as mere Protestantism. Were their rights as Catholics to be taken from them to teach civic Protestantism to other people's
  836
  children, while the poor children of the Catholics were to be left without any assistance from the rates? Was that their idea of the fair play of Liberalism? Let Liberals be honest on this matter. If they proposed to retain Clause 4 in spite of the opposition of the Rev. Dr. Clifford and of the leaders of the extreme Nonconformist Party, let them retain it and accept all the logical consequences of its retention. Let them give to the Catholics and to the Anglicans who could not accept their simple religious Protestantism, equal fair play with themselves; and if the Catholics could not consent to pay rates in order that Cowper-Temple teaching should be taught in the schools, then the fair thing to do would be to authorise the Government to give to their poor schools, not a mere grant from the Exchequer, but a sum which they might calculate to be equal to the rates which the Catholics paid for teaching Protestantism in other schools. Religious liberty was a great thing; and he sympathised with those who fought for religious liberty in 1902. But those hon. Gentlemen were now on top, and were they going to commit the fatal mistake, because they now had the power, of not being satisfied with freeing their own shoulders from the burden of injustice? Would they not be satisfied until they had shifted that injustice on to those who were now in the minority? If they persisted in that course, they might drive this Bill through the House of Commons, but they would not settle the question and they would inflict on the Liberal Party a blow from which it would take them many long years to recover.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I always listen to my hon. friend who has just sat down, not only with interest and admiration, but also with a certain amount of sympathy, even when he is enunciating opinions the very reverse of my own. He has in him something of a Jeremiah and something of a Cassandra, but to-day I think he has even out-Jeremiah'd and out-Cassandra'd himself in the prospect that he has disclosed of the future fate of the Catholic schools. I do not believe myself that one-tenth part of the mischief he has anticipated would ever take place

  837
  under this Act. If I thought so I should not be so ardent a supporter of the clause as I am. But the hon. Member was not quite fair. He reiterated the fears that have been expressed of the tyrannical bigotry of local authorities in England, but he was full of compliments to my hon. friends behind me who are the representatives and the chosen men of those very localities where he anticipates such totally different treatment. I would venture to offer a word of advice to my hon. friend. Let him take care that he does not go further and fare worse. My hon. friend has pointed out what is very true, and what we all know, that, in his communion, what is wanted in the schools is something more than the teaching. It is the tone and spirit, the atmosphere, pervading the whole of the school from one end of the day to the other. Where will his atmosphere be when the only alternative offered from the other side of the House comes into force—the alternative of the State providing secular instruction and the indiscriminate liberty to all the sects to teach any religion they like? Where is his atmosphere, his spirit, his tone, in those circumstances? That solution is in very powerful hands; and let him make sure that, if this controversy comes to an end unfavourable to the present Bill, that will not be the fate of the schools in which he takes so keen and sincere an interest. I may be allowed personally to say that I feel almost the necessity of an apology for intervening in this discussion at all, because I have been enforcedly absent from the debates from first to last. I have nothing to apologise for in regard to that absence except that it added, to the other bitter feelings that it involved, the knowledge all the time that I was neglecting my duty as Leader of this House. But that bitterness, such as it was, was removed by the kind sympathy and consideration which I have received from the whole House. I do not intend to enter upon these detailed controversies, because it seems to me that they have been sufficiently discussed and that the Committee might very well come to a conclusion on this matter of "may" or "shall" without more delay. But I do think it right to state what appears to me to be the true position as viewed from the distance to which I have been relegated during the past two or three weeks. My right hon. friend the President of the
  838
  Board of Education said to-day a very true and obvious thing, but a thing that is sometimes forgotten, when he declared that this is an undenominational Bill and therefore every advocate of denominational education cannot find it to his mind. It would be a false Bill if it were to his mind. This Bill is an undenominational Bill, setting up an undenominational system, and we must regard it in that light. And what is the genesis of this Clause 4? In this country you cannot pursue any system, undenominational or other, in so complicated and controversial a matter as education, to the extreme length. The mistake which I think some of my hon. friends have been making lately is that they have got hold of some small idea, or some comparatively small point, and they wish to shape everything to the carrying out to its ultimate conclusion, to its extreme completion, that idea or that line of action. You cannot do that in this country. Therefore it was necessary in our undenominational Bill to recognise exceptions. Our idea was that in the ordinary schools there should be taught religion in the form of the common elements of Christianity. In the simplicity of my heart I thought that at least in the Church of England that would not have been obnoxious. The common elements of Christianity with, no doubt, a flavour of Protestantism in them—is that really distasteful to the Church of England as by law established? To my amazement a prelate of that Church says that Bible teaching is dangerous unless it is accompanied by his standards. His standards! Why, his standards are based on the Bible, and not the Bible on his standards. Still, we provided in our Bill for two days' teaching of special doctrines in order to meet the special desires and requirements of the Church. But the Catholics are in a different position. They have never failed to put forward as their ideal the full control of the school from the religious point of view. Therefore, it seemed to us that an exception must be attempted which might include the Catholics and also any members or ministers or authorities of the Established Church who are more Catholic than anything else, for, if that is the conception of a school, our general scheme does not meet it. Accordingly we introduced Clause 4, and what the Committee have been discussing for the last two days is

  839
  not the principle of the clause, but the mere machinery by which that principle is to be carried out. On the part of the Government I have to say that the principle and the intention of the clause is as I have described it; and to that we are firmly wedded, and do not intend to depart in any degree from it. And when I turn to the machinery of the clause, I can only say that it has been the subject of the closest and most careful consideration, and that as it stands we believe it avoids more difficulties and accomplishes more advantages than any other machinery which could be invented for the purpose. We have the appeal, the mandamus as the ultimate authority, the non-payment of rent. We have what is called contracting-out, and the ballot in order to secure that the opinion expressed by the parents of the children is genuine. And here let me refer to the difficulty which has been harassing the soul of my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo o. He referred to the dreadful fate of the minority of Protestant children who have been in the habit, with the wish and will of their parents, of attending Catholic schools. I am very glad to hear of that practice, because it shows a spirit of liberality and a desire to live and act in common. But my hon. friend is afraid that when this clause comes into operation these children will be left out in the cold.
  MR. DILLON: No; but that these children might take our schools from us.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: These children will continue to come in as they are coming-in now; and there can be no hardship on the Catholic schools, for their parents will not want special facilities. But to return to the question of the machinery, I say that we regard it as perfectly sufficient, under the control, as it will be, of the Board of Education, for carrying out the main purposes of the clause, which is essential to the main purpose of the Bill itself. Our object is, and has been throughout, to make the Bill fair and equitable, and to do away with the grievances that we complain of. The hon. Member for Waterford expressed great sympathy with the Nonconformists on account of their grievances under the Act of 1902. But he did not mention any other way of removing those grievances than the way we propose; and it is clear that, unless this Bill is passed,
  840
  they will remain unremedied. I therefore appeal to those who have strong prejudices and high ideals not to run after their ideals and prejudices too far, but to give their support to a scheme-which we think will benefit education and remove grievances, and, while giving preferences and exceptions which cannot be avoided, will do justice to the desires and interests of the people at large.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, in the first place, to express on behalf of my friends our full appreciation of the reasons which have prevented him from being present during these debates, and from taking that part which we would otherwise desire him to take in the discussion of a measure which has excited so much public feeling. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by threatening the hon. Member for East Mayo with a worse fate than that which it is proposed to inflict upon him should other hands than those of the Government be engaged in further dealing with the question of education. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to be present at our debates he would have known that the feeling which this Bill has excited in the minds of members of the Church of England is not less deep and earnest than that to which the hon. Member for East Mayo has given expression. No one has suggested that this question could be settled without something in the nature of Clause 4. No settlement of the question could be complete which ignored the particular problem which Clause 4 is intended but fails to solve. You cannot deal with the education question without meeting the wishes-of the denominations. I do not mean simply meeting the wishes of the Jews and the Roman Catholics. In speaking of meeting the wishes of those who approve of denominational teaching, I deliberately include the Church of England, and I say that any party who fails to recognise the depth of feeling of the Church of England upon this subject does not read aright the signs of the times. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Cowper-Temple Clause was the common basis of all Christianity with a Protestant flavour. In other words, his view is that this House, or rather the local elected bodies in the country, are the people who are qualified to determine

  841
  that which theologians and philosophers have been searching for in vain throughout the centuries, and yet which every town council is supposed to be able to understand by the mere light of natural reason. The extreme Nonconformists or those who speak for them, have repudiated the idea that Cowper-Temple teaching is their religion. They think themselves qualified to determine not only for themselves, but for all mankind; or they think the local authorities qualified, which is worse. I would rather have Dr. Clifford's opinion upon a purely theological subject than the opinion of persons who have had no instruction whatever in such matters. I thought I was paying a compliment, and I think a deserved one, to the efficiency with which eminent Nonconformist divines have pursued their theological studies. But the right hon. Gentleman's description of the very varied teaching which goes by the name of Cowper-Temple teaching, as containing all the common elements of Christianity with a Protestant flavour, is really absurd. Cowper-Temple teaching, I am told, is sometimes given in a manner which draws no distinction between Unitarianism and orthodox Christianity. The truth is that any attempt on the part of this House either to settle for the country or to delegate it to local authorities to settle what are the common elements of Christianity is altogether vain and absurd, and is wholly inconsistent with Liberal traditions, and views of the relations which ought to subsist between the secular and the theological. They themselves are always talking of the propriety of leaving these questions to the denominations; yet in a spirit of airy confidence they are going to determine not merely what is to satisfy the Nonconformists, but what is to satisfy everybody else. That is a pretension as arrogant as was ever made by any church at any time in the world's history. The right hon. Gentleman bids us remember that this is a Bill framed not on denominational but on undenominational lines. In that effort it is not denied that the Government have produced a deep feeling of irritation among those who took seriously the agitation directed against the 1902 Bill, and who, if they were not passive resistors themselves, thought that the passive resisters were perfectly right. Clause 4 in any shape will unquestionably
  842
  leave the grievance of persons of that class of the community wholly unrelieved. That is asserted by those who have a right to speak for the passive resisters. You therefore have with deliberate intent violated the feelings of those who were your most ardent supporters at the last election; and yet, having lost their support over Clause 4, you do not take the most ordinary precautions to make the clause satisfy those in whose interests you say, and truly say, you have endeavoured to frame it. A concession which was genuinely intended is so fenced round with precautions and conditions, you have left so many loopholes by which the Board of Education and the local authority may escape their obligation by the structure of your clause, and by the provisions which you have piled up one on top of the other, like Pelion upon Ossa and Olympus upon both, that nobody knows what is the principle crushed under this load of superfluous matter. You have so contrived it that those in whose interests you have framed it say with unanswerable force that their grievance, the burden you are putting on their conscience by the rest of your Bill, the injustice you are making them suffer by paying rates for other people's religion—all that remains unrelieved, and the only conceivable result of your Bill in its present shape is that you will leave the Church of England, the Church of Rome, the Jews—perhaps the Jews less than others—with a grievance they most bitterly feel, wholly unredressed, and you will leave those who are ranked among your best supporters with their consciences still offended. It seems to me the Government have blundered into a position which is open to almost every objection that can be urged, because their clause satisfies no conscience and pleases no party. This, at all events, is certain—and I say it with a full sense of responsibility—that if the Bill passes in its present shape, with Clause 4, even with the Government Amendments, it is inevitable that the Government measure will find ranged against it not merely the Roman Catholic feeling in the country, but an amount of feeling on the part of those belonging to the Established Church which no Government ought with a light heart to endeavour to arouse. I was amazed at one phrase of the right hon. Gentleman's.

  843
  He used words which, I think, were intended to indicate that the only opponents in the Anglican Church whom he had to fear or who were really anxious to see Clause 4 made effective were those whom he described as more Catholic than anything else. If that is the delusion under which the Government is blundering, surely no Government ever was blinder. I believe the feeling among the leaders of the Low Church Party of the Church of England, men like the Bishop of Liverpool and the Dean of Canterbury, men who are the protagonists of the Low Church section—these men are vehement in their opposition.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is worth while correcting the right hon. Gentleman in his recollection of what I said. I used the phrase with regard to opposition and disfavour as expressed to what I call elementary Christian doctrine.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's version of what he said; but I would respectfully point out that it does not substantially differ from the expression I attributed to him, because what those
  leaders of Protestant thought dislike among other things is this substitution of universal Cowper-Temple teaching for the present teaching given in denominational schools. Let the Government and every man who takes part in the approaching division understand that they are not merely dealing with Roman Catholics and Jews and a small section of the clergy and laity of the Established Church, but that they have against them, broadly speaking, the whole feeling of that Church, Low Church and High Church, and that the idea of proposing to the House and country a settlement which pleases neither the denominationalists nor the undenominationalists, and asking us to accept that as a final settlement of this tremendous problem is. really to play with a great cause, idly to meddle with subjects which you cannot settle, to leave unredressed ancient wrongs, and to create a large body of new wrongs which must in their turn breed fresh difficulties for this House and the country.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 340; Noes 237. (Division List No. 152).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Billson, Alfred

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Agnew, George William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Clough, W.

  Alden, Percy

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

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brace, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Armitage, R.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Collins, SirWmJ.(S.Pancras,W.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Branch, James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brigg, John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Bright, J. A.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex,E. Grinst'd)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cory, Clifford John

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Crombie, John William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crossley, William J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cairns, Thomas

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Bell, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Benn, John WilIiams(Devonp't

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bertram, Julius

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Duckworth, James

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lambert, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Rees, J. D.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Levy, Maurice

  Richardson, A.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robinson, S.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Grant, Corrie

  Maclean, Donald

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Arthur, William

  Rose, Charles Day

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Grove, Archibald

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Maddison, Frederick

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Hall, Frederick

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Sears, J. E.

  Harcourt, Rt, Hon. Lewis

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Massle, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, A. G, C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Albert

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montagu, E. S.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morrell, Philip

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morse, L. L.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stuart, James (Sutherland)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Murray, James

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Napier, T. B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Holland. Sir William Henry

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Hooper, A. G.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson CharlesN. (Doncast'r

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thompson, JW.H. (Somerset, E.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tomkinson, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Torrance, A. M.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Toulmin, George

  Jackson, R. S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ure, Alexander

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Verney, F. W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Perks, Robert William

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  846

  847

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan).

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Winfrey, R.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wiles Thomas

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Yoxall, James Henry.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Williamson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Pease.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Kelley, George D.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Keswick, William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kilbride, Denis

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Duffy, William J.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Barnard, E. B.

  Faber, George Denison(York)

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

  Barnes, G. N;

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin,S

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fell, Arthur

  Lundon, W.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamletsS. Geo.

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Blake, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Boland, John

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kean, John

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Killop, W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Sir WEvans (T'rH'ml'ts

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gulland, John W.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Cave, George

  Haddock, George R.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Halpin, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Meagher, Michael

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hammond, John

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A(Worc.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harwood, George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murnaghan, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Murphy, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hervey, F. WF (BuryS. Edm'ds.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Cox, Harold

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Crooks, William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cross, Alexander

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dalrymple, Viscount]

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Dclany, William

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  848

  849

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Thorne, William

  O'Malley, William

  Russell, T. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Turnour, Viscount

  O'Shee, James John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walsh, Stephen

  Partington, Oswald

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Paul, Herbert

  Seddon, J.

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wardle, George J.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Percy, Earl

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  Pollard, Dr.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

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

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Reddy, M.

  Snowden, P.

  Young, Samuel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Starkey, John R.

  Younger, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Summerbell, T.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  DR. MACNAMAEA (Camberwell, N.)moved an Amendment providing that the local education authority might, "subject to an appeal to the Board of Education in the event of refusal," afford extended facilities for religious instruction of a special character. He said the Government had placed an Amendment on the Paper which anticipated his proposal. The Government Amendment would allow an appeal to the Board of Education, and would also permit contracting out. He asked the President of the Board of Education whether he could not divide that Amendment into two part?, one dealing with the appeal to the Board of Education which they could all support, and the other relating to contracting out.
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 2, line 39, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'subject to an appeal to the Board of Education in event of lefusal.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BIRRELLdid not think it possible to divide the Amendment of the Government in the form suggested. He was afraid it would have to remain as it stood.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the Government would consider the propriety of introducing into their Amendment words which would give a direction to the Board of Education to take care
  850
  that such an arrangement was made between owners of schools and the local authority as would cause religious education to be carried out on the lines to which each particular school had been accustomed. That was the policy of the Government. He was sure that it was a matter worth considering. If they were fortunate enough to reach the clause the subject would be raised, but if not, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of doing what he had suggested.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he would consider the suggestion.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that under the Bill the appeal would lie with tie parents if the local authority declined to act. Under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, however, the appeal would lie with the owner. It appeared to him that it ought to be left to the parents to appeal and not to the owners of the school.
  MR. BIRRELLthought it would be very undesirable to take away the appeal from the owners, who were a responsible set of persons who might be trusted to look after the interests of the school, whilst the parents might not be able to act with promptness. Whilst he could not alter the provision that the owners should be the appellants, this was the parents' clause, and he would consider whether words could be inserted to secure that parents should have power to appeal.
  DR. MACNAMARAhoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the suggestion he had made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CAVEmoved an Amendment to leave out the words "in an urban area" in line 1 on page 3. He did not think that anyone would suggest that the religious instruction of the children or the wishes of the parents were of less importance in a rural than in an urban area. He knew many rural parishes which had a population quite as large as 5,000, which was put down as the minimum for an urban area under Clause 4. In many cases the school in a rural parish was placed close to the boundary of the area, and served for the children of another rural area or even for some of the children in an adjoining urban area. He saw no reason why such a school should be treated in a different way from an urban school. Just outside Halifax there was a Roman Catholic school which served the children in the urban as well as in the rural area, and yet that school was to be entirely shut out from the advantages of Clause 4. He did not see any logical basis upon which such an exemption could be based. All the arguments they had heard with regard to urban districts were equally applicable to rural areas. Perhaps the limitation would be defended on the ground that it was impossible in many rural areas to find sufficient schools to deal with all denominations. If so, the answer was that such a case was fully covered by condition (b) of this clause. No doubt that condition, if it remained as it stood in the Bill, might have the effect of excluding from the clause (if extended to rural areas) many single-school areas; but that difficulty would be met by a subsequent Amendment, by which it was proposed that it should be made a condition of giving special facilities that the owners should provide for giving to the children of dissenting denominations religious instruction of the kind the parents desired either in the school itself or in some neighbouring school. He felt sure the Committee would recognise the importance of this Amendment, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 1, to leave out the words "in an urban area."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. LOUGHagreed that there was something to be said in favour of the Amendment. He would remind the Committee, however, that the Government had made a very great concession in the clause as it now stood. The object of this Bill was to found a system of State education and here a broad exception was made. The two exceptions laid down in Sub-sections (a) and (b) were not sufficient, and they required the words of the clause as well. The ballot would be an inconvenient procedure to work in country villages, where there might be great objections to canvassing and pressure that might be brought to bear on one side or the other. There would be considerable difficulty in putting Sub-section (b) into operation in the rural areas. There might be a school two or three miles off'. Would that be conceived to be accommodation? In some country areas there were wide notions as to the distance a child ought to walk. This clause had been described as one which made provision for Jews and Roman Catholics, but it should be remembered that a great number belonging to other religious sects would be able to take advantage of it. The Church of England would be able to take advantage of this clause to a larger extent than the Eoman Catholics or the Jews. The Eeturns showed that in the urban areas as defined by the clause there were 4,371 denominational schools with an average attendance of 1,500,000 scholars, or three-fifths of all the scholars attending denominational schools in England and Wales. Many of these schools would be able to take advantage of this provision. There were in the country districts 9,700 other denominational schools, but they contained only 1,000,000 scholars. It would be admitted that a ca.se had to be made out for the distinction drawn between urban and rural schools, and the truth was that this was part of the protection which Nonconformists received under the Bill. This was an attempt to deal with the difficulties of which the Nonconformists complained. The Government had been protecting Church of England interests in Clause 3 and Roman Catholic interests under Clause 4, but surely those of Nonconformists ought not to be entirely lost sight of. It was amongst

  853
  those 9,700 rural schools that the Non-conformists had felt the intolerable strain and surely they ought to have a look in somewhere. It would be impossible to provide the same facilities in the rural as in the urban schools, but his whole sympathy was on the side of dealing with them in the most liberal spirit with the various claims which would be made for facilities under the Bill. He believed that in the small schools in the country areas, if a fair view was taken of the construction of the Bill, they would be able to lead with their religious requirements in a satisfactory way. It should be remembered that the schools would be taken over for a small number of hours for the purposes of public elementary education. They would be taken by the public authority only for five days a week, and if it was desired to give the children additional religious instruction it could be done after school hours, and also on Saturday and Sunday when the schools would remain available for that purpose. Most fair-minded men would agree that in the one-school areas by a reasonable use of the facilities that would remain out of school hours it would be possible to make any provision necessary to meet religious requirements so far as Protestant children were concerned. As to the position of the Roman Catholics, 77 per cent, of all the Roman Catholic schools were in the urban areas with a population of over 5,000, while 91 per cent, of the Roman Catholic children were in those urban schools. The clause was conceived in a large and liberal sense, and it granted great facilities. He admitted that from the extreme denominational point of view the clause might not be altogether satisfactory, but in making that admission the Committee should bear in mind the extreme difficulty surrounding the whole question, and when they did so he was sure that they would feel it to be hard to make any improvement in the scheme which the Government had laid down. He could not see his way to accept the Amendment.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid the question the Committee had to consider now was whether any distinction could really be drawn in regard to this matter between the urban districts and the districts which were not technically urban. He maintained that
  854
  there was no logical distinction whatever between the two. The only reason which the hon. Gentleman had given as to why similar arrangements should not be provided for the rural districts as were provided by this clause for the urban districts of 5,000 inhabitants was the rustic stupidity of the children. Perhaps he had by accident, both politically and in other capacities, had a closer acquaintance with the parents of children in the rural districts than had the hon. Gentleman, and he held that they were as qualified to take a deep interest in the religious education of the children as the parents of the children to whom this clause would apply, and to form an opinion as to what that religious instruction should be. He did not altogether agree with the hon. Member for Kingston in regard to the distinction between the single-school districts and other districts, but as that question did not arise on the present Amendment he would not pursue the subject. In the division which he had the honour to represent there were very few Roman Catholics. They were a very Protestant people; bat there was one small Roman Catholic community in the division which maintained a school in a rural district, and he had no doubt that that school was as efficient as the other schools in that part of the country. What logical reason was there for making a distinction between that elementary school and an elementary school in an urban district with 5,000 population, and why should not both receive the same treatment? He submitted that the Amendment ought to receive more serious consideration from the Government.
  MR. STARKEYsaid that as the representative of an agricultural constituency he wished to point out how very hard the rural districts of England would be hit by this particular clause. The only hope of the rural schools being able to continue to give religious education as at present was by having the assistance of the rates. If the four-fifths provision would satisfy the people and appease all dissensions in regard to the religious difficulty in urban districts, why should not the same principle be extended to rural districts? If the country schools did not come within the four-fifths provision how were they to provide teachers for the children? It was quite true that on two

  855
  days of the week the children were to be given religious instruction, but who was to give it? Their own teachers were forbidden to give it. The Government had given the country to understand that they were anxious to get the people back to the land, but was it likely that they would get the people back to the land if they were made to suffer the disadvantages to which he had referred? Anyone who had had the benefit of having his children brought up in the faith he believed in would remain in the urban areas, and refuse to go back to the rural districts. The Report of the Secretary to the Education Committee of the Nottingham County Council said that the number of children in average attendance in the council schools in the rural districts was 24,963, and in the urban areas 16,888. The not cost per child in the urban areas was 12s. 9d., and in the rural 10s. 7d. The total cost in the urban area was £16,865, and the rural area £13,527. The general rate raised per child in the urban school area was 10s. 10d., and in the rural £1. There was this great difference in the rate between the council school area chiefly urban, and the voluntary school district chiefly rural. If this were perpetuated and it were only permissible to give religious instruction in the voluntary schools upon two days of the week at their own expense, it would not lessen the feeling of injustice that now existed or be in any way beneficial. In the rural areas their only hope of being able to give religious instruction to their children lay in their being included in the four-fifths division.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)said that this clause raised a matter of very great importance. Catholics did not press so strongly the case of their schools in single school areas, because they recognised that in those areas a very considerable Nonconformist grievance existed; but the number of their schools which would be injuriously affected by the clause as at present drawn was very large indeed. The hon. Member for West Islington asked them to believe that the Catholic schools had been very well treated inasmuch as a comparatively small percentage of Catholic children would be excluded by the clause as it now stood.
  MR. LOUGH saidthat what he had stated was that it would not exceed 9 per cent.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that at the present moment in the rural districts the Catholic community would under the Bill lose the grants for 188 Catholic schools. In addition to the 188 Catholic schools in rural districts which would be lost to the Catholics by this Bill in urban districts, under the 5,000 limit there were fifty-five which also would be lost to them. Then came the schools which would be affected by the four-fifths limit—a very serious thing for them—and their loss then would number 254. In all, therefore, they would lose 497 schools, to say nothing of the case of the remaining Catholic schools which would not continue to have the requisite four-fifths and would also be ruled out. It might be said that nearly half of the Catholic schools in the country would be lost to the Catholics by this Bill. The schools might only contain a small number of pupils, but still, from the Catholic point of view, it was a very serious matter. They could not consent to have fifty per cent, of their schools swept away. If the Government would agree to eliminate those schools in the urban area their grievance would be very largely reduced, although it would not be taken away altogether. In view of the concession which they had made in not claiming relief in regard to their schools in single school areas, he thought the Committee might favourably consider any proposal which would lessen their loss.
  LORD R CECILwished to know how many schools the Roman Catholics had in single school areas.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he could not give the figures exactly, but it was a small number. It was perhaps ten or twelve schools, but although the concession they made might not be a large one, still it was as far as they could go to meet the Nonconformist case. If the Government persisted in carrying out their proposals they would certainly create in the minds of Catholics a feeling of irritation, and they would not submit to this grievance. They did not grudge the Church of England anything which she could gain under the Bill, nor did they grudge any other denomination

  857
  anything which they could obtain, but their concern was with their own schools, and he hoped the Government would reconsider the undoubted grievance which they had.
  MR. TALBOTsaid the hon. Member for North Wexford must be under some misapprehension as to the meaning of the hon. Member for West Islington when he spoke of the Church of England being a gainer by this Bill. Even the Parliamentary-Secretary with his fervid imagination could not have been, he was sure, led into saying that. It was because of the deep feeling of the great majority of the people whom he represented, a large body of the clergy and laymen of the Church of England, that he thought it right to rise and express his view in regard to the proposals of the Government. Because the Government had dealt with the difficulties which had arisen in regard to small minorities they claimed to have dealt with the whole question of religious education, but surely there was a large majority whose claims ought no less to be dealt with. What religious body was most affected by this Bill, and who were the people who would be most affected? Surely it was the Church of England—that is, the clergy and laity of that Church. It was not only the clergy who objected to the Bill; it was not even "the ecclesiastically-minded laymen" who were concerned, and who felt this grievance, but the laity generally were aroused upon the subject. That was shown by the public meetings which had been held to protest against the Bill. Anybody who had attended those meetings or had heard of them, was bound to be struck by the fact that they were largely composed of laymen, and nobody who knew the signs of the times could deny that the minds of the clergy and the laity had been stirred to a depth to which he had never seen it stirred before. He had attended a large number of religious and political meetings, and he had never seen such depth of feeling evinced as had been aroused by this Bill. Did the Government think it wise to outrage the conscience of what everybody must admit to be a great religious community, which had done and was still doing great service to the country? Was it right that the interests of the Church
  858
  of England, who were principally concerned, should be neglected? If the Government minimised these facilities, and confined them to the urban areas, they were excluding from the benefits of the Bill a vast number of the schools in the rural districts which had done, and were still doing, great educational service to the country. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the great sacrifices which members of his communion had made for the purpose of maintaining their schools. They had made no greater sacrifices than the members of the Church of England had made assisted by their clergy, who out of slender pittances had founded and maintained Church schools. He respected the views of Roman Catholics to whom this clause was in the main a concession. Why should it stop short of recognising the sacrifices made by the clergy and laity of the Church of England? The answer which would be made was, he knew, the grievances of Nonconformists in rural parishes, but what was the good of substituting one grievance for another, and why to remedy the grievance of the Nonconformist should the Government inflict an injury upon the Church? The grievance of the Nonconformists was that they had no schools of their own. in rural districts, and that they had to contribute to the maintenance of Church schools. As to the first grievance, it had always struck him as curious that in the Principality of Wales, which was a typical instance, while Nonconformists could build places of worship they never, or seldom at all events, built schools, but contentedly sent their children to Church of England schools. Now, at the beginning of the twentieth century, they had raised the grievance of the Nonconformist conscience. Was it not time that Church of England people should say that they too had a conscience? He had, like the passive resisters, a grievance in that he had to contribute to a school board rate although he did not agree with the undenominational character of the teaching afforded under it. What would be the grievance upon his conscience hereafter when besides the London County Council Education Rate he had to contribute to the maintenance of the schools that he had supported for so many years, in which a form of religious instruction was hereafter to be given of which he did

  859
  not approve? It might be said that that was a mean and paltry way of looking at it, but his conscience disapproved (if it and rebelled against it, and was not his conscience as well worthy to be considered as the conscience of any Nonconformist? It was that of which he complained—that there was no remedying of a grievance, but the substitution of a new grievance for an old, and putting a new grievance on the consciences of what he ventured to believe was the majority of this country. He could not say they were the majority, because whenever they asked for a religious census they were refused, and it might be that the Nonconformists were the majority as they stated. He hoped he had said enough on this subject to show that he felt very strongly upon it. He had tried to express himself in a moderate manner, but he warned the right hon. Gentleman that unless the Government made some concession and did not restcontent with only remedying the wrong of one religious minority, so far from settling this great educational question they would raise, in the most peaceable and least agitative parts of the country, the ordinary quiet country clergy and laity of the Church of England, and leave in the breasts of such people a feeling of irritation and resentment that it would take years to allay.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDthought it was to be regretted that this important matter was being discussed in so thin a House. Clause 4 was put into the Bill to meet the Catholic case, but the figures they had went to show that under its provisions—with regard to the 5,000 population area and the four-fifths—one half of the Catholic schools would be excluded altogether. He did not know whether those figures had been brought forcibly before the right hon. Gentleman as yet. He had not heard him refer to or deal with them, and he asked him to make some statement with reference to them now. It was not possible that the right hon. Gentleman could be satisfied with the state of things in which the clause now stood, in so far as it only applied to one half of the Roman Catholic schools. If the 5,000 population area was taken alone, 246 Roman Catholic schools out of 1,012 were excluded. There were not many of these single school areas, and so far as he was concerned he was very anxious that the Nonconformist grievance
  860
  with regard to the single school areas should be completely met, and reduced in regard to those schools which lay between the single school areas and the 5,000 suburban areas. He wanted to know what was to become of those schools which were excluded. He did not want to repeat the arguments, but he desired to represent to the right hon. Gentleman that they were in an entirely different position from the Church schools. The Church schools could take advantage of Clause 3, but these schools would not. What, then, was to become of them? The right hon. Gentleman must surely have come to some conclusion as to what the treatment was to be with regard to disposition of these schools. The figures read to the Committee were fallacious, because they were told that 77 per cent, of these schools would be admitted, and that 91 per cent, of the Catholic children attending school in England would be admitted.
  MR. LOUGH: So far as this Amendment is concerned.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that that was the point: it did not put the whole case before the Committee, because under the operation of the clause, taking all the limitations together, far more than nine per cent, would be excluded. He wanted to know what was to become of these schools, and he rose simply to point out the vital importance of this matter and to say that notwithstanding the way in which their hopes had been dashed by the decisions of the Committee and of the Government, he was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman had something to say with reference to these schools. He hoped he would say it now.
  MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)said he hoped the Government would not be in too conceding a frame of mind. After all, for what purpose did the schools exist? They existed for five days a week and for five hours a day for the purpose of fitting the children in them for this life and enabling them to make a living. It had been assumed too often I in these debates that if the children in these schools did not, from the age of five to the age of twelve or thirteen, get denominational instruction, they never did

  861
  get it. That was not true, but the converse of that was practically true. If they did not get during that period a satisfactory elementary education in general knowledge to fit them for this life and enable them to get a living, they never did get it. The other purpose of these schools, was that of denominational instruction, and that could be and was given out of school hours in churches and chapels, and could be and was continued after the child's school life. He pleaded that nothing should be done that would lessen the efficiency of the schools in these areas, and lessen the efficiency and the teaching in them for five hours a day on the five days of the week. The proposal before the Committee would tend to multiply the number of small schools in the country, and where they got small schools the tendency was to decrease the efficiency, and therefore anything that tended to multiply the number of small schools and keep down the number of the larger schools tended to defeat the specific purpose of those schools for five hours a day on five days of the week. He asked the right hon. Gentleman not to be in too conceding a mood in his great desire to conciliate opposition on an important, but not the most important, part of the Bill, which was to fit the children for this life. Another reason why the Amendment should not he accepted was that it would extend the area of the possible application of that very vicious and retrograde principle of allowing schools to contract themselves out of the Bill and out of the advantage of local control and supervision. He did not think the contracting-out proposal pleased anybody, and it was bad educationally. He opposed the Amendment, and supported the clause as it stood.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)said he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as the one under discussion. The hon. Member for West Nottingham, had defined the real abyss -which separated him from some of them. The hon. Gentleman thought that getting on in life was the thing for which schools were established. Churchmen did not believe it, and they rejected it. It was therefore impossible for the hon. Gentleman and them to get into touch on this question. The clause
  862
  denied the rights of conscience to country areas. Yet the right and duty of worshipping God was the same in the country as in the town. The duties of parents to children were the same in Stoke Poges as in London or Birmingham. It would be just as reasonable to have a local limitation to the study of Shakespeare or Milton. A certain measure of freedom was given to some districts because they were big; in other districts freedom was curtailed because they were little. There was no principle whatever in this strange, almost insane, distinction. Again and again it had been said, chiefly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the education question could not be properly discussed unless as a preliminary to discussion logic was thrown to the dogs. Here were thrown to the dogs not only logic but principle also, and there seemed to be nothing left but the paper on which the Bill was written, the bias, and, in some cases, the downright hatred of the Church against which the Bill was directed. The clause was an instance of the intolerance of the whole Bill, and an illustration of the words "New Presbyter is old Priest large writ."
  MR. NUSSEYexpressed the opinion that the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as to what was to become of the 246 rural Catholic schools which would be excluded from the operation of Clause 4 ought to receive an answer. The Government had admitted that those schools had a right to exceptional treatment, and yet by the adoption of an arbitrary limit which could not be defended they would be excluded from the consideration extended to more fortunate schools in urban districts, and there would be a perpetuation of the condition of passive resistance on the part of a different section of the community. The real grievance which the Bill ought to remedy was the case of the single school area. The Nonconformists had a distinct grievance under the Act of 1902, and as long as they got clear of that he did not see why Catholic schools which complied with the conditions and safeguards embodied in the clause should not receive the benefit of these extended facilities whether they were situated in urban or in rural areas.
  COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)said the speech to which the Committee had just listened appeared to assume that the Roman Catholic religion was the one which wanted protection in this country. He should like to ask what was the special reason why the Roman Catholic religion should be protected above other forms of Christianity, and why the same treatment should not be meted out to all sects. The hon. Member for West Nottingham had spoken as if education were purely secular, and that nothing was education unless it were secular. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite who differed from him as to the form of religious education, whether education was complete without religion. Unless education included religion it would prove a mere snowman, which would melt away under the heat of the turmoil of daily life and the pressure of competition. He was challenged the other day as to whether Cowper-Temple teaching was not a very good foundation for the teaching of religion. It was a foundation of a sort, but it was the loose bricks without the mortar to hold them together. He would much rather a child of his was brought up in a Roman Catholic school than in an undenominational school. The child would at least have a better chance of becoming a good citizen. No doubt some hon. Members would claim that secularism was religion, but where did morality come from.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSasked why the children in the country should be debarred from having what the children in the towns might have. He knew an urban area with a population of 5,500, and the schools in that area could exercise this option, but in a school 200 yards outside that area they could not have the same teaching: why should they not have it? If these facilities were granted in urban areas why should they not be granted in rural areas? If it was right for one area, surely it was right for the other. If hon. Members thought they were giving freedom or justice, or showing tolerance by refusing to the children
  864
  in the country what they had given to the children in the towns, they were very much mistaken, and the people in the country would show very forcibly when they got the opportunity that they were in favour of real freedom and not a sham tolerance.
  MR. STUARTfound a difficulty in reconciling the statements, on the one hand, that 267 Roman Catholic schools would be excluded under the Bill as it stood, and, on the other hand, that 9 per cent, of the children would be excluded. He would himself have been content to have seen different treatment shown to Roman Catholic schools, and would have liked to have seen the line drawn to include a larger number of them. He did not see any reason for stopping at urban areas more than any other.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the figures were correct, and the explanation was that the schools were small. With regard to what the hon. Member for Sunderland had suggested he was quite sure that the Committee would not agree to give more facilities to Roman Catholics than to other denominations, and he did not think the House would have looked at the Bill had it been drawn on those lines. He appealed to the Committee to come to a. decision upon this Amendment.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERagreed that, this was an Amendment second only in importance to that with which the Committee recently dealt. They had been engaged for the greater part of two days in a debate upon the merits of denominational teaching, and this was an Amendment to decide whether or not those rights and privileges were to be extended to all the country areas. He deplored the manner in which the debate was being conducted, and could not believe that the Government would leave the question with no better defence than the Committee had heard. There was a strong suspicion that this matter was being "gerrymandered" by the Government and Nonconformists to give as large a bribe as they could to Roman Catholics and as little-relief as possible to Church of England schools. If the Government did not desire that impression to get abroad

  865
  they would have to make some better defence of this exclusion than had yet been attempted. This was an Amendment which threw the onus of proof upon the Government. It was not for the Opposition to show cause why a right or privilege should be extended to the whole country; it was for the Government to show cause why it should be restricted to urban areas. He submitted that any man who had resolved to support Clause 4 ought to support this Amendment. What was the principle upon which the Government had acted in introducing Clause 4? It was the principle that where they could get it without loss of educational efficiency or risk of religious difficulty, denominational education was a right and a good thing. If that was not the principle, the Government had no Tight to introduce Clause 4. The onus was upon the Government to show why the right to denominational teaching should not be extended to all. The first reason given by the Secretary to the Board of Education for restricting this right to the towns was that the people in the country were so illiterate and so stupid that they could not grapple with the intricacies of the ballot. If that was so, why had they the Parliamentary and the municipal franchise? If he had not heard those words spoken, he would not have believed that any Minister of the Crown would stand up and address such an argument to the House of Commons. The next ground upon which the Committee were asked to agree to this restriction was that there might not be available accommodation elsewhere. That begged the whole question, for unless there was available accommodation elsewhere Clause 4 did not apply at all. In asking the Committee to adopt this proposal the Government practically said, "Where you get the necessary majority, where you have available school accommodation for the minority, and where all the conditions are complied with, then if you live in a town you shall have certain privileges, but if you live in the country you shall not." It was for the Government to defend such a position as that. The third ground given by the hon. Gentleman in support of the restriction was that country schools were smaller than urban
  866
  schools. He did not see anything in that argument. If four-fifths of the people in a town were to have a right, he did not see why the same proportion of their brethren in the country should not have the same right. Another reason stated was that the privileges under Clause 3 would do very nicely for the Church of England. It was true that if they could not get Clause 4 amended they would have to be content with Clause 3. But in the urban districts, both Clauses 3 and 4 were to apply, and he wished to know upon what ground a distinction was to be made in regard to Clause 4 in the country districts. If Clause 3 would do, why did the Government introduce Clause 4 for the towns? The view of Church people was that this was an illogical and indefensible distinction which no man could justify to his conscience, and that it had been introduced because it was desired to buy off the formidable opposition of the Roman Catholic Church. It was common knowledge that the Roman Catholic schools were situated to a large extent in urban areas. The intention of this distinction could be gathered by the effect which it would produce. By Clause 4 about 75 per cent, of the Roman Catholic schools would be saved, while only about 25 per cent, of the Church schools would be saved. This was striking people in the country as a flagrant injustice. It would be a piece of cynicism if the Government allowed this matter to go to a division without a more adequate attempt to find some real defence for a distinction so palpably unfair, so grossly unjust, and so prima facie indefensible. The distinction which was drawn between the urban and the rural districts would be one of the most powerful factors in bringing about the inevitable destruction of the Bill.
  MR. R. PEARCEsaid he desired to call attention to two Catholic schools in his constituency. They were in the villages of Tean and Dilhorne which were Catholic villages from before the Reformation in England. Seeing that they were in rural areas he was anxious to know what was going to become of them. He was aware that in establishing a great system it was inevitable that here

  867
  and there hardships should be created. He would not in the least think of opposing the Government, but if something could be done in reference to such schools as these he would be glad.
  MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that Clause 4 would absolutely wreck the Church schools in the rural districts. Some hon. Members had said that Clause 3 gave the Church schools more than they could have expected to receive. He maintained that Clause 3 gave nothing to these schools. It said that if the local authority condescended to make an agreement with them the owners of a school could arrange on two days of the week for denominational teaching out of school hours by teachers other than those of the school. That they could have without the clause at all, and there was absolutely nothing done for rural Church schools under Clause 3. Therefore he said that under this clause the Government were doing a monstrous and gross injustice. Some hon. Members had raised doubts upon the question as to whether the Church was strongly opposed to the Bill. All he could say was that in the division which he had the honour represent, they were violently opposed to it. It was not because they did not recognise that there was still a Nonconformist grievance in country districts that they were not prepared to welcome this Bill.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must not discuss the Bill, but must confine his observations to the Amendment.
  MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that with all respect he thought he was discussing the effect of this Bill upon rural schools.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that when he interrupted, the hon. Gentleman was pointing out the objection of the Church of England to the Bill itself, whereas he should confine his observations to the Amendment which had been proposed to this particular clause.
  MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was supporting the Amendment on behalf of the Church of England, and he supported it because although members of that Church
  868
  felt there was a grievance on the part of Nonconformists which might be redressed, it was not being redressed by this or any other clause of the Bill. Moreover, there was being imposed upon Churchmen by this clause a grievance which was much greater than was generally supposed. Several speakers had referred to this matter as if the only question of importance was that which had reference to Roman Catholic schools. A Ministerialist had suggested that the line should be drawn in some other way so as to include more Roman Catholic schools, and it was said that the Roman Catholics had a right to say that they objected to Cowper-Temple teaching, but that members of the Church of England had not. The hon. Member for Waterford had said that he looked upon Cowper-Temple teaching as the religion of Protestantism, but speaking from the Church of England point of view he might say that he regarded it as the religion of Nonconformity. He objected to it as insufficient religious education for his children. Moreover, there were different kinds of Cowper-Temple teaching, and he did not gather that under this Bill the best kind would be insisted upon. In some cases it meant no religion at all. It meant the simple reading of the Bible, without note or comment. He did not call that sufficient, and the only good that could be obtained from Cowper-Templeism must be obtained when the teacher believed the instruction he was affording and taught it with conviction. But such a system would not satisfy Dr. Clifford, who said that the teaching should consist merely of the ethical, historical, and literary study of the Bible as a book of history. As a member of the Church of England he said that members of that Church had just as much right to say that they objected to a religion which was forced down their throats, as the Roman Catholics had. If anyone doubted that this religion which was going to be forced upon rural schools was the religion of Nonconformity he should like to allude to the words which were used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education earlier in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that those who knew the struggle the Nonconformists had had to go through for the maintenance of Nonconformity

  869
  would not wonder that they rejoiced at the opportunity which was being offered to them to acquire in their village the freedom which they sought, and at the joy and pride which they felt in the fact that it might be their own. If the religion which was to be taught was to be their own, he thought he was justified in saying that the religion which was to be taught would satisfy Nonconformists. He did not in the least complain that they should have that religion or that they should have anything else, but what he did complain of was that they should dictate to him as to the religion which he should impart to his children. He thought he had as much right to lay down what religion should be given to his children as the Nonconformist had to say what kind of instruction should be imparted to his. He quite believed that the grievance in the rural districts had been a real one, and that in some parishes the Nonconformist felt that owing to the idiosyncrasies of some of the clergy the children were being taught that of which they did not approve. The parents did not want in those cases to withdraw their children from religious teaching altogether, but they considered that the clergyman taught them religion in a way which was objectionable. No reasonable person could object to the children having, instead of objectionable religious teaching, Cowper-Templeism, but this Bill did not propose that. It proposed to sweep away the Church curriculum and to force upon children religious instruction of which the parents might in ninety-nine cases out of 100 disapprove. He hoped the Government would show them some logical reason why it was right and just that the Roman Catholics should have their consciences considered, and they of the Church of England should not. Why should the parents in urban schools moreover be given the right to have their consciences considered, while the same right was denied to the parents in rural districts. This question could be very easily solved in rural districts by giving fair play all round. That would meet the wishes of Church people as well as Nonconformists. There were very few schools in which there was only one teacher. As a matter of fact he believed there were only 2,000
  870
  departments—not schools—in which there was only one teacher and so, perhaps, in one-fifteenth of the cases there might be some difficulty in arranging the classes in regard to denominational or undenominational education, but in fourteen-fifteenths there would be no difficulty at all. Therefore, they were entitled to some explanation from the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that this principle was to be applied to single-school areas there would be some argument in it, but the Government had not said that. In each of two parishes in which he was interested there were two schools and it would be possible to make arrangements which would suit everybody, and he could not understand why this arbitrary distinction should be made and why people in rural districts should not have the same chance of doing that which they did in urban districts. The whole proposal was absurdly illogical and impossible, and he asked the Government to extract themselves from the entangled position in which they now stood and put themselves in a position which they could defend as one of principle and in which they could not be assailed from every side as they were at present.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)appealed to the Committee to pass on to other subjects connected with the clause, and pointed out that in view of the fact that the debate would be compulsorily determined at a given moment it was not desirable that Members should take up too much time in discussing one question. Nor was it desirable that members of the Government should occupy too much of the time which primarily belonged to the Opposition, and after all he could only say what had been, said before in reply to the contentions of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. But he did want to make some observations in reply to the speech to which they had just listened, and two or three previous speeches. The hon. Member for the Oswestry Division had said that this clause absolutely wrecked Church of England schools in rural districts, and the hon. Member who preceded him spoke of the Bill as saving only 25 per cent, of the Church schools as against 75 per cent, of the Roman Catholic schools. Now he

  871
  did ask hon. Members, not with any expectation that it would have any effect, whether in saying this they were just to the Bill or even just to their own case. Was it right to talk of Church of England schools as being wrecked or lost in view of the special facilities for religious education provided by Clause 3? Members of the Church of England were not entitled to speak of these special facilities in the same way as members of the Roman Catholic Church. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?"] Because, in the Church of Rome, the Church was the supreme authority in interpreting the Bible, a view which was directly contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. There was therefore that distinction between members of the Church of England and members of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church had laid it down for all time that their authority was supreme in interpreting the Bible, whereas the Church of England had also laid it down for all time that the Bible was to be the sole and supreme test in deciding matters of doctrine. If he discussed these matters it was only in answer to the challenge of hon. Members opposite, and his contention was that they were not entitled as Churchmen to say that their schools would be lost and wreaked, because the religious education in the schools would continue to be given as amply and sufficiently as it had been given in the past. Such religious education as had been given would be continued and maintained, even more fully than ever, at the public cost. The Church of England would continue their schools at the public cost, and would continue to give precisely the same education as had been given before, and yet hon. Members used such extravagant language about their schools being wrecked.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid they had reached a most interesting development of the argument in support of the Bill. They had always regarded Clause 4 as giving a modicum of religious freedom to all denominations equally considered, but the discussion had thrown light upon the subject and had shown that advantages were to be secured by particular denominations while others were not so favoured. They had a different explanation given of
  872
  Clause 4 now from that which was given on the Second Reading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the clause was put in with a special view of meeting the Roman Catholics. That meant that the clause was put in not with the idea of preserving religious liberty but in order to secure the Irish vote. The Minister for Education, however, in winding up the debate, said the clause was intended to be a charter of educational freedom to the village. Therefore, according to the President of the Board of Education, the clause was intended not so much to let the Roman Catholics in as to keep the Church of England out. Now they were informed by the Solicitor-General that the proposals of the Bill were based in some way not explained on the decrees of the Council of Trent.
  SIR W. ROBSONdenied that the right hon. Gentleman correctly interpreted his words. He had simply asked why Protestants should object to Bible teaching.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas glad to ascertain that the learned Solicitor-General did not see any close connection between the Council of Trent and the 5,000 limit of population, but he had gathered that from his words. What was the distinction to be drawn in this matter? Was it population? If so he ventured to say it was a defective basis if the statistics of the various parishes or urban districts were examined. He knew of one single rural parish with a population of 11,000, and in this parish there were three council schools and one voluntary school. There could be no reason why that voluntary school should be excluded from the privileges of Clause 4 was the distinction based on provision of council school accommodation. If so, it was equally fallacious, for there were large towns in which all the schools were voluntary schools, and these would be excluded from the clause. The distinction which it was sought to draw was absolutely meaningless and could only be based upon some political consideration, which had nothing to do with religious education, or with anything to which one could attach, any reasonable motive unless it was a political motive such as appeared to be suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the

  873
  President of the Board of Education. Many rural parishes had two schools, and there was no difficulty in providing accommodation for the denominations; and he submitted that where facilities were wanted, and could be granted without injustice or inconvenience, they should be granted. He knew a case of a school in a rural parish established for the instruction of the poor in the principles of the Church, of England, and for no other purpose. There was not, he understood, in the parish, one dissenter from the Church of England; the fathers and mothers of the children in the school, it was reported, earnestly desired that their children should continue to be taught the religion they themselves professed by the master and mistress of the school, to whom they were attached, and the ratepayers, it was stated, were of the same opinion. Nevertheless, as his correspondent, a gentleman who held a very high official position and who was incapable of expressing anything but a sound opinion upon the education question, who drew his attention to these facts pointed out, the schoolmaster must resign his office or give the children no more of that instruction which they had been accustomed to receive. He thought many other cases might be found of a similar character. His correspondent informed him that he and others had satisfied themselves as to the facts of this case.
  AN HON. MEMBER: What is the number of the inhabitants?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he really could not give them, but he did not see what numerical considerations had to do with the matter.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Baronet give the name?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was perfectly prepared to hand the letter he had received to the Parliamentary Secretary.
  AN HON. MEMBERwished to know whether these parishioners were tenants of the hon. Baronet's correspondent.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he thought he might answer that with a most decided
  874
  negative. What were those interested to do in such a case? Were they to take refuge in the cold comfort of Clause 3? What did Clause 3 give them? They lost the teacher; they might have their religious teaching out of school hours. Religious teaching out of school hours was really no concession at all, because the children might be summoned by anybody at any time out of school hours to receive any form of religious teaching which they were willing to receive. What was desired, however, was religious instruction by the teacher to whom they were accustomed. In a town no doubt it might be possible to replace the teacher, but it was not so easy in the country. He would like to ask what would be the effect of this change in the rural areas. Hon. Members opposite were anxious to bring the people back to the land. What were they doing to encourage that idea? What were they doing with regard to the intellectual life of the village? Was not that to be found in the parson and the teacher? They were turning the parson out of the school up to the moment that they turned the teacher out of the school in order that someone else should give religious instruction. He ventured to think they would find henceforth greater trouble in getting good teachers for the schools than they did at present. The tendency of the good teachers to go to the towns would be more markedly developed when the clergyman of the parish was turned out of the schools and the common interest which both parson and teacher had taken in the welfare of the school was destroyed: he feared that the teaching would suffer in consequence, not only the religious teaching, but the teaching all-round. These facilities, if they meant anything, meant a great deal, and the people who asked for them regarded them as an important factor in education, in the religious as well as the intellectual life of their children. The interest of the parent in the religious life of his child did not depend on the fact that he lived in a rural or an urban area or on the fact that he was one of a population of 5,000 or that he was one of the four-fifths majority. There was no religious difficulty in the schools. The only religious difficulty that he had heard of recently was the case of a Nonconformist child, the only one in the school, whose

  875
  father complained that he was not taken to church with the rest of the children on Ascension Day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not in the least aware of the feeling they were creating in the rural areas by this Bill. He had had frequent communications, not from large urban centres, but from small rural areas all over the country which forced upon him the conviction that there was a deep-seated indignation at the wanton change the right hon. Gentleman's Bill would bring about in the educational condition of the parishes. He thought before long the Government would realise that their policy was not merely resented by Churchmen in great urban centres; that it was not merely a question for great political meetings, but that it had caused a widespread and deep-seated animosity in every quarter throughout the land.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)said the Amendment before the Committee was intended to secure that in the voluntarily transferred schools there should be the same right to religious instruction as was to be given under the four-fifths provision. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University had made no reference in his speech to the great grievance of the Nonconformists, namely, that in 8,000 parishes throughout the country there was only one elementary day school, and that a church school; that into that school the children of the Nonconformists were compelled by law to go for their education, and that they had had hitherto only the safeguard of the conscience clause which was practically no safeguard at all. That was a very great grievance to the Nonconformists, and they were determined that in these 8,000 schools, carried on entirely at the public expense, there should not be longer continued instruction in the religious doctrines of one Church only. That involved a gross violation of the principles of religious liberty and equality of the Nonconformists of this country. The question of religious equality was thus forced upon them by this Amendment. There could be no question that in the areas to which these schools belonged, the giving to the children definite Church of England religious training
  876
  only on two days a week meant that the Nonconformists suffered an injustice if they did not under this clause claim in these schools to be put on an equality with the Church, and to give their children also definite religious teaching. It was true that in some of the populous rural districts some Members of the House might desire a change. There was a great deal to be said in favour of the four-fifths provision in populous rural districts where there was a good choice of schools. He had such an area in the division he represented, and it was only right that he should claim for that district the same facilities as were given to the urban districts. But in that district there were five schools, two county, two church, and one Roman Catholic school. Personally he would desire that these schools should be treated in the same way as similar schools in urban districts. But there was a very great gulf between such school districts and the 8,000 single school areas.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYthought the hon. Member for Barnsley had gone a little wide of the argument. It was desirable that they should have figures, and the hon. Gentleman had mentioned 8,000, but he did not think he would find that number in any Parliamentary Return. He must also remind the hon. Gentleman that with reference to Clause 3, when the noble Lord beside him endeavoured to give to every Nonconformist denomination the privilege of having their doctrines taught in the single school districts, the Liberal Party voted down the Amendment to prevent the very facilities for which the hon. Gentleman was pleading so arduously just now. No argument had yet been adduced to show why an urban area with a population of 5,000 should be adopted as a standard of conscience with reference to the religious tenets of the children. No feature in this Bill was more resented than this one. The hon. Member for Barnsley had repeated that this was a question of a great grievance in connection with single school districts. It was nothing of the sort. It did not apply to single school districts at all. The argument of those on the Opposition side was that the test should not be that of population,

  877
  but that it should depend on a reasonable demand for facilities. The arbitrary distinction of population could not possibly be allowed to stand. He hoped that when the question was put they might at all events have the last word reserved so that they would be able to insert "urban or rural," for if they were not allowed to go below 5,000 it should include the rural areas with a population of 5,000 and over. He was sure the wit of man, and he was quite sure the wit of the Government, could not devise any reason why a population of 5,000 in a rural area should be in any sense different from a population of the same size in an urban area. He hoped, therefore, the Government would reconsider this point.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the hon. Member for Barnsley had laid stress upon the fact that Nonconformists felt it to be a strong grievance that in 8,000 parishes there was only a single school for the district. So far as the Roman Catholics were concerned they had not a word to say in favour of one school with one religious atmosphere for the children of different denominations, and they were willing to support any proposal which would safeguard the right of the Nonconformist child in a single school district. But that was not the point of the Amendment. It was an essential condition of getting additional facilities for the four-fifths school that there should be more than one school. Roman Catholics would not raise any objection whatever to its being made as clear as words could make it that, where there was a single school district, there could not and there should not be, any privilege enabling one denomination to have complete religious control of the school. They had been waiting for the answer of the Government to their case. The Catholics stated on the authority of the Government returns that under this provision 240 of their schools would be excluded. They also contended that under the four-fifths limitation another 200 would be excluded, and this meant that about 50 per cent, of the Catholic schools would be excluded from the national system of the country.
  MR BIRRELLdissented.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the calculation he had made was based upon the right hon. Gentleman's own figures. The official Return put the number of schools which would be above the 5,000 limit at 77 per cent., therefore about 23 per cent. would be excluded. The answer given by the Secretary to the Board of Education was that although it was true that only 77 per cent. of the schools were included, the percentage of scholars included was 91 per cent. Now what was the reason for that disparity? The reason was that the schools in the small communities excluded by the 5,000 limit were small with a small number of scholars, whereas the schools in the urban districts were large. It was no answer to say that because the children were protected in the urban districts they should not be protected in the rural districts. They had just heard a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for the Leek Division of Staffordshire, who had pointed out that in his constituency there were two Catholic schools which had belonged to the Catholics since the Reformation. Up and down Lancashire there were little spots where they had maintained the Catholic Creed all through the Reformation down to the present day. Was it not too cruel that a little Catholic community having a Catholic school attended by Catholic children, in which the attendance was not four Catholics to one Protestant, should be deprived of facilities which the Minister for Education had declared openly that he desired to give, and this in a Catholic school which dated from pre-Reformation times? The Minister for Education had said that he wanted Clause 4 to be a reality and not a fraud or delusion, and that the reason he opposed the mandatory Amendment was because he believed that the procedure he proposed would better carry out the objects desired. When they found that 25 per cent, of the Catholic schools were excluded by this limitation, what became of the right hon. Gentleman's desire to make the clause a reality? His information from the heads of the Catholic Church was that the four-fifths limitation would exclude 25 per cent, of their schools. If 25 per cent, of the Catholic schools were excluded by on 3 provision and 50 per cent, by another from the benefits of Clause 4, what was the

  879
  good of the passionate hopes and desires of the right hon. Gentleman? So far as they were concerned, any Amendment which would save the single school district they were ready to welcome and support.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: There are already twenty-nine Amendments down to Sub-section (b).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that he was in favour of any Amendment which would secure protection for the children in the rural districts. This was a real grievance of the Catholics, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, would see that the benefits which he meant to give them under Clause 4 were not destroyed.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division and of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford with perfect sympathy. It was to him a matter of great personal regret that any school of the character described should be excluded from the four-fifths clause. Speaking generally, he could wish that all the Roman Catholic schools were in a position to come within the limit of the clause. It was to him some satisfaction, at all events, to find that Clause 4, which had not been procured without difficulty, did not stand where it did without representing a good deal of difficulty, and he might even say of obstinacy and endurance. He was glad to think that this clause of theirs did secure very remarkable, though, he agreed, not entirely satisfactory, results. It had been already mentioned by his hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary that 819 Roman Catholic schools were in urban areas with a population of 5,000 and over, representing 77·1 per cent, of the total number of Catholic schools and 91 per cent, of the children in attendance in Catholic schools. That could not be said to be nothing.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I did not say so.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid it was an achievement, although he wished for a larger achievement. At all events, it was not to be spoken of as if they had not accomplished something for the object
  880
  which hon. Gentlemen opposite had at heart. He could not agree that a large number of the four-fifths schools within these areas would be deprived of the benefit of this clause because of the attendance at them of Protestant children. Nothing had surprised him more during his short tenure of office than to know how many Protestant children were in the habit of attending Roman Catholic schools. He thought the hon. Member for East Mayo gave one of the real reasons when he said it was due to the anxiety of parents to secure for their children the kindly teaching they often received at the hands of nuns. The hon. Member had also suggested that these good ladies had faculties for dealing with froward and troublesome children with more care and patience than the ordinary teacher was, perhaps, able to bestow. He had made some inquiry into the reasons which prompted Protestant parents to send their children to Roman Catholic schools, and he had not discovered that any religious results in the sense of inducing the children to become members of the Roman Catholic Church followed. He was very much astonished the other day to see inscribed in Roman Catholic books of devotion, signed by a Roman Catholic Bishop as prizes for religious knowledge, the names of children whom he knew to be Wesleyans and actually attending Wesleyan churches and Sunday schools, but who nevertheless went to Roman Catholic schools and exhibited such success and skill in mastering Roman Catholic theology that the Bishop inscribed their names in books of Roman Catholic devotion. That showed him that a large number of children did go to Roman Catholic schools without any indention of becoming converts, and for the sake of the training they received there. He imagined that those parents who sent their children deliberately to Roman Catholic schools because they were satisfied with them would certainly support those schools in their applications for extended facilities under this clause. They would desire the schools to go on as they had done in order that they might secure the teachers in whom they had confidence, and he had no doubt whatever that, although in no sense Roman Catholics themselves,

  881
  they would, for the purpose of securing the four-fifths facilities, vote with the orthodox Roman Catholic. That was why he could not suppose for a moment that it was true that only one-half of the Roman Catholic schools in the country would receive the benefit of the clause. That some would be excluded he had to admit would be the case, and all he could say was that the clause was an artificially constructed clause. Nobody could deny that for a moment. It sought to secure the largest amount of benefit with the smallest amount of danger. It was asked why the difference was made between an urban and a rural area. It did represent a real and broad distinction, the distinction between the country atmosphere and the town atmosphere, and the Government thought they had arrived at the best possible way of distinguishing between the two areas. If rural areas were included in the benefits of subsection (b), which made it necessary that there should be suitable public school accommodation close at hand, this would give rise to difficult questions. How far off was a country school to be? In the country districts a child was often expected to walk two or two and a half miles. The hardship of that clearly depended on the character of the country and the nature of the roads. He had a case to decide lately as to the continuance of a school in Bedfordshire, where, a village being angry at a proposal to stop their school, an appeal was made to him, and he had to take into consideration the character of the road along which the children would have to travel to another school. It was a high, exposed, bitter, bleak, clay road, which in the months of November and December was a terribly hard road for children to travel along. That was the sort of question arising all over the country when one was dealing with a rural area. Hard cases made bad law, according to the legal maxim. They had to make rules which might be called arbitrary or unreasonable, but they must draw a real distinction between the conditions of town and country life. Without defending the distinction drawn as in any sense a complete and final answer, the Government were bound to make this distinction between town and country, and they
  882
  had not been able to discover any better way than by limiting these schools to urban areas and defining rural areas as areas with a population of 5,000.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that this very important Amendment was being discussed under various disadvantages. One of the disadvantages of the discussion had been that the Minister for Education, being human, had to dine like the rest of them, and had not had the great advantage of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary and some of the speeches made from his own side in support of his own proposals. The hon. Member for Barnsley had probably by this time discovered that he was really arguing in favour of the Amendment and against something which was not the Amendment at all. He had also probably impressed upon the Government in private what he had forcibly impressed upon the Committee that there was a district in his constituency excluded from all the advantages of Clause 4. It was to be feared he was going to be disappointed; that he was going to be thrown over and that the too severe Minister for Education, faithfully followed by his cohorts on that side of the House, was going to sacrifice Barnsley. He sympathised with Barnsley; but it would be unfair not to give a similar word of condolence to Leek, for the other Gentleman who got up to speak for the Government—the hon. Member for Leek—had explained that there were two small Roman Catholic schools in his constituency which under the Bill of the Government would be entirely sacrificed; and, ardent as he was in opposing the Amendment, anxious as he was to support the Government, he earnestly pleaded for some mercy for the schools going to be sacrificed. His sympathy with Barnsley he extended in the same whole-hearted manner to Leek. Really it was peculiarly unfortunate that the only two Gentlemen who had supported the Government should have been obliged to explain how much the measure of the Government would injure their own constituencies. He did not know whether they were fair samples of the generous support which the Government at present seemed to anticipate. If he came to the independent supporters of the Government, and to the argument they had advanced against his hon. friend,

  883
  and if he came to the Government themselves and their own account of the reasons which had induced them to make this exception in favour of urban areas, there were two speeches to be considered—the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and the speech just delivered. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was an interesting one, and gave many statistics in a form not usually very clear; but he really gave them only two arguments for the differentiation between urban and rural districts. The first was one held in common with the Minister for Education, but the other, which for some reason that Minister did not repeat, was that the ballot was an instrument suited to the intelligence of the urban district but that the stupid rural parent could not be asked to vote by ballot as to the kind of education he desired his child to have. That was not very complimentary to the rural parent, and it seemed rather like a serious indictment of the Ballot Act, but it was wholly unfounded. He suggested that there should be no ballot at all if that was too delicate an instrument for rural districts. A more serious argument was advanced by the Minister for Education. He, throwing over the Member for Barnsley, admitted that the Amendment did not touch areas where there was no alternative school, but only where there was such a school, but he said how difficult it was to determine in the country whether there was or was not an alternative school, that the macadam in the road had to be considered, whether the pathway was wet, how many stiles had to be crossed, and all the other difficulties incident to rural locomotion. Without arguing upon these difficulties, he asked did not similar difficulties arise in regard to urban districts? Responsible educational authorities had made tremendous fuss over the fact that to get to a certain school children had to cross a big, much-frequented thoroughfare, and there were other obstacles. So that in town as in country it was not merely a question of distance, and if a distinction was to be founded on the difficulty in finding an alternative school there were similar difficulties in towns. If then there was no distinction between town and country, what arguments were left for the Government? There was no distinction, and he thought it was perfectly obvious from
  884
  the speeches made and from the clause that the sole reason why the Government had introduced this arbitrary division between areas in both of which were alternative schools was that only by drawing such a distinction could they do a good deal for the Church of Rome—only by drawing such a distinction could they do great injury to the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that 25 per cent, of the Roman Catholic schools world be excluded by this clause, but he explained that the clause was so ingeniously drawn that only 9 per cent, of their children would be excluded Why was that an achievement? The only possible explanation of its being an achievement was that the Government had contrived to find a line which would include most of the Roman Catholic children and exclude an enormous number of Church of England children. There were many rural areas where there were alternative schools, where four-fifths of the children belonged to the Established Church, where the Church had built and had maintained the schools. On what principle were they to be excluded? The only possible answer was that the Government deliberately intended this Bill to be a blow at the Church denominational schools, and the only limitation which they had put on themselves, or which had been placed upon them, in the degree to which they meant to injure the Church schools was the fact that if they went beyond a certain point the injury to the Roman Catholic schools would be intolerable. They had an opportunity of adopting the principle, which even if adopted would inflict great hardship on Church schools in single-school areas, that wherever there was an alternative school and wherever there was a desire on the part of the majority of those attending the school to have denominational religion that desire should be satisfied. That principle was plain, intelligible, and easily acceptable. Why did not the Government accept it? If Members opposite did sincerely desire, and he knew many of them did, that there should not be in the face of the Bill any provisions clearly and obviously aimed at the Established Church, if they really did desire that there should be no bitterness inflicted on the Members of that

  885
  Church, was not this the least they could give? They could not pretend that it was unjust or that any Nonconformist child or parent was injured, and yet, while they redressed no grievance of those whom they were bound, he admitted, to represent in this House, why should they gratuitously inflict upon the members of one Church an injury which they were anxious to avoid with regard to members of the other Church, and which they were only prevented from avoiding wholly by the fact that they could not give everything which the Roman Catholics asked for without giving a great deal to the Church of England? It was quite true that only 9 per cent, of the Catholic children were injured by this clause as it stood, and that, therefore, by the Amendment they would only benefit 9 per cent. of the Catholic children. But it was also true that the absolute number of Church of England children and parents who would be benefited was far greater, and was it
  really to be argued that, while they agreed that there was a grievance on the part of the Roman Catholics, the Government refused to redress it for fear that in doing so they would do a similar act of justice to the Church of England? The matter would not bear argument for a moment. It was persecution, and gratuitous persecution. No principle that had ever been proclaimed on any Nonconformist platform would be violated by the granting of this concession. No mandate that any human being had ever pretended was given at the last election would be violated. There could only be one motive for refusing it, and that motive was to injure the Church of which so many of the opponents of the Government were members.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 344; Noes, 186. (Division list, No. 153.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Agnew, George William

  Brace, William

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Alden, Percy

  Branch, James

  Crombie, John William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Brigg, John

  Crooks, William

  Allen, Chas. P. (Stroud)

  Bright, J. A.

  Crossley, William J.

  Armitage, R.

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Brodie, H. C.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brunner, Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Aberdeen)

  Dickinson, W.H. (St. PancrasN

  Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duckworth, James

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Barnard, E. B.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cameron, Robert

  Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edward, Clement (Denbigh)

  Beale, W. P.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Beaumont, H. (Eastbourne)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Essex, R. W.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bell, Richard

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Benn, John W. (Devonport)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bennett, E. N.

  Clough, W,

  Ferens, T. R.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Bertram, Julius

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Findlay, Alexander

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Billson, Alfred

  Cooper, G. J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Gill, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rowlands, J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Runciman, Walter

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  M'Arthur, William

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Grove, Archibald

  M'Callum, John M.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Crae, George

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Larne, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Lewis

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Ship, Dr. John G.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harwood, George

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marsie, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Snowden, P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Henderson, J M (Aberdeen, W.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Montague, E. S.

  Spicer, Albert

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morrell, Philip

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morse, L. L.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hodge, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Murray, James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Summerbell, T.

  Hope, John Dean (Fife, West)

  Nicholls, George

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hope, W.Bateman (Somerset, N

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norman, Henry

  Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Paul, Herbert

  Thorne, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Tomkinson, James

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Torrance, A. M.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Toulmin, George

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jenkins, J.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n

  Ure, Alexander

  Johnson, John (Gaetshead)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Verney, F. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Vivian, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Price, Robert John (Nor'olk, E.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford

  Walsh, Stephen

  Kelley, George D.

  Radford, G. H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Kitson, Sir James

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Rees, J. D.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southomptn

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wardle, George J.

  Lambert, George

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Richardson, A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Whitbread, Howard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonsh.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Robinson, S.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitehead, Rowland

  888

  889

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Williamson, A.

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, HenryJ.(York, W.R.)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf d

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wintrey, R.

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Murnaghan, George

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Field, William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Ashley, W. W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nield, Herbert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt, Hon. Sir H

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Ginnell, L.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Haddock, George R.

  O'Donnell, T. Kerry, W.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Halpin, J.

  O' Dowd, John

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hammond, John

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Hardy, Laurence(KentAshford

  O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  O'Malley, William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Mara, James

  Blake, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John

  Hazelton, Richard

  O'Shee, James John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hogan, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cave, George

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.(Fareham

  Russell, T. W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craig, Capt. James (Down. E.)

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cross, Alexander

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Seddon, J.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Delany, William

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  M'Kean, John

  Starkey, John R.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  M'Killop, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  890

  891

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

  Young, Samuel

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Younger, George

  Viscount Valentia.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  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.

  CORK CITY RAILWAYS AND WORKS BILL [BY ORDER].
  Order for Third Reading read (King's consent signified.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.),in moving the rejection of the Bill, said the House of Commons was being asked by this railway company to allow them to evade the Parliamentary obligations which they undertook in 1898. Under the Bill the counties concerned were being asked to contribute £25,000 out of the public funds for the purpose of completing the link line which the railway company solemnly undertook to build with their own money. The county of Waterford, a part of which he had the honour of representing, had a strong moral claim that the fund out of which this money had been promised should be devoted to purposes for the benefit of the county. Waterford in the past undertook an enormously heavy guarantee for the building of this railway, and it was afterwards found that the line could not be completed for the £280,000 which was the full extent of the capital raised by the company, and consequently an application was made for a loan to enable them to complete the line, and they obtained a loan of £93,000. The county ratepayers were not consenting parties to the arrangement, but they got, in consideration of their guarantee of £14,000 a year, a right to the surplus profits of the company in excess of the 5 per cent, interest on the £280,000 share capital. Just at the time when it seemed likely that the county ratepayers might be recouped for the enormous amount they
  892
  found for maintaining the railway an arrangement for the purchase of the line under an agreement with two other railway companies was made. When the through route was completed the ratepayers expected some recoupment of the large advances they had made during all those years, but nevertheless they consented to forego their claim to be recouped the £292,000 they had paid, which had been increased to £350,000, in consideration of those companies building a direct line from Cork to Fermoy, and the ratepayers got a remission of half the £14,000 a year, but were still liable for £7,000 a year. Parliament was now being asked to allocate some of this money for the benefit of people who had never spent a penny upon the undertaking. He heartily approved of the works that were to be done under the Bill, but these railway companies, having come under obligations to Parliament, should be asked by Parliament to discharge them. There was no excuse for them whatever. Hon. Members on that side of the House who were supporting the Bill were guilty of complicity in helping the companies to evade their Parliamentary obligations. A large proportion of the ratepayers of the county of Cork were not in favour of the allocation of the money which would be made if the scheme in the Bill were carried out, for they had hoped that it would be devoted to the making of the Cork and Fermoy direct line. They were not in favour of an allocation of the money which would relieve these railway companies of their obligations. In his own experience of Parliament he had never known such a flagrant evasion of Parliamentary obligations. The Committee who considered the Bill were not to blame for passing it, because they had not before them all the evidence which could be brought forward against it. The question which the House had to decide was whether the Treasury was to be allowed to give £25,000 to enable the railway companies to evade their obligations. He did not see why the House should help them with public funds to get out of their undertakings. Parliament should

  893
  treat with scant ceremony any Bill promoted by these companies until they had carried out the obligations they had already undertaken in the matter. He begged to move.
  MR. POWER (Waterford, E.),in seconding said he had all along thought that the case against the Bill was unanswerable. The Treasury was now going to do what on two previous occasions it had refused to do, namely, to assist two great companies to evade their statutory obligations. In corroboration of the views laid before the House, he would read an extract from a speech delivered by the Chairman of the hybrid Committee who considered this matter some years ago. Speaking in this House on July 23rd, 1901, with reference to the construction of the Cork and Fermoy Railway, Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth, now Lord Shuttle-worth, said:
  "Before he sat down he would refer to the idea mooted by the company, that they would offer an alternative to the construction of this railway. But what did they offer? They offered as an alternative to carry out a second obligation—one of many, but a second obligation which they equally solemnly undertook, namely, with the cooperation of the City of Cork, to connect this new system with that particular district for the benefit of the fishing and agricultural industries. He hoped the House of Commons and the Government would not for a moment entertain the idea that, because the company offered to carry out one of their obligations, they therefore, should be let off carrying out the other."
  That was the view of a Gentleman who had studied the matter well. The Bill would probably get through its various stages, and he wished to know whether it would be competent for the Treasury to put an estimate on the Paper during the autumn session for the money which the company was to receive, or whether it must be deferred until next year, when they would have further opportunity of discussing the matter and of showing the scandalous way in which the railway companies had acted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and to add the words 'upon this day three months'"—(Mr. O Shee.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.)said he hoped the hon. Member for West Waterford would excuse him if he did not answer him in detail. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that this subject had been fully debated at various stages, and that after every argument that could be used had been heard the House was in favour of the Bill by 196 votes to 27 against. After such a crushing defeat he should have thought that the hon. Member would not have had the courage to discuss the case again. He would have ample opportunity of discussing the whole question when the £25,000 was put on the Estimates next year. He trusted that the Bill would now be read a third time.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed.

  WIRRAL RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [LORDS].
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [24th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' an I at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months'."—(Mr. William Lever.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. LEVERsaid he wished to withdraw the Amendment which he had previously moved, that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.
  MR. W. H. LEVERsaid he wished to move the following Resolution: "That it be an instruction to the Committee that they shall provide that the Wirral Railway

  895
  Company shall not run any omnibus in any city, borough, or other urban district provided with a system of tramways or omnibuses except with the consent of the local authority or local authorities, as the case may be, working such tramways or omnibuses." He did so in order that this House might have an opportunity of settling a most important principle. Before the ratepayers' money, amounting to £135,000, was allowed to be invested in these tramways, a most exhaustive inquiry was held, not only as to the advantage the expenditure would give to the public, but also to see whether the ratepayers' money was invested on sound lines. Therefore it seemed' a remarkable thing that now a railway company should come forward with a Bill which would enable them to run motor omnibuses in direct conflict with this system of municipal tramways. It was not that objection was taken to any additional means of locomotion being provided to the ratepayers; it was the competition from railway companies—competition which was never intended that the municipalities should have to face at the time when they were permitted by the House of Commons to invest the money of the ratepayers in tramways. If the railway company were allowed to use the roads in the municipality to the cost and repair of which they paid nothing, it would be a most unfair mode of competition. The Bill contained a clause in which the railway company declared that they only sought power to take up and set down passengers from their railway stations. That, he thought, was a fallacious clause, the only object of the promoters in inserting it being to recognise the strength of the opposition and the justice of the claims of the municipality. The object of the railway company would be better served by the insertion of the Instruction which stood in his name and which he begged to move.
  MR. SUMMERBELLSeconded the Motion. He thought that to grant this concession to the railway company would be most unfair to the municipal tramways undertaking in the district. The Company had sent a circular to Members of the House in which they stated that the use of these 'buses would be limited to bona fide passengers on their railway. It was however in his
  896
  judgment impossible to ascertain whether people were bona fide passengers or not. The municipality must pay off within thirty-five years the capital advanced to them to start their undertaking and he did not think a railway company should be allowed to set up a system of motor omnibuses in competition with the tramway authorities.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they shall provide that the Wirral Railway Company shall not run any omnibus in any city, borough, or other urban district provided with a system of tramways or omnibuses except with the consent of the local authority or local authorities, as the case may be, working such tramways or omnibuses."—(Mr. W. H. Lever.)
  MR. TOMKINSONrose to move as an Amendment to the Instruction proposed—
  "In line 6, after the word 'omnibus,' to insert the words, 'but that if such consent shall be unreasonably withheld the matter shall be determined by the Board of Trade, whose decision shall be final and binding.'"
  MR. SUMMERBELLasked as a point of order whether, in face of the provision in the Bill, paragraph E, page 6, giving an appeal to the Board of Trade, the Amendment could be put.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it was some what hard to say on the spur of the moment whether the question of unreasonably withholding consent was or was not a matter in regard to which the Company might consider themselves aggrieved within this section. He did not think, however, that any harm would result if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe were accepted. It might be incorporated in the Bill without any contradiction of its other provisions.
  MR. TOMKINSONmoved his Amendment, and said he thought it right at the outset to say that he was a director of the railway in question, and therefore might be regarded with suspicion. He did not think that prevented him, however, from stating the case as fairly as possible, although he might say that he

  897
  had no intention of voting if the question went to a division. It would be seen that there was only a small point of difference between the railway company and those whom his hon. friend represented. There were, however, certain circumstances with which he thought the House ought to be acquainted. The Wirral Railway was a small one consisting of only twelve miles of line, although it was in a populous district. It connected the watering places of West Kirby and New Brighton with Wallasey and other places, and was also connected with the Mersey Railway. About ten years ago, at the instance of this very urban council, and in order to serve their district, the Wirral Railway Company made a fresh line of two or three miles from Seacombe Ferry to the great advantage of the district. In the present year this authority promoted a Bill, and brought it before a very strong Committee of the House of Lords, which also dealt with this Bill, of which Lord Cawdor was Chairman. The Bill of the Wirral Company was heard first, and a decision postponed until the whole of the circumstances with regard to both Bills had been thrashed out. After hearing the case of the Wallasey Urban Council, who wished to take powers to run a tramway practically alongside this very railway and thus deprive them of their passengers, the Committee threw out the Bill of the Wallasey District Council and passed the Wirral Railway Bill. The Wirral Railway Company only asked that their Bill should be passed, and they were quite willing to accept this Instruction if there was an appeal to the Board of Trade. He thought under the circumstances there was a reason for the company asking for such an appeal. His hon. friend the Member for Birken-head had said—"Why do you not go into the country instead of coming to this urban district where there are no tramways and get passengers?" He remembered, however, that a fortnight ago the hon. Gentleman himself denounced motor 'buses running in these rural districts and injuring the farmers. They all knew, however, that the rural authorities objected to the use of their roads for this purpose, although their people used the roads in the towns. In view of the fact that the railways
  898
  were rated up to the hilt and that the incidence of the rates fell heavily upon them, he thought the present opposition to the Bill was neither fair nor reasonable.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDseconded the Amendment. Being intimately acquainted with Liverpool he would endeavour to put the position clearly before the House. The hon. Member for the Wirrall Division, in proposing his Motion, had disclaimed any objection to improved locomotion, but said that what he objected to was competition. It was not the interest of railway companies or municipalities which ought to be considered in cases of this kind, but the interest of the public. In this particular case the municipality had obtained power to compete with the railway; why, therefore, should not the railway compete in the interest of the public? The Motion was not really honest, because it was certain that it would prevent the railway company running motor 'buses to their own stations without the consent of the municipality, and that consent would never be given. The only proposal of the Amendment was to leave the question to be decided by the Board of Trade.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words 'but that if such consent shall be unreasonably withheld the matter shall be determined by the Board of Trade, whose decision shall be final and binding.'"—(Mr. Tomkinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid this was a matter of principle upon which a representative of the Board of Trade ought to be heard, and as there was no representative of that Department present he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned" put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes 120. (Division List No. 154.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

  Murnaghan, George

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Nuttall, Harry

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Forster, Henry William

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Reddy, M.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Beauhcamp, E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bertram, Julius

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Roche, John (Galway, East.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Clough, W.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lough, Thomas

  Williamson, A.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Younger, George

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cross, Alexander

  Morrell, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ashton and Mr. Rose.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, A.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Harwood, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nicholls, George

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp't

  Hazelton, Richard

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Billson, Alfred

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Boland, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brace, William

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Brigg, John

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Dowd, John

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Grady, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shee, James John

  Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, EGrinst'd

  Jenkins, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Paul, Herbert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyee, Michael

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kelley, George D.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Essex, R. W.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richardson, A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Killop, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rowlands, J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Seddon, J.

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thorne, William

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Snowden, P.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lever and Mr. Summerbell.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Main Question again proposed.
  LORD R. CECILcalled attention to the position in which the House was left upon this question. He thought they had a right to demand the advice of the responsible advisers of His Majesty's Government in regard to railways, and he thought they would do well not to proceed to a final decision until that advice had been given. In order to give the House an opportunity of obtaining that advice he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERexpressed his surprise that nothing had been said from the Government Benches upon this Bill. He reminded hon. Members that similar powers to those which had just been refused to this company had been given to the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, and now, at the dictation of a particular section of the House there had just been a refusal of what had already been given to another company.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does this question arise on the Motion for the adjournment?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving reasons why the matter should be adjourned.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERthought the position taken up by the House on this matter was a most improper one. He was not opposed to municipal undertakings, but in this particular case the hon. Member for Wirral had stated that the rural districts ought to have these facilities. He thought they were now carrying the principle of municipalisation
  902
  too far, and the House had already given municipalities far too much.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing against the Bill. The question is that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERappealed to the Board of Trade to give the House some reason why they had not given the House some direction in this matter.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSon a point of order, pointed out that it was already laid down in the Bill that there was to be no appeal to the Board of Trade, and under those circumstances he wished to know if there was any rule which necessitated the presence of the President of the Board of Trade or any other representative of that D apartment?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERthought the House ought to be told why a difference was made between one railway company and another in the granting of these facilities.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)said it was very desirable that the House should come to a decision upon this matter now. He regretted the absence of any representative of the Board of Trade, but there were a large number of hon. Members present who were quite as able to deal with these matters as the Board of Trade, and it would only be penalising the company to adjourn the debate.
  MR. FORSTERsaid the question which had been brought before the House was whether or not on

  903
  occasions like this when large questions of principle were raised, with which the Board of Trade were intimately associated, a representative of the Board of Trade ought or ought not to be present in order to give to the House the benefit of his guidance. In days not long ago when some hon. Members opposite were in Opposition, whenever they discovered the absence of any representative of a Government department they never lost the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the debate, or of taking advantage of any other opportunity of calling attention to what they called a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. They were now concerned with a large question of principle. They were entitled to receive the opinion and guidance of the responsible Minister concerned, and seeing that there was no representative of the Board of Trade in he House, he thought they might very well agree to the motion for the adjournment.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that it was by the initiative of His Majesty's advisers that these private Bills had been brought up at a time when most hon. Members opposite would like to be in bed. He did not think that any private Bill ought to be dealt with after midnight, and without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case he protested against dealing with private legislation in the absence of the responsible Minister who was paid to be present and attend to this business.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid that although he deprecated the carrying of this Instruction he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be proceeded with.
  LORD TURNOURsaid hon. Members opposite had quite misinterpreted their action in moving the adjournment of the debate. They had not taken this course in regard to this particular Bill, but in order to call attention to the absence of any representative of the Board of Trade when an important principle was being discussed. He thought the argument of the Patronage Secretary that the Bill could be discussed as well in the absence of the representatives of the
  904
  Board of Trade was an extraordinary one. He appealed to the House to support the Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid he did not rise for the purpose of obstructing the Bill. The question raised was an important one, namely, the absence of a representative of the Board of Trade. He was going to support the Motion on that ground alone. In the last Parliament when a Unionist Government was in office he had supported similar Resolutions on the ground of the absence of the Minister in charge. This was an important matter, and they were entitled to the opinion of the Board of Trade upon it. He earnestly urged those who were responsible for the Bill to accept the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, in order that an opportunity might be given for ascertaining the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade upon the matter. If the Bill did not go through to-night, the fault would lie with the representatives of the Board of Trade who were not present to answer the reasonable questions which had been raised.
  MR. W. H. LEVERappealed to hon. Members opposite to allow the Bill to go through to-night. The Bill would go to a Committee upstairs, and he thought the expression of opinion which had taken place as to the absence of the representatives of the Board of Trade would be just as effective as if they were to penalise the measure. The Bill was of importance to the district concerned, and if it was not allowed to go through tonight the fixing of another date for debating the Motion might mean that it could not be passed this session.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he was in favour of the Bill and wished to see it passed, but he thought a representative of the Board of Trade should be present to answer questions. The Patronage Secretary was to blame for this. He was paid a handsome salary to see that Ministers were in their places when they were wanted. It was on account of their absence that the adjournment of the debate had been moved.
  MR. VIVIANappealed to hon. Members opposite to allow the Bill to go through to-night. Important commercial interests were at stake, and the Bill had been discussed on more than one occasion. It was not fair to the company to hang up its interests because of some failure on the part of the Board of Trade to have representatives present.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the adjournment of the debate would not in any way injure the company, or hinder the progress of the Bill. The adjournment of the debate would only delay the discussion of the Instruction for one night. To-morrow night the
  House would get the opinion of the Board of Trade as to whether it was advisable to give such an Instruction to the Committee.
  MR. W. H. LEVERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 153. (Division List, No. 155.)

  AYES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beaucham p, E.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Shackleton, David James

  Bertram, Julius

  Forster, Henry William

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gill, A. H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Williamson, A.

  Clough, W.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Robert Cecil and Colonel

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Lockwood.

  Cross, Alexander

  Renton, Major Leslie

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dillon, John

  Hudson, Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jenkins, J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Essex, R. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Astbury, John Meir

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kelley, George D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ffrench, T. R.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Beale, W. P.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Ginnell, L.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Billson, Alfred

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Boland, John

  Gulland, John W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brace, William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lough, Thomas

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Brodie, H. C.

  Haslam, Lewis'(Monmouth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Crae, George

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Killop, W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hogan, Michael

  Meager, Michael

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hooper, A. G.

  Mond, A.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Radford, G. H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Nicholls, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Reddy, M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Vivian, Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Richardson, A.

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Dowd, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Grady, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Robinson, S.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Malley, William

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Paul, Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Clevland)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Seddon, J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Shpiman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Lever and Mr. Summerbcll

  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

  MR. VIVIANclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 35. (Division List, No. 156.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Killop, W.

  Anisworth, John Stirling

  Ginnell, L.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston

  Allen, Charles P, (Stroud)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Marnham, F, J.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Gulland, John W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mond, A.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harwood. George

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Hazelton, Richard

  Murnaghan, George

  Billson, Alfred

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Boland, John

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brigg, John

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Dowd, John

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Grady, J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Hare, Patrick

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Malley, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneation)

  O'Shee, James John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Paul, Herbert

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Gal way)

  Kelley, George D.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Dillon, John

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Radford, G. H.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Maurice

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

  Richardson, A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfrd

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Patrick (Heath, North)

  Robinson, S.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rose, Charles Day

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Seddon, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Shaekleton, David James

  Walsh, Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Lever and Mr. Summerbell.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)]

  Bertram, Julius

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Clough, W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Williamson, A.

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

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

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lupton, Arnold

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS TOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Cross, Alexander

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Watson Rutherford and

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Reddy, M.

  Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

  Main Question put accordingly.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, that they shall provide that the Wirral Railway Company shall not run any omnibus in any city, borough, or other urban district provided with a system of tramways or omnibuses except with the consent of the local authority or local authorities, as the case may be, working such tramways or omnibuses.—(Mr. William Lever.)

  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
  Order for the House to be again put into Committee read.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that before any hon. Member objected he should like to make a statement. The hon. Member for Loughboro had asked him to put in a proviso excluding perforated music from the operation of the Bill, and he had consented to do so. He had also consented that if the House would give him that stage that night to give further consideration to any suggested Amendments.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. CALDWELLin the Chair.
  Clause 1:—
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)moved an Amendment standing in the name of the Home Secretary.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the word 'music' and insert the words 'copies of any musical work, or has in his possession any plates for the purpose of printing or reproducing pirated copies of any musical work'."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'music' stand part of the clause."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he accepted the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'copies of any musical work, or has in his possession any plates for the purpose of printing or reproducing pirated copies of any musical work' be there inserted."
  MR. LUPTONthought the Bill ought to be discussed. The matter was of considerable importance, and he did not understand why it should be passed through without debate.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether it was in order for an hon. Member to make a speech at this period of the evening.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELappealed to the hon. Member to allow the Bill to proceed. The Government were very anxious that it should pass with necessary Amendments.
  MR. LUPTONsaid he thought the Bill was a highly discreditable one for the Government to pass.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Amendment he had accepted was purely of a verbal character and the hon. Gentleman's point could be raised on the next Amendment when he would endeavour to meet him.
  MR. LUPTONsaid he was perfectly willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss the measure with him, but he had already made one or two suggestions with which the hon. Gentleman had not agreed. He was anxious to defend the rights of all, the music publisher, the composer, the public, and the agents.
  MR. SOARESappealed to the hon. Member to let the Bill go through this stage.
  MR. LUPTONsaid if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wanted him to withdraw his opposition he would meet him and discuss the matter and try and make the Bill one that would be a credit to the House.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member object to its proceeding or not?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORobjected most strongly to such a Question being put from the Chair.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsad I was a perfectly proper Question to ask and was a question frequently asked by Mr. Speaker. If there was any objection, discussion must end.
  MR. LUPTONstated that he did object to proceeding with the Bill, and that he had said so at the opening of his remarks and all along.
  And, it being after Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the
  912
  Deputy-Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  On Mr. SPEAKER taking the Chair—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he wished to call attention to a question of order which I had just arisen. An hon. Member opposite was suggesting some reason why the Bill under discussion should be more care fully considered, and he (Mr. O'Connor) was prepared to answer the hon. Member I when the hon. Gentleman occupying the I Chair for the moment on his own initiative asked the hon. Member whether he objected to the progress of the Bill or not, practically putting the suggestion into the mouth of the hon. Member.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)asked, before Mr. Speaker replied, whether it was in order for the Chairman to leave the Chair without progress being reported.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he was not a Court of Appeal from either the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Committees. He was quite sure the Deputy-Chairman acted impartially when in the Chair. What he understood the proper practice to be was that after eleven o'clock opposed business could not be taken. The Question was, was the Bill opposed or not. If an hon. Member said he opposed, the Bill could not proceed. He believed he had been guilty himself of putting the Question, "Do you object?"
  Committee report Progress. To sit again this day.

  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of Inclosures of common land made under the Inclosures Acts from 1845 to 1899 in the County of Cumberland; (2) list of parishes within which such lands are wholly or partly situate; (3) total acreage of such Inclosures; (4) average acreage of such Inclosures."—(Mr. Fullerton.)
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at three minutes after One o'clock.