Commons Sitting of 23 May 1906

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Sutton District Water Bill. Read a second time and committed.
Cork City Railways and Works Bill. Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALKS) BILL.
  Petition against: from Kings Cliffe; Melbourne; and St. Osyth; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petition against alteration of Law: from Compton Dundon (two); Coundon (two); East Keal; Esher; Finborough; Fretherne; Great Weldon and Little Weldon; Heanse; Hebden Bridge; Heywood (two); Ickenham; Lewes; Macclesfield; Milton (two); Monkwearmouth; Narberth (two); Newmarket; Pokesdown (two); Poplar; Prestwold cum Hoton; Stretford; West Bromwich; Wood Top; Shelfanger and Winfarthing; Sparsholt; Swanmore (two); and, Thornhaugh cum Wansford; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition of the Metropolitan Radical Federation, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Driffield, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Return of Advances made under The Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of January 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Eleventh Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (SIGHT TESTS).
  Copy presented, of Report to the secretary of the Board of Trade upon the Sight Tests used in the Mercantile Marine for the year ended 31st December, 1905 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Temporary Laws. Register of Temporary Laws for the First Session, Twenty-eighth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pursuant to the Report of the select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866; to be printed. [No. 180.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Ripon Post Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Ripon at the removal of the post office from the Market Place, and of the fact that the public office in the new building is a low and badly ventilated place; and whether he proposes to take any stops to alter this state of things.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware that there is any general dissatisfaction in Ripon at the removal of the post office from the market place.

  1247
  I understand that the ventilation of the public office is not defective. The room contains three windows, all of which can be opened, and there is a constant current of fresh air through the swing doors used by the public.

  Lending of Carts by Mounted Rural Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that mounted rural postmen are frequently called upon to lend their carts to substitutes during their periods of holiday leave, and whether he will put a stop to this practice, seeing that the Post Office will not accept any responsibility for accidents due to the negligence of the substitute, and that holiday periods are the only convenient times in which rural postmen may have their carts overhauled and cleaned so as to comply with the regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is sometimes convenient that a mounted rural postman on holiday leave should lend his cart to his substitute, and I see no reason to alter the practice. No difficulty arises as regards overhauling and cleaning the carts. Any claims in respect of accidents receive equitable consideration, and compensation is awarded when justified by the circumstances.

  Purchase of Grazing Farm at Mile Hill, County Mayo.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board have taken any steps to purchase, from the Land Judge's Court, a grazing farm situate at Mile Hill, adjacent to the town of Ballinrobe, in the county of Mayo, the lease of which is about to expire, and which is at present let for grazing purposes to a shopkeeper named May, who resides in Ballinrobe, with a view to having it split up for the purpose of relieving congestion or creating new holdings on which some young men might be planted who have now to leave the country in search of a livelihood.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the property referred to, but if the owner's name be furnished to them they will
  1248
  make further inquiries. The Congested Districts Board have taken no steps to purchase the property.

  Withdrawals of Naval Cadets.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the secretary to the Admiralty having regard to the fact that out of 588 cadets who have been selected and passed by the Board of Admiralty for training at the Royal Naval College, Osborne, as many as forty-three have been withdrawn from the college on account of their inability to show satisfactory progress in training, will he state the names of the gentlemen constituting the Admiralty Board of Examiners and their qualifications for the work, especially having regard to the fact that under the old system of examination by the Civil Service Commission it was never necessary to withdraw cadets from their course of training on the score of inability to show progress; and will he state whether there is any reason why the Civil Service Commission should not conduct the whole of the entrance examinations for naval cadetships as formerly.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The examination referred to in the Question is conducted by the Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, whose qualifications for the work of examining young boys have been recognised by the authorities of a largo number of secondary schools, The Admiralty are not aware of the names of the gentlemen employed by the Board as examiners; they vary from time to time. It is not the fact that it was never necessary that cadets should be withdrawn from the "Britannia" for failure to make satisfactory progress. The office of examining the candidates for cadetships under the new system was transferred to the Oxford and Cambridge Board because the Civil Service Commissioners did not consider that the examination of young boys, such as these entered at Osborne, properly came within the scope of their administration.

  Extra Police at Ballymaclune.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any reason for the extra police hut at Ballymaclune, county Clare, which is within a mile or two of Quin police

  1249
  barrack; and whether the district is not froe from all crime.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that the police hut referred to, which is about two miles from Quinn police station, is deemed to be still needed for the peace of the district. It is happily the fact that the locality is now peaceful, but it is not considered certain that it would continue to be so if the police were withdrawn.

  Appointment of Mr. Michael Hobbs as Bate Collector at Ballinasloe.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by the County Council of Galway at their mooting on the 15th ultimo, wherein they request the Local Government Board to send, before the annual mooting to be held in June, a definite reply to their resolution of April 26th, 1906, re, the appointment of Mr. Hobbs as rate collector for Ballinasloe district; and whether, in view of the fact that the case is eminently one in which the Local Government Board may exercise its discretion, he will take steps to see that the appointment of Mr. Michael Hobbs is sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the very full reply which I gave to the Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 16th instant,†

  Uneconomic Holdings at Roo.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received a communication from a large body of tenants, residing at Roo, tenants or annuitants to the Land Commmission, pointing out that their holdings were entirely uneconomic, and asking the Commissioners to use their friendly offices with Mr. Taylor, of Castle Taylor, Gort, for the purpose of having their small holdings enlarged out of the untenanted lands in his possession in the neighbourhood; whether this communication was forwarded to the Commissioners on April 4th; and will he state when a reply may be expected.
  † See Col. 455.
  1250
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the communication referred to. The Commissioners have made a provisional otter for the purchase of 600 acres of untenanted land on the estate referred to, and if they should acquire the land, the application of the tenants referred to will be considered when the land is being divided.

  Petition of Farmers on the O'Hara Estate.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a petition from a number of small farmers adjoining the O'Hara Estate at Raheen, near Gort, county Galway; whether the Commissioners have investigated the matter; and will he state what steps have been taken to carry out the prayer of the petition.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform mo that they cannot identify the matter from the information in the Question.

  The Home Government and Immigration in Australasia.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement by Mr. Seddon that communications which have passed between the Colonial Office and the Australasian Governments on the question of Australasian alien legislation show a tendency on the part of the British Government to question the right of the Austalasian Governments to control immigration; whether any communications of this character have come from the British Government; and whether it will be freely recognised by the Colonial Office that Australasia is fully entitled to legislate as may seem proper to Australasians on the question of immigration.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The secretary of State's attention has been drawn to Press reports of statements by Mr. Seddon to the effect referred to by the hon. Member, but if these reports are correct Mr. Seddon is mistaken in supposing that the secretary of State is pursuing a policy on the subject of immigration into Australasia which differs in the smallest degree from that outlined

  1251
  in the proceedings of the Colonial Conference of 1897, and consistently observed both by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and Mr. Lyttleton. The secretary of State has every reason to believe that the Australasian Governments fully recognise that the question of immigration has a direct bearing on the external relations of those Colonies, and he has no doubt that their Governments will continue in the future, as they have done in the past, to give full weight to the views of His Majesty's Government.

  Canadian Emigration Misrepresentation.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a communication from Mr. Aylesworth, the Canadian Minister of Labour, relative to the misrepresentations made for the purpose of inducing emigration to Canada; whether his attention has been drawn to the debate in the Canadian House of Commons, in which the general desire was expressed that the Imperial Government should pass a law penalising such misrepresentations; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Yes, Sir. Such a communication has been received. A Report of the debate referred to in the second part of the Question has not yet reached the secretary of State, but the Canadian Government have officially suggested Imperial legislation to prevent false representations in this country to induce or deter emigration to Canada. This suggestion is now engaging the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. It is proposed to publish the correspondence with the Canadian Government.

  Irish Imports and Exports.
  MR. THOMAS O'DOMNELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can issue annually a Report, giving particulars as to value, & c., of the various imports and exports of Ireland in each year.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) There is no objection to publishing an Annual Return if desired, showing the direct trade of Ireland with places abroad. If, however, it is desired to include trade between
  1252
  Ireland and Great Britain, I regret that the information is not available. I understand that the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction intend to publish some information as to the cross-channel trade which they have procured through harbour and port authorities, but that this relates to quantities only.

  Roscommon Local Government Election
  MR. HAYDENTo ask the secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the demand made by the Treasury on the County Council of Roscommon for the payment of a sum of £500, the expenses alleged to be incurred in connection with the trial of a local government election petition; whether he will state how this sum is made up, giving the items, and the principal or scale on which the payments were calculated; on what area the charge is made payable, and who fixed the area, and upon whose certificate the charge is sanctioned; and whether he is aware that the county council has made a protest against the payment of this demand, in view of the extraordinary length of the inquiry; and whether he proposes to take any notice of this protest.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Treasury has paid the sum of £544 13s. 4d. to the officers engaged on the trial of a petition arising out of an election to the Roscommon County Council.
  The amount is made up of the following payments, viz.,:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  To the Commissioner who tried the petition

  252

  0

  0

  To the registrar

  85

  14

  10

  To the crier

  26

  16

  7

  To the shorthand writer

  117

  1

  11

  To the representative of the Attorney-General

  63

  0

  0

  Total

  £544

  13

  4

  The payments were calculated according to the scale prescribed by the Judges, with the approval of the Treasury, under Section 101 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. The money is advanced by the Treasury upon the certificate of the Commissioner who tried the petition as to the length of time occupied, and is

  1253
  repayable by the county council, out of the county fund or rate, under the above-mentioned Section 101, as applied by Section 75 of The Local Government Act, 1888, and Section 104 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. I am not aware that the county council has made any protest, but I may say that the Government has no option whatever in the matter nor any power of regulating the length of the inquiry.

  Half-penny Postage Regulations.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that unsealed documents which for many years have passed under the half-penny postage are now charged as being in the nature of a letter; and whether any fresh instructions authorising such change have been issued under his authority.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There has been no recent restrictive alteration in the regulations governing the half-penny post. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that in connection with the postal reforms agreed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and mentioned in the Budget, I am about to of the half-penny extend the operation rate.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will give a reference to any statutory provision or judicial decision of an Appeal Court restricting the Treasury and the Estates Commissioners in sales within the zones, under the Land Act of 1903, to the consideration of the gross security only, and precluding consideration of the fact that this gross security comprises the joint property of the seller and buyer, the value of whose shares has been separately ascertained; will he say where the obstacle arises to having this important question determined; which docs the obstacle affect, the Treasury or the Estates Commissioners; and will the Department not affected move to have the question determined.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The hon. Member will find in Section 1 of The Land Act, 1903, the statutory provisions which make the sanctioning of advances
  1254
  under the Land Purchase Acts mandatory in certain cases. There is no obstacle to any question of law which arises in the case of sales being determined by the Judicial Commissioner or the Court of Appeal.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland has the question been argued before and decided by the Court of Appeal in Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners are bound to advance to a landlord selling holdings within the zones a price and a bonus calculated upon the entire value of property belonging to landlord and tenants jointly, even after they have ascertained the separate value of the respective shares, al though the tenants' share has not been sold to them, it being already their own property.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I am not aware that any case such as is suggested in the Question has been argued in, or decided by, the Court of Appeal.

  The Financial Condition of Indian Popula- tion
  MR.LUPTON: To ask the secretary of State for India if he is aware that the average income of the Native inhabitants of British India does not exceed ¾d, per head per day; and that over a very large area land is impoverished for want of manure, owing to the poverty of the cultivators, who cannot afford to buy stock and have to borrow money at ruinous prices of interest to pay rents and taxes; and what steps, if any, he is taking to reduce the military expenditure so that he may reduce the taxes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am afraid that it would be hopeless for mo to attempt in a reply to a Question to deal with the issues involving matters of such enormous controversy raised by the hon. Member. The military expenditure of India is a subject that is receiving my careful attention. Meanwhile I may point out that in three out of the last four Budgets (including the one which will shortly be discussed in this House), important reductions have been made in expenditure in India, and large sums have recently been devoted to measures for agricultural improvement and instruction.

  Tibetan Indemnity.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the secretary of State for India when he expects to be in a position to give information regarding the payment of the first instalment of the Tibetan indemnity.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) As I stated on the 9th instant, † early payment of the first instalment of the indemnity may be looked for. But I have not yet heard that the payment has been made.

  Althone Rifle Range—Acquisition of Lands.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the Court of Inquiry held in Athlone in August, 1903, in regard to the value of lands taken for a rifle range adjoining that town Patrick Dignan was awarded £5, Luke Dignan £5, Mr. Heslin,£10, and two brothers named Lennon £160 each; whether these sums have been paid; and, if not, will he explain the delay in carrying out the decisions of the Court in these cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) the question of the validity of these claims is at present the subject of judicial proceedings pending before The Master of the Rolls.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the lands of Catherine Morgan, Thomas Herrickan, and Bridget Rowan, in the townlands of Barrymore and Barrybeg, near Athlone, in the county Roscommon, were taken by the military authorities about three years ago in connection with the rifle range extension at Athlone, whether he is aware that the cases of these tenants were not heard at the arbitration inquiry held in Athlone in August 1903; whether any compensation has been given or offered to these tenants: and, if not, whether he would explain under what authority their lands have been taken from them without compensation or inquiry as to value.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No lands were taken from the persons mentioned. They were tenants on the estate of two owners whoso lands were taken, but although claiming certain rights they did not proceed with their claims.
  † See(4) Debates, clvi., 1299.

  New Forest as a Training Ground—Dis turbance of Cattle and Lawns.
  SIR ROBERT HOBAHT: To ask the secretary of State for War whether during the coming military training of troops in the New Forest, instructions will be given to the military authorities to respect the rights of the Mew Forest commoners, to see that there is as little disturbance as possible of ponies and cattle, that the lawns are not cut up, and that all precautions against forest fires are taken by the troops; and further, if he also state the positions in the Now Forest that will be occupied, and for how long a period?
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Southern Command will give full instructions to the troops in respect of the points raised in the Question, and I have every hope that the troops will this year be not less careful than the troops who have been there previously. The Royal Marino Artillery will be there between May and September, two Volunteer brigades between the 4th and 12th August, and a third brigade between the 4th and 18th August. All will camp on private property, but we have not yet hoard from the General Officer Commanding the exact positions of the camps.

  Heavy Military Traffic on Wicklow Roads
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the secretary of State for War if he has received any communications from the Wicklow County Council pointing out the damage done to roads, culverts and bridges by the heavy military traffic passing to and from the Artillery camp in the glen of Imaal, and asking for compensation; and if he can now state what action he intends taking in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The negotiations with the Wicklow County Council in regard to the by-laws for the Artillery range and the damage to the road leading thereto have, I regret to say, reached a deadlock owing to certain conditions demanded by the council. I am advised that these conditions are illegal. The otter made to the council is still open.

  Imperial Ordnance Stores in Natal.
  MR. D. DAVIES: To ask the secretary of State for War

  1257
  if he will inform the House as to the nature and quantity of ordnance stores now in Natal belonging to the Imperial Government; and whether, in view of the delay involved in the transport of new military equipment from this country for the colonial forces, the Imperial Government has made any offer of such stores to the Natal Government; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) the Imperial Army ordnance depots in Natal have been cleared of stores, except the Army clothing store at Pietermaritzburg. Instructions have been sent to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in South Africa to meet as far as possible any indent on Imperial ordnance and clothing stores made by the Government of Natal, and it is understood that that Government has boon so informed by their Agent-General.

  Smoke Nuisance from Woolwich Arsenal
  MR. G. A. HARDY: To ask the secretary of State for War whether he is aware that nuisance is caused throughout an extensive and thickly populated district of London by the volumes of smoke poured out of the chimneys of Woolwich Arsenal notwithstanding protests of the Woolwich Borough Council and die London County Council; that whilst at other works throughout the county, manufacturers have been compelled to adopt preventive measures, no effective measures have been adopted at the Royal Arsenal; that the recent Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration urged the importance of strictly enforcing the law against smoke nuisance, but that local authorities are seriously hampered in suppressing smoke nuisance owing to the exemption of Government works from statutory regulation; and whether he will give instructions for the adoption at Woolwich Arsenal of effective means for permanently minimising the nuisance from smoke.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The matter is one which has received and is receiving constant and careful attention, and mechanical and other means for prevention are being tried. Improvement has been made of late and efforts will be continued to effect still further improvement.

  Removal of Sunken Bock from Gortnasate Harbour.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Board of Works has been called to the necessity of removing a further portion of the sunken rock in the harbour of Gortnasate, county Donegal; and whether the y will cause the removal of so much as may be required to render the harbour safe, both for fishing boats and trading steamers.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the intention is to cut away this rock to a depth of six feet below low water. This will enable small boats to pass over it into the small boat harbour at all states of the tide. I understand that luggers do not use the boat harbour and that the reef will not interfere with their use of the new pier.

  Sale of the Marquess of Waterford's Estate.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the case of the sale of the estate of the Marquess of Waterford in the barony of Gautier, county Waterford, which is mainly agricultural, the Estates Commissioners will decline to deem the agricultural portion of the estate to be an estate, in view of the attempted exclusion of the remaining tenants living in the villages of Dunmore East and Passage East from the sale, though they have urged their willingness to buy.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) the Estate's Commissioners inform me that they will in due course consider the question of the exclusion of the villages mentioned from the sale of this estate.

  Evicted Tenants on the Lindsay Estate.
  MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the case of the estate of P. Lindsay, county Tipperary, the Estates Commissioners have decided to ignore the claim of Mrs. Cantwell Clonwalsh, an evicted tenant, to be reinstated in her former holding, though the same is in the possession of the vendor of the estate; if not, whether they will take immediate steps to secure her restoration.

  1259
  Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have approached the owner of the estate referred to in connection with the applications of Mrs. Cantwell and three other evicted tenants, but the owner is not prepared to part with the lands in question. The question of providing the evicted tenants with other holdings will be considered by the Commissioners if they should acquire untenanted land in the neighbourhood.

  Irish Local Taxation Account—Amount to Credit County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what sum stood to the credit of county Down, on 31st March, 1902, in the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, as the produce of the accumulation of Exchequer contribution provided under Section 5 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, to be applied towards the cost of providing cottages under the Labourers Acts; what annual sums accrued to the credit of the same county on 31st March in the years of 1903, 1904, 1905, and

  Distribution.

  Rural District.

  Paid to County Council.

  Paid to Commissioners of Public Works.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  Banbridge

  24

  360

  8

  1

  Downpatrick

  83

  —

  Kilkeel

  22

  330

  7

  5

  Moira

  201

  1,000

  0

  0

  Newtownards

  262

  3,934

  8

  0

  The total amount paid, therefore, in the last there distributions in favour of rural districts in county Down is £18,138 18s., and the reserve now standing to the credit of the county is £3,264 15s. 5d.

  Stamp Duty on Irish Land Purchase Agreements.
  MR. LIDDELLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1260
  1906, respectively; what payments have been made out of this grant, and what amount to each council or other body; and what balance now remains to the credit of the county.
  {Answered by Mr. Bryce.) the total amount carried forward on 31st March, 1902, was £12,690 11s. 1d. 1902–3. Share of county, £2,026 as. 4d. Nothing distributed. 1903–4. Share of county, £2,027 13s. 8d. This amount was alloted to Moira Rural District, the the only qualified district, £29 being paid to the county council on behalf of the rural district council, and £1,998 13s. 8d. to the Commissioners of Public Works on foot of loans. 1904–5. Share of county, £2,027 13s. 8d., together with a sum of £614 11s. 1d., unissued balance of county percentage. Sums of £59 and £147 were paid to the county council on behalf of I Downpatrick and Moira, respectively, further amounts of £4,313 3s. 3d., and £5,374 17s. 7d. being paid to the Commissioners of Public Works in reduction of the indebtness of these respective districts under the Labourers Acts, 1905-6. Share of county, £2,010 18s. 7d.
  of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the fact that on a sale of a holding purchased under the Irish Land Purchase Act, stamp duty has to be paid on the conveyance not only on the purchase money paid by the purchaser to the registered owner, but also on the amount of the advance made by the Land Commission for the original purchase from the landlord; and whether, in the interests of free sale of small

  1261
  freeholds, he will take steps by legislation, if necessary, to ensure the stamp duty being restricted to the purchase price.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have nothing to add to the Answers which I gave to similiar Questions on the 9th instant and March 28th last.†
  † See (4) Debates,clvi., 1293; cliv., 1288.

  Grant for Development of Irish Flax Industry.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of the grant for technical instruction in Ireland is devoted to the development and improvement of the flax industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) An annual sum of £3,000 is expended in connection with the improvement of the flax industry out of funds sot apart for agriculture (not technical instruction). This expenditure is made partly through county committees and partly by the Department directly. The scheme to which the sum is devoted will be found in the Department's Fifth Annual Report, page 174.

  Fees of Public Vaccinators.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has power of himself to reduce the fees paid to public vaccinators, without having to appeal to Parliament or any other authority; and, if so, will he arrange for such reduction.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board are empowered in their own discretion to make rules and regulations with respect to the remuneration of public vaccinators. I am giving consideration to the regulations on this subject.

  Weighers at the Felling Colliery.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the Felling Colliery, in the county of Durham, the manager is employing other workmen than the ordinary weigher to test the weighing machine; and whether he will I inquire into the matter with a view to prevent a recurrence of the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have made inquiry into the matter, and
  1262
  am informed that in consequence of some trouble having been experienced in keeping the machine in order, and of its accuracy being questioned by the Inspector of Weights and Measures, the manager of the mine instructed the "heap inspector," or surface foreman, to test the machine occasionally. There is nothing in the Act to prevent this being done; it is left open to the management of the mine to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the weighing machines in whatever way it thinks fit. The only statutory requirement in the matter is that facilities for examining and testing the weighing machines are to be given to the check-weigher, and this I understand is done. I have no power to interfere in the matter.

  The Police Commission—Evidence of Monsieur et Madame d'Angely.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department if steps have been taken to ensure the attendance and evidence on oath before the Police Commission of the complainants known as Monsieur et Madame d'Angely.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No steps can be taken for this purpose until the Bill conferring powers on the Commission has received the Royal Assent, but if these persons are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission it is obvious that no steps can be taken to compel their appearance.

  The Police Commission and the Police
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department if the police will be entitled to be represented by counsel before the Royal Commission; and, further, if they will be entitled to defend themselves against the charges which have been brought against them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Commission will have power to permit the police to be represented by counsel. I am confident that they will allow them full opportunity to defend themselves against the charges which have been made.

  Winton Post Office, Bournemouth.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state

  1263
  what emoluments are considered necessary for the conversion of a sub-postmaster-ship to an office on the head establishment; and whether, in view of the prospective growth of Winton, Bournemouth, he will consider the advisability of placing that office on an established scale.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question of the conversion of an ordinary sub-postmastership into an office paid on the head office system is not decided solely on the amount of the emoluments. If the business of the post office at Winton, Bournemouth, increases as considerably as the hon. Member seems to expect, the question of placing the office on the head office system will be again considered.

  Extension of Hours- Irish Licensed Hotels
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state with whom rests the discretion to grant occasional or conditional licences for extension of hours in hotels in provincial towns in Ireland; and whether, in view of the uncertainty at present prevailing, he will issue a circular setting forth whether a permit from a justice of the peace in the petty sessions district will be accepted by the authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) Exemption orders, in respect of premises already licensed, enabling them to be kept open (with some limitations) during prohibited hours may be issued by two or more justices of the peace in petty sessions. Occasional licences, permitting the owners of licensed promises to sell at other places than the licensed premises, for limited times, may be issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with the consent in writing of one justice of the peace usually acting at the petty sessions for the district within which the place of sale is situated. I see no reason for issuing a circular explaining the law, which can be easily ascertained by consulting any text book on the Licensing Acts.

  The United States and the Importation of Hay and Straw from the Argentina.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the
  1264
  President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the United States has prohibited the importation into that country of hay and straw from Argentina, because of the risk of infection from foot-and-mouth disease; and whether a similar precaution will be taken in this country in the case of all countries where any infectious disease is known to exist.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have no information that the United States have prohibited the importation of hay or straw from Argentina, and we do not consider that such action is necessary in this country. The evidence of actual danger is not clear, and the inconvenience to the trades concerned would be out of proportion to the risk involved. The Foreign Animals Order of 1903 provides for the seizure, detention, or destruction of hay or straw in specific cases in which there is reason to believe that there is a danger of the introduction of disease thereby.

  Schools Transferred under the Elementary Education Act, 1870.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of voluntary schools, and also the number of school places therein, which have been transferred to or taken over by the authorities for the time being for elementary education since the passing of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, distinguishing the respective denominations to which, before transfer, such schools belonged.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1st May to a Question on this subject from the hon. Member for Cricklade.† I have no information beyond what was then given.
  † See (4) Debates, clvi., 411.

  Proposed Transfer of Summer Head quarters of the Punjab Government.
  MR. T. DAVIES: To ask the secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arrived at as to the proposed transfer of the summer headquarters of the Punjab Government from Simla to Dalhousie.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley) The question as to the proposed transfer is still under consideration.

  Meat Contracts for Troops in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the late Government arranged that native meat should lie supplied for five days in the week to troops stationed in Ireland; whether he is aware that the paupers and lunatics are fed upon home produce; whether he can state the reasons which caused the withdrawal of the first meat contract tender issued for Ireland, and the substitution of the word home-killed instead of home-bred; and whether it is usual to make such a change without consultation or notice to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) As regards the first paragraph, no exceptional arrangement was made for Ireland by the late Government. The tender-forms are the same for all parts of the United Kingdom. As regards the second paragraph, the War Office has no knowledge of this subject. As regards the third paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 14th May.† As regards the last paragraph, the reply is in the affirmative.
  † See Col. 172.

  Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the majority voting in favour of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, he will enable an arrangement to be made to resume discussion in order to send the Bill to the Grand Committee on Law, or whether the Government will introduce a measure this session to carry out the opinion of the House and the demand for immediate legislation by Irish elective bodies upon this question.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bunnerman.) The sympathy entertained by the Government with some of the provisions of this Bill was expressed in debate last Friday, but in the present state of public business I fear that it is impossible to make any promise to give Government time to any private Member's Bill.

  Irish Land Purchase The Blake Foster Case
  MR. GINNELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in
  1266
  considering financial operations under the Irish Land Act of 1903, his attention has been called to the decision in the Blake-Foster case, which was to the effect that al though most of the tenancies were judicial and the prices within the zones, and al though landlords and tenants were represented in Court in support of the agreements, the Estates Commissioners had power to disallow the price, on the ground of excessive amount, and had properly exercised that power.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The decision referred to was to the effect that the Estates Commissioners may refuse to declare lands hold under judicial tenancies to be an estate for the purposes of the Irish Land Act, 1903, upon the ground merely that the security for the advances applied for is, in their opinion, insufficient.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Canadian Mail Service.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any, and, if so, what portion of the cost of conveyance of mails to and from Canada is homo by this country.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Mr. CHUCRHILL): I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by the Postmaster-General to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Galway on the 12th of March last.‡
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cliii., 873
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Is the hon Gentleman aware that for thirty years the steamers in this service have called at Moville or some other Irish port in order to land or receive mails, but that under the new contract no Irish port is to be called at?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

    Australasian Alien Legislation.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of

    1267
    State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement by Mr. Seddon, that communications which have passed between the Colonial Office and the Australasian Governments on the question of Australasian alien legislation show a tendency on the part of the British Government to question the right of the Australian Governments to control immigration; whether any communications of this character have come from the British Government; and whether it will be freely recognised by the Colonial Office that Australasia is fully entitled to legislate as may seem proper to Australasians on the question of immigration.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. CHURCHILL): the secretary of State's attention has been drawn to Press reports of statements by Mr. Seddon to the effect referred to by the hon. Member; but if these reports are correct Mr. Seddon is mistaken in supposing that the secretary of State is pursuing a policy on the subject of immigration into Australasia which differs in the smallest degree from that outlined in the proceedings of the Colonial Conference of 1897, and consistently observed both by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and Mr. Lyttelton. The secretary of State has every reason to believe that the Australasian Governments fully recognise that the question of immigration has a direct bearing on the external relations of these Colonies, and he has no doubt that their Governments will continue in the future, as they have done in the past, to give full weight to the views of His Majesty's Government.

    Chinese Crime in the Transvaal.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the danger to the lives and property of British subjects in the Transvaal caused by the crimes of the Chinese coolies imported for the gold mines, and the admitted inability of the Transvaal Government to maintain law and order, His Majesty's Government will appeal to the mining companies not to import more Chinese coolies into the Colony.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. CHURCHILL): The secretary of State does not accept the statement that the Transvaal Government are unable to maintain law and
    1268
    order. On the contrary, Lord Selborne has telegraphed that he hopes to effect a complete cure.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Is the hon. Member aware that Lord Selborne stated that, owing to the failure of the police to protect subjects from the outrages of the coolies, it would be necessary to serve out rifles to every white man within a radius of ten miles of the Rand? Is that maintaining law and order?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The statement I have read out is Lord Selborne's most recent declaration.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the increasing number of outrages by Chinese coolies in the Transvaal, His Majesty's Government will consider the wisdom of repeating the suggestion made to the High Commissioner by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, that it would be good policy for the mine-owners voluntarily to stop importation for the next six months.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. CHURCHILL): The importation under the licences valid at the time His Majesty's Government assumed office and under which alone further importation was permitted to take place are believed to be now nearly exhausted, and the secretary of State does not therefore think that the suggestion of the hon. Member could have any practical effect.
    MR. BYLES: How many licences are there outstanding?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give the exact figures.

    Great Britain and China.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to be in a position to lay upon the Table the terms of the Convention between Great Britain and China which was signed at Pekin on April 27th; and whether he proposes to present Papers on the subject.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): Provision is made in the Convention for the exchange of ratification

    1269
    within three months of signature, and as soon as it is ratified the Convention will be presented to Parliament. It docs not seem necessary to lay any other Papers on the subject.

    The Congo
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Woodstock Division of Oxfordshire I beg to ask the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the evidence laid before the Congo Commission of Inquiry, which is in the possession of His Majesty's Government, is not in the hands of Members of this House, and, further, that Consul Mackie was specially instructed to attend the sittings of the Commission, His Majesty's Government will reconsider their refusal and make this evidence accessible to Members.
    MR. MCKEAN: Before answering the Question, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House whether it is not the fact that the non-publication of the evidence laid before the Congo Com mission of Inquiry was due to the express wish of that Commission itself, as recorded in its Report, and consequently that the withholding of this evidence is in no way due to the action of the Congo Government?
    MR. T. M. HEALY, on a point of order, asked whether this Question, affecting a Sovereign State over which this country had no control whatever, was the kind of (Question that ought to be put in the House.
    MR..J. WARD: Considering what has already been sanctioned I with regard to the suppression of the Natal rebellion, has this country any justification for interfering?
    MR. SPEAKER: We do occasionally have Questions relating to affairs of another Sovereign State put in this House. For instance, Questions relating to Turkey and Macedonia are constantly put. Therefore I cannot rule the Question out of order.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): I cannot answer the Supplementary Questions without notice. Mr. Mackie was not able to join the Commis-
    1270
    sion until February 4th, 1905, and was consequently not present at any of the sittings held in the districts which had boon the scene of the abuses reported to the late Government. His report of the evidence taken at the three sittings at which he was present subsequent to that date does not contain information of sufficient importance to justify its publication by itself.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the Government will now furnish to the Belgian Government an explanation of its conduct in the Transvaal.

    Rev. E. Stannard's Case.
    MR..J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that one of the charges brought against the Reverend Edgar Stannard in the Upper Congo is that of having referred in a published letter to the evidence laid before the Congo Commission of Inquiry regarding the administration of the official by whom Mr. Stannard is now being prosecuted; and if His Majesty's Government will ensure that that evidence, publicly tendered in open Court, will be accessible to Mr. Stannard for his defence?
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Papers which I have received on the subject do not enable me to give a definite opinion as to the exact nature of the charges brought against Mr. Stannard. It is not in the power of His Majesty's Government to ensure that the evidence referred to in the latter part of the Question shall be accessible to Mr. Stannard, but if Vice-Consul Armstrong reports that Mr. Stannard is prejudiced in his trial by inability to obtain access to documents which are in the possession of the prosecution, representations will at once be addressed to the Congo Government.

    Hague Conference.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the meeting of the second Hague Conference has been definitely postponed till 1907.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): The date has not been definitely postponed till 1907, but it is not fixed yet.

    Unemployed Workmen's Act Amendment Bill.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in the amended Unemployed Workmen's Act, promised in the King's Speech this year, it is intended to incorporate provisions for afforestation, sea coast erosion, reclamation of waste lands, improvement of the port and docks of London, the acquirement of land for farm colony purposes, and the co-ordination of the relief works of local authorities; and further, whether provisions will be incorporated in the amending Bill to make a charge on the National Exchequer for the purposes named.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I am afraid that I cannot give any intimation as to what the provisions of the Bill will be.

    Vaccination Statistics.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the clerks to health authorities in England and Wales carry out the duty imposed on them by Section 8 of the Vaccination Act, 1898, and register the condition as to vaccination of all small-pox patients treated in hospitals maintained by such authorities; and, if so, whether the omissions of medical men to enter in the death certificates relating to such deaths the vaccinal status of 308 out of 507 deaths from small-pox, as recorded in the 67th Report of the Registrar-General for 1904, can be rectified by reference to the aforesaid registers so as to show accurately how many of the deaths recorded by the Registrar-General were deaths of vaccinated persons.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: So far as I am aware the records required by the section are usually kept. But a reference to them would not show the vaccinal status of all the persons mentioned in the Registrar-General's Report as having died from small-pox. The section only relates to small-pox hospitals maintained by sanitary authorities, and it is known that in
    1272
    a considerable number of cases the deaths did not occur in these hospitals.

    School Attendance of Pauper Children.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of altering the regulation at present in force in regard to certifying the school attendance of children of parents who are in receipt of Poor Law relief, so as to avoid the stigma of pauperism which now attaches to such children by the necessity of their obtaining a teacher's signature to an attendance card issued by the guardians as a condition of the continuance of relief to their parents.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The practice referred to is not prescribed by any regulations of the Local Government Board, but has been adopted in order to facilitate the carrying out of Section 40 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, which requires that the provision of education to a child shall be a condition of the continuance of outdoor relief to the parent. I have, however, already drawn the attention of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education to the matter, and I hope that this section will be repealed and not re-enacted by the Education (Consolidation) Bill now before the House. The arrangement mentioned in the question would then cease.

    The Unemployed.
    MR. THORNE: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the number of men and women starving throughout the country, in consequence of their being unemployed, and in view of the proved inadequacy of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, he will send out a circular of instruction, similar to that sent out by the President of the Local Government Board in 1886, calling upon the local authorities to at once put in hand public works of utility in order to meet the public need, as represented by the unemployed workers.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The circular referred to was issued at a time of very exceptional distress which was partly due to weather of long continued severity. We have now reached a season of the

    1273
    year which is favourable to employment, and, according to the latest information, employment on the whole appears to be improving. I cannot say I think it desirable to issue now a circular of the kind suggested.
    MR. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that distress to-day is just as bad as it was in 1886, when that circular was issued?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am glad I cannot confirm the hon. Member in that statement.
    MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no fewer than 5,000 men now registered as being unemployed in the borough of West Ham alone?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not know.
    MR. THORNE: Are there not 6,000 more people receiving Poor Law relief than there were two years ago?
    MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the state of the building trade is more deplorable now than it has been for the last fifteen years?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am glad to say that the condition of the building trade is improving rapidly. It is not so bad as it was at the period mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ham, and everything shows a disposition of the building trade to join that prosperity which I am glad to say is becoming general with the bulk of trades.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few days ago 10,000 men demonstrated their need of employment in London alone? Is not that a sufficient reason for issuing the circular asked for?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: No. I consider that you do harm to the districts when circulars which should only be issued on exceptional occasions are issued regularly. In fact, the issue of these circulars with regularity rather defeats the object which all of us have in view.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: When was the last re-issue of the circular in question?
    MR. THORNE: When the President of the Local Government Board made that famous speech in 1886 he stated himself that the re were about 5,000,000 of people on the verge of starvation, and the present Prime Minister a few weeks ago said that there wore 13,000,000 of people on the verge of starvation.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I never said it.
    MR. THORNE: It was reported at the time.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The hon. Member's statement with regard to myself is equally incorrect.
    MR. THE RNE: I have the evidence to prove it in my pocket.

    Irish Trade Returns.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can issue annually a report, giving particulars as to value, etc., of the various imports and exports of Ireland in each year.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): There is no objection to publishing an Annual Return, if desired, showing the direct trade of Ireland with places abroad. If, however, it is desired to include trade between Ireland and Great Britain, I regret that the information is not available I understand that the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction intend to publish some information as to the cross-channel trade which they have procured through harbour and port authorities, but that this relates to quantities only.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: The reports published annually by the Board of Trade do not give any indication whatever of the trade of Ireland either with England or other countries; cannot something be done to let Ireland know how she stands in the matter?
    MR. KEARLEY: I will inquire.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Customs

    1275
    authorities could afford very great facilities to the Board of Trade if instructed to do so?
    MR. KEARLEY: Probably they can. We will see what can be done.

    Messrs. J. and P- Coats, Limited.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that in anticipation of a mooting advertised to be held in Paisley on Tuesday, May 8th, for the purpose of organising a trade union amongst their female employees, and with a view to coercing their employees not to become trade unionists, Messrs. J. and P. Coats, Limited, the proprietors of the British Sowing Thread Trust, circulated on Friday, May 4th, and Saturday, May 5th, in the Scotch newspapers, a paragraph announcing their intention of abandoning the extension of the Ferguslie Thread Works, plans of which had passed the Dean of Guild Court, and to establish the new mill in a foreign country; whether he has made any representations to Messrs. J. and P. Coats, Limited, on the subject; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. KEARLEY: Messrs. J. and P. Coats, Limited, inform me that they are considering the question of erecting a new mill abroad in continuance of a long established policy, and I understand that a projected extension of a mill at Paisley may be abandoned. The company deny the accuracy of the statements in the question as to the reasons for their action. The matter is not one with regard to which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the hon. Member aware that Messrs. J. and P. Coats themselves circulated the statement that they resented outside interference, and that outside interference consisted of calling meetings of their employees?
    MR. KEARLEY: Messrs. Coats deny that statement.

    Motor 'Bus Fatalities in the Walworth Road.
    MR. S. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware
    1276
    that four persons were killed in the Walworth Road and many others injured by motor 'buses in the week ending May 12th; and will he consider the devising of some measure whereby this new mode of traffic may be so controlled as to avoid danger to the public.
    MR. KEARLEY: The Hon. Member appears to have been misinformed, for I understand that there was no fatal accident in the Walworth Road in the week ending May 12th, and only one case of slight personal injury caused by motor omnibuses, came to the knowledge of the Police during that or the preceding week. In the week ending the 5th instant, there were two fatal accidents caused by motor omnibuses in the Walworth Road.

    The Treasury and the Carmarthen Trade Dispute.
    MR. THEORNE: I beg to ask the secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in a number of cases tried at the quarter sessions for the county of Carmarthen, on January 5th last, the Treasury instructed a local solicitor to brief a Kings Counsel to prosecute; whether he is aware that the prosecution in such cases was for intimidation arising out of a trade dispute; and whether he will state the circumstances which made it advisable for the Treasury to intervene.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds. S.)replied that the Director of Public Prosecutions, to whose Department the Question referred had informed him he was urged by the local police to take up the prosecution mentioned in the Question and declined to do so, but he authorised the employment of a K.C., in order to ensure that the prosecution should lie in the hands of counsel of experience and standing, who might, if he thought proper, withdraw it. The implication in the Question that the Public Prosecutor was animated by some desire to ensure a conviction, was unfounded and entirely contrary to the fact.

    Motor Fishing Boats
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the recently issued Report of the Scottish Congested

    1277
    Districts Board, in which is contained a special Report of the experiment, carried out by the "Pioneer," of using a motor as an auxiliary for fishing boats, and to the statement on page 24 that the experiment will be continued in the present year, so that the boat may, as far as possible, be in evidence whore the fishermen are busiest; and whether the Irish Congested Districts Board or the Department of Agriculture will carry out a similar experiment on the West Coast of Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): I beg to refer to the reply which I gave yesterday to the similar Question of the hon. Member for West Kerry† The Department of Agriculture have already made a loan for the installation of a motor engine in a fishing boat. If the result should prove satisfactory the Department are prepared to issue further loans for the purpose, and to provide instruction in suitable cases. The Congested Districts Board are also watching the experiments which are being made, and in the meantime do not intend to take any action.
    † See Col. 1136.

    Fines and Penalties Office, Dublin.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what were the original purposes to which the money standing to the credit of the Fines and Penalties Office, Dublin, was to be applied; whether, seeing that under the Local Government Act, 1898, county councils are bound, out of the local rates, to provide, maintain, pay rent for, and furnish with all necessary requisites county and other court houses, for use by the tribunals from whose proceedings these fines and penalties are imposed, if the allocation of this money, now amounting to £170,250, is being considered, the claims of the county councils will be entertained to have the money applied to recoup past expenditure and to relieve the rates in future from the expenditure of maintaining court and session houses; and if he is aware that the charge on the County Council of Queen's County under this head amounts to £414.
    MR. BRYCE: According to the existing statutes, the purposes to which the funds standing to the credit of the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks Department are to be applied include the payment of the salaries and pensions of potty sessions clerks and the head-quarters staff, the audit of accounts, and generally the expenses incurred in carrying out the Fines (Ireland) Act, 1851, and the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Act, 1858. It is not proposed to allocate any portion of these funds for the purpose mentioned in the Question.

    Irish Land Commission—Appointment of Mr. Wilkinson.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the appointment of Mr. Wilkinson to an office in the Irish Land Commission at a salary of £300 per annum, if he will explain why, if there arose a necessity for such an office, the position was not given to one of the staff, seeing that the bringing in of strangers and placing them in high positions over the heads of officers with long service retards promotion; was not one of the staff qualified to fill this post; is there a rule that each clerk employed must pass the Civil Service examination; if so, will he say if Mr. Wilkinson passed or gave any proof of qualification except a recommendation from a land agent's office; and will he say what was the date of the appointment, and the name of the land agent's or other office where he was formerly employed.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that before this appointment was made the qualifications and merits of the existing staff were fully considered, and that in selecting Mr. Wilkinson to fill the post regard was had to the work to be performed and the efficiency of the public service. Mr. Wilkinson is not a permanent civil servant, and consequently he was not required to obtain a civil service certificate. He was appointed on December 15th, 1905, and prior to his appointment was employed in the office of Messrs. J. R. Stewart & Sons, Land Agents, Dublin.
    MR, FLYNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman officially sanction this flagrant job?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware that the facts justify that description.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Of whom in this office is Mr. Wilkinson a poor relation?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Crimes Branch.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total cost per annum of the Crimes Branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary, what is the total amount of salary and allowances given to the county inspector, the district inspector, the sergeant and constables at head quarters and the thirty-seven men attached to this branch of the service; what is the special duty which they are charged with discharging; will he lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Reports supplied under this head of service; does their work mainly consist in attending and reporting Nationalist meetings, shadowing and reporting on the actions of Nationalist representatives and local leaders, and the proceedings generally of the Nationalist organisation; and whether, in view of the crimeless state of Ireland, as testified by official Returns and the charges delivered by the several judges of Assizes, will the Government discontinue this branch of the service and apply the money so wasted to some useful purpose.
    MR. BKYCE: The total amount of the salaries and allowances of the officers and men of the Crimes Branch is £5,800. The work of the Branch consists of criminal investigation. It would be entirely contrary to practice to lay upon the Table copies of reports made by the police for the information of the Inspector-General. It is no part of the duty of the Branch to attend and report upon Nationalist meetings, or to engage in the other operations mentioned. I have already informed the hon. Member that it is deemed necessary to continue the branch.
    MR. FLYNNasked if this £5,800 was charged against the secret Service Fund or on the constabulary vote.
    MR. BEYCEasked for notice.

    Fraudulent Trading Prosecutions.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state, with reference to the Statement on page 118 of the recently issued Report of the Irish Department of Agriculture, how many prosecutions were instituted by associations of Irish manufactures against dealers who sold, as Irish manufacture, articles not manufactured in Ireland; how many of these prosecutions were instituted in Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales respectively; how many were successful and how many unsuccessful; and can he state how many of these associations of Irish manufacturers are in existence.
    MR. BRYCE: The cases referred to were these in which proceedings were instituted by the Belfast Flax Spinners' Association and the Bacon Curers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland against traders in England for applying false trade descriptions to certain goods. The information upon which the statement in the Report was based was mainly derived from reports that appeared from time to time in the public Press. At least six prosecutions were undertaken by the Belfast Spinners' Association, and convictions were obtained in four cases. The total number of prosecutions instituted by the Bacon Curers' Association for the sale of American bacon as Irish is not definitely known. In two cases which came under notice convictions were obtained. The Department understand that these associations are still in existence.
    MR. FLAVIN: Why is the onus of initiating prosecution thrown on the poor manufacturer? Why did not the Government undertake it?
    MR. BRYCE: The functions of the Government in this matter are limited by statute, and I presume it has no power to initiate prosecutions.

    Irish Royal University
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will now lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which passed between the Government and the senate of the Royal University with reference to the

    1281
    disorderly and disloyal proceedings at the last conferment of degrees, together with the minutes of the senate in reference to this matter, and the opinion of the Irish Law Officers of the Crown; and whether he will state what steps the senate of the Royal University are taking to prevent further manifestations of disloyalty.
    MR. BRYCE: The senate of the Royal University have directed the preparation of a statement of the proceedings in reference to this matter, and when that has been received, the question of laying it and the correspondence upon the Table will be considered. I have already stated that it is not the practice to lay upon the Table the opinions of Law Officers. I am informed that the senate have directed the preparation of such statutes and regulations as may be necessary to provide the means of enforcing academic discipline and punishing academic misconduct.

    Royal University of Ireland—The Chan cellorship.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is yet in a position to announce the name of the successor to the Earl of Meath in the Chancellorship of the Royal University of Ireland; and if not, if lie will state the reason for the delay in making this appointment.
    MR. BRYCE: This subject has received full consideration, and an announcement regarding it will, I trust, be made within a few days.

    Boycotting and Crime, Return for Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of cases of boycotting, intimidation, shooting outrages, and malicious destruction of property reported to the Irish Constabulary during the months of January, February, and March, this year; and the number of arrests made, prosecutions instituted, and convictions obtained as the result of their investigation of these cases.
    MR. BRYCE: The Inspector-General informs me that in the period mentioned there were eight cases of boycotting. The number of cases of intimidation,
    1282
    exclusive of threatening letters, was six; and in one of these cases the accused was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted the number of cases of firing at the person and into dwelling houses was fourteen. Eight of the offenders were arrested and prosecuted; three of these were convicted and one committed suicide. There were eighty-one cases of malicious-destruction of property, including incendiary fires. Sixteen persons were arrested and five summoned, making twenty-one prosecuted; seventeen of these were convicted, one died, one is a waiting trial, and two were discharged.

    Irish County Councils Association.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the claim put forward by the General Council of the County Councils of Ireland that the Department of Agriculture shall be totally separated from the English Government and be nominated by the General Council of Irish Councils, and be answerable to and under its control, he will inquire into the history and present composition of the Nationalist organisation making this claim, whose right to speak for the whole of the Irish councils has been formally repudiated by most of the county councils in the North of Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: My time is so fully occupied by urgent Questions of practical moment that I cannot spare any for the historical investigation upon which the hon. Member invites me to enter.
    MR. LONSDALE: The investigation can hardly be considered historical, as it would only go back a few months.
    MR. BRYCE: I used the hon. Gentleman's own words in describing it.

    Ardara (Donegal) Evicted Tenant.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Mill holding at Ardara, county Donegal, for years in the possession of the Evans family, was taken possession of by the landlord, by whom the tentant, Mr. Evans, was evicted through inability to pay the rent in 1885, the offers of settlement made by the tenant short of payment of the full rent and

    1283
    the costs being refused by the landlord, although two attempts of the tenant to dispose of the holding by auction failed; whether he is aware that this holding remained vacant till October, 1904, when a petty sessions clerk, named Hugh Kennedy, was put into possession by Mr. Tredennick, the landlord, at a nominal rent; and whether having regard to the fact that the former tenant, on the passing of the Land Act of 1896, made an application for reinstatement, and has now made application to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement, steps will be taken to secure the reinstatement of Mr. Evans in this holding.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement as an evicted tenant from Mr. John Evans, who states that in 1885 he was evicted from a corn and flax mill, with house and one and a half acres of land on the estate referred to. The Commissioners have no further information in the matter, bat it does not appear to them that the holding in question is one to which the Land Law Acts apply, and the case would not, therefore, come within the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1903. In reply to a further question as to whether this case could not be brought under the definition section Mr. Bryce said it was a question of law and the Estates Commissioners had apparently decided that the case was not one they could deal with.

    Leahy Estate, near Cahirciveen.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from the tenants on the Leahy estate at Aghatubrid, near Cahirciveen, requesting that an inquiry should be held before the sale is sanctioned; and, if so, whether immediate steps will be taken to comply with this request, in view of the terms set out in that application.
    MR. BRYCE: the Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the memorial referred to, and have informed the memorialists that the matter mentioned in the memorial will be duly considered by the Commissioners when dealing with the estate.
    MR. BOLAND: Will the inquiry be instituted immediately?
    MR BRYCE: I gather so

    Irish Imports.
    MR. THOMAS ODONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the value of foreign bacon, beef, and mutton imported into Ireland during the year 1905.
    MR. BRYCE: The particulars for the year 1905 are not yet available. It is estimated by the Department of Agriculture that in the year 1904 the value of the articles mentioned imported into Ireland were, approximately, as follows:—Bacon and hams, £1,035,000; beef, £80,000; mutton, £22,000. It is possible that, in addition, certain quantities of bacon, beef, and mutton were shipped into the country under the general heading of "provisions." The figures given represent imports both from foreign countries direct and from Great Britain. It is impossible, however, to determine accurately the amount of these imports which is of foreign origin, because many of the imports into Ireland from foreign countries come l>y way of Great Britain.

    Fitzwilliam Estate, Wicklow.
    JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary I to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector of the Land Commission, named W. H. Kyle, has visited the tenants of the Fitzwilliam estate, county Wicklow, warning them that if they will not accept the landlord's terms of purchase they will lose their chance of buying their holdings; and, if so, will he take steps to prevent such persons from trying to force tenants to purchase their holdings at excessive prices.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that they have received a report from the inspector named, stating that he gave no such warning as is mentioned in the first part of the Question, and neither felt nor showed any partiality. In the course of his inspection he suggested to the tenants who had not signed purchase agreements, that they should endeavour to come to

    1285
    terms with the vendor at a price which they could accept, in order that the sale of the estate might be completed without delay.
    In reply to a further question the right hon. Gentleman said he believed that in some cases the Inspector recommended a reduction of the price.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: He went a good deal further than that.

    Warden Estate, Sneem.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that not a single evicted tenant has been reinstated on the Warden estate, at Sneem; and can he state by whom the information was supplied that twenty-five evicted tenants had been reinstated.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that originally the landlord agreed to sell some 2,000 acres to twenty-five evicted tenants, and purchase-agreements in these cases were signed and lodged. Subsequently the landlord agreed to sell the whole of his estate to the Commissioners and proceedings were initiated accordingly, the former proceedings being dropped and these substituted. The new proceedings have been delayed by difficult legal questions which have now been decided, and the matter is being expedited as much as possible. The evicted tenants have not yet been actually placed in possession, pending sanction of the advances.
    MR. BOLAND: A week or two ago we were told that twenty-five tenants had be reinstated. From whom was that information received? Was it the police sergeant?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not think so.
    MR. FLAVIN: How came such a statement to be made?
    MR. BRYCE: It was hoped at the time that the pending negotiations would have a successful issue.

    Irish Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    1286
    Lieutenant of Ireland what is the average salary paid to English, Scotch, and Irish principal teachers respectively for the year 1905; whether there is any difference between the work done in the three countries by these men, and, if so, what; whether the qualifying certificate of the Irish trained teacher is not as difficult as that in England and Scotland; whether, in addition to being more poorly paid than his English and Scotch brothers for doing the same work, the Irish teacher is at the same time, by the rules of the National Board, deprived of all civil rights, though they are fully enjoyed by English and Scotch teachers in common with the rest of the community; and whether, in view of the condition of Irish primary education, steps will be taken to have the whole subject the roughly inquired into by a Committee of this House.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the figures as to the average salaries of teachers in the year 1905 are not yet available, but upon this point I may refer to the reply which I gave on the 7th inst. to the Question of the hon. Member for East Kerry. † It would not be practicable, in reply to a Question, to enter upon the consideration of the comparative qualifications of teachers in the three countries, or of the work done by them. I have already stated that in the opinion of the Commissioners the larger salaries paid in Great Britain are mainly due to the greater amount of local aid given, and to the fact that the schools are relatively larger and less numerous than in Ireland. National school teachers are not permitted to hold office as district councillors or Poor Law guardians, but I am not aware that they are deprived of any other civil rights. The question of the teachers' salaries will, as I have already stated, receive consideration—it is primarily a matter for the National Board. I am not prepared to say that an inquiry by a Committee of this House would be a proper mode of dealing with the matter.
    †See (4)Debates,clvi., 993.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time a large number of national teachers are liable to discharge without

    1287
    compensation or pension? Will he stay his hands until it can be ascertained what can be done for them?
    MR. BEYCE: I can only refer the hon. Member to a letter I sent him on the subject.

    Instruction in Irish.
    MR. EDWARD BARKY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken by the Board to make a literary knowledge of Irish essential for students who enter the training colleges, and a spoken and literary knowledge essential for students at their final examinations in the colleges.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have made provision in the programme for next year for the examination of candidates in both written and spoken Irish, as an optional subject, at the entrance and final examinations, as well as at the examination for first year students.

    Irish Dispensary Doctors' Salaries.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether several boards of guardians in Ireland have expressed themselves strongly in favour of an increase of the salaries given to dispensary and union doctors, but have been deterred by the decision of the Local Government Board that all increases must be met wholly out of the local rates without any grant in aid from the local taxation account; whether, seeing that the work performed by dispensary doctors amongst the very poor in Ireland is a national service, that they get little other remuneration, more especially in the poorer districts of Ireland, that their services to the poor involve work night and day and the upkeep of a horse or horses, that the Irish ratepayers are already heavily taxed, any steps will be taken, where the Local Government Board approves of the salaries fixed, and give a grant in aid towards paying the increase, as is already done towards the payment of their present fixed salaries.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that some boards of guardians have expressed
    1288
    themselves in favour of increasing the salaries of their medical officers, and many of them have, at the instance of the Local Government Board, given such increases in the shape of graded scales of salaries. The Local Government Board have been obliged to point out to Boards of Guardians the existence and effect of Section 6 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, which became law with the object of securing to rich and poor unions alike an equitable participation in the Local Taxation Grant. I have already informed the hon. Member that, as at present advised, the Government do not intend to take any steps for the repeal of that section.

    Fitzwilliam Estate, Wicklow.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that tenants on the Fitzwilliam estate, county Wicklow, who declined to purchase their holdings at the price demanded, have been called upon to pay I in January rents formerly paid in March; that owing to this action on the part of the landlord, some of the tenants have signed agreements to purchase, and against these who refused, decrees for rent were obtained at the last quarter sessions in Tinahely; and whether he will advise the Estates Commissioners to make inquiry into this practice of forcing sales upon reluctant tenants before they sanction the sales to these tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge that the facts are as stated in the Question. If the Commissioners should become aware, either from the report of their inspector or otherwise, that the purchasing tenant, in any case, has been induced by undue pressure to sign the purchase agreement, they will take such action as they may deem necessary.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked if the right hon. Gentleman would secure the publication of the terms of a letter he (Mr. O'Brien) had received from the Estates Commissioners, describing the action they would take in cases when tenants had been coerced by undue pressure, or other intimidatory methods, to agree to a sale.
    MR. BRYCEsuggested that that was a matter for the Commissioners to decide. He had very little power to interfere with them, but he had no doubt they would desire to make public the information referred to by the hon. Member.

    Mountshannon Estate, County Limerick.
    Mr. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say how matters stand as between Mrs. Nevin, of Mountshannon, county Limerick, and the Estates Commissioners in regard to the sale of the Mountshannon estate; and have the applications of Simon Ryan, of Cross Pallasgrean, of James Conway, of Gurtavalla Doon, of Hanora Lonergan, of Toomaline Doon, and of Ellen Rafferty, of Garrison Pallasgrean, all evicted tenants, been entertained for farms on said estate, in lieu of the farms from which they have been evicted.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have made a proposal to purchase the estate in question, but it has not yet been accepted. Under the terms of the proposal they would not take over possession of the lands until May, 1907; and no scheme for the re-sale of the lands has been sanctioned by the Commissioners. Applications have been received from all the persons named, except Honora Lonergan, and these will be considered in due course.

    Ievers Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how do matters now stand in regard to the levers Estate, in Mount Jevers, county Limerick; and whether there is a likelihood of a farm on it being given to William levers, brother of the owner, in lieu of the farm in Ballinacurra, from which he has been for some years evicted.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the Estates Commissioners have for tome time past been in negotiation for the purchase of this estate, which is for sale in the Land Judges Court. The negotialions have not yet been concluded. The Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement as an evicted tenant from Mr. William levers, and it appears
    1290
    from a report which the Commissioners have obtained from their inspector that Mr. Ievers wishes to be reinstated in his former holding, which is not upon the estate for sale in the Land Judges Court.
    MR. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Ievers' application has been unsuccessful?
    MR. BRYCE: I have not the facts before me.

    Cashel Evicted Tenant.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say whether the Estates Commissioners, or any person deputed by them, have entered into negotiations with Thomas McGrath, evicted tenant, of Ballyloundaish, Herbertstown, county Limerick, and Daniel Devitt, of Cashel, county Tipperary, who, as planter, holds McGrath's farm on the Fitzgerald-Tuthill property, now in course of sale to the tenants; and, if they have entered on negotiations with either one or both parties, what has been the result.
    MR. BRYCE: I informed the hon. Member, in reply to his previous Question of 9th instant,† of the steps which the Estates Commissioners have taken in this case. The owner has not yet informed the Commissioners whether or not he is prepared to sell the holding formerly occupied by McGrath.
    † See (4) Debate, clvi., 1307.
    MR. LUNDON: Have negotiations been opened with the planter?
    MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Member will refer to the reply I gave him on May 9th he will be in possession of all the information I have on the subject.

    Moohane Evicted Tenant.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland have the Estates Commissioners, or any inspector on their behalf, taken any action with the view of effecting an arrangement between Michael Power, evicted tenant, of Moohane, Herbertstown, county Limerick, and Timothy Kirby, planter on his farm on the Croker Estate, which is being sold

    1291
    to the tenants; and, if so, will he say with what results.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have instructed one of their inspectors to inquire into the case referred to in the Question.

    "King-Harman v. Hayes."
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will the Lord-Lieutenant, in the exercise of his power under Section 23 (8) of the Irish Land Act of 1903, request the Estates Commissioners to institute an appeal against the decision in King-Harman and Hayes, or to have a test case from among these now ruled without trial by that decision tried by the Court of Appeal, on the ground that, to the extent of the tenant's share of the property in his holding there is no sale to him, and that therefore, to that extent, neither price nor bonus should be paid to the vendor.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners do not consider that it is any part of their duty to appeal against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner in King-Harman and Hayes. They propose when a suitable opportunity occurs to refer to the Judicial Commissioner for decision the question whether if a tenant voluntarily agrees to purchase his holding at a price which is not secured by the landlord's interest, but is secured on the landlord's interest and tenant's improvements taken together, they are at liberty to refuse to advance the whole of the price agreed upon on the ground that that price is inequitable to the tenant, because, in the case supposed, he would be purchasing his own improvements.
    MR. GINNELL: When will the Question be tried?
    MR. BRYCE: I presume that legal opinions will be taken as soon as possible.

    Irish Land Sales—Joint Owners.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have informed the Treasury that in sales of jointly-owned property, carried out under the Irish Land Act of 1903, one
    1292
    of the joint owners receives the price of the entire property, with a bonus of 12 per cent, calculated upon that price, and the other joint owner is made liable for the repayment of that price with interest; has the point been raised by council before the Court of Appeal that, to the extent of the tenant's property in his holding, there is no sale of that property to him, and therefore no price and no bonus due; if not, will they take steps to have that point raised and decided at the earliest possible date; and, if not, will they state the reason or obstacle against pursuing that course.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that they have not communicated to the Treasury any information to the effect mentioned; and they are not aware that any such transaction as is described would be possible under the Act of 1903, nor are they aware that any such question has been discussed in the Court of Appeal. As the Commissioners do not think that the question can arise, they are unable to promise to take steps to have it decided.

    Irish Department of Agriculture—Veter inary Department.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there are nearly twelve millions of horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs in Ireland, value for about £80,000,000; that at present Ireland is freer from contagious disease amongst its livestock than any other country in the world; that the animal trade is the most beneficial industry Ireland possesses, seeing that it is distributed amongst all localities and classes; that the whole country appreciates the work of the veterinary department, which it is believed could be extended and improved; and, seeing that the Committee-appointed to inquire into the workings, of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction only commences its. labours in Ireland on the 29th inst., will he reconsider his decision, and add an independent member of the veterinary profession to the Commission.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his similar Question on the 2nd instant† It

    1293
    is not considered necessary or desirable to increase the numbers of the Committee.
    † See (4) Debates, clvi.,.373.

    Arklow Harbour.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will use his influence with the authorities in Dublin to have the work in connection with the improvement of Arklow Harbour proceeded with without further delay, so that this year may not be lost.
    MR. BRYCE: Certain legal questions in connection with the future maintenance of the proposed works are under consideration, and must be decided before further progress can be made. There will, I trust, be no undue delay.

    The Dunsandle Estate.
    MR CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of holdings into which the farm of Patrick Carr, on the Dunsandle Estate of Mr. William Daly, containing 286 acres, has been divided, and the acreage, of each of the new holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the farm which was occupied by Mr. Carr has not been divided into holdings. This farm was purchased as untenanted land for the purpose of enlarging holdings on the estate of Mr. William Daly, but was subsequently re sold by the Commissioners to the vendors in consideration of the sale by the vendors to the Commissioners of another large area of untenanted land comprising nearly 4,000 acres. This latter area has been divided by the Commissioners into 221 holdings.

    Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state if the Estates Commissioners are now in a position to secure the reinstatement of Messrs. Daniel Loughlin and David Loughlin, two evicted tenants in county Kerry, whose holdings were inspected last February.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have informed the owner's solicitor
    1294
    of the amount which they would be prepared to advance for the purchase of the holdings formerly occupied by the persons named, but have not yet learnt whether the owner is prepared to sell.

    Rathdown Guardians, Tea Contract.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rathdown Board of Guardians appointed and paid out of the rates an expert to advise the board as to the quality of samples of tea to be supplied to the board under contract; that the expert so employed reported that the sample of Messrs. Weir, of Bray, was first in quality, and that of Mr. Furlong was fourth in quality, and that the guardians notwithstanding gave the contract, in spite of their expert's opinion, to Mr. Furlong, on the grounds that the proprietors of Messrs. Weir's firm were Protestants and Unionists, and that Mr. Furlong was a Nationalist and Roman Catholic; whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned this action or will interfere to prevent such a choice; and whether the expenses of the expert will be surcharged.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the-first part of the Question. According to-the Minutes of the Guardians, the grounds, upon which they gave the contract to Mr. Furlong were that his tender was one of five at the same price, that the samples in all five cases were certified by the tea expert to be of good quality, and that Mr. Furlong had given satisfaction in regard to previous contracts. The-sanction of the Local Government Board has not been given, and is not required, in such matters. The expenditure of the guardians, both as to the contract and the expenses of the expert, will come before the Local Government Board's-auditor for investigation in due course.

    Dublin Police Circular.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the recent disclosures as to the methods of administration of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, he will reconsider his refusal to issue in Ireland the circular recently issued in England

    1295
    pointing out to all policemen that their duty is to state all facts in favour of an accused person as well as facts against; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons which induce him to refuse the request.
    MR. BRYCE: I have already informed the hon. Member that I have seen the instructions upon this point contained in the official regulations to both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. These instructions appear to me to be quite explicit and satisfactory. They convey in the plainest and most direct manner to the police their duty to state everything and suppress nothing which can be in favour of an accused person, showing no bias or malice. I am not aware that any necessity exists for calling further attention to these instructions.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar instructions to the London police are reissued from time to time?
    MR. BRYCE: And if it be necessary no doubt a similar course will be pursued in Dublin.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin County, N., I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the inquiry into the issuing of a circular urging certain inspectors of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to make cases against licensed traders has concluded, and, if so, what is the result; and whether he will state the name of the officer or officers whose conduct was the subject of investigation.
    MR. BRYCE: It has been ascertained that a confidential memorandum—not a circular—was sent more than a year ago by a superintendent in the Dublin Metropolitan Police to three inspectors only of that force, giving directions as to the discharge of a branch of their duties, but as the whole matter was confidential, it would be entirely contrary to usage to state the names of the officers concerned.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of the superintendent?
    MR. BRYCE: No, Sir.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I may give it to the right hon. Gentleman shortly.
    MR. BRYCE: The circular got into the Press most improperly.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Perhaps you will promote the man now.

    Irishmen and the Public Services.
    THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a placard posted in the streets of Strabane, county Tyrone, on the 12th instant, denouncing any Irishman who joined the Army, Navy, or police force; and if he proposes to take any, and, if so, what steps in regard to the same.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that placards of the nature indicated were posted up at Strabane fin May 12th, but the police have no evidence as to who put them up. The placards were promptly removed by the police.

    Irish Labourers Acts.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when the Returns in connection with the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, ordered by Parliament on March 13th, 1906, at the request of the hon. Member for North Kerry, will be issued; and whether he is aware that, in view of the coming Labourers Bill, the issuing of these Returns is of importance.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board expect to be in a position to furnish this Return in manuscript before the end of the present month. The Board have experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining some of the necessary figures from the local authorities, and the figures require to be carefully cheeked.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the Local Government Board insist on the information being supplied by the local authorities as soon as possible 1 We have the statistics down to 1904.
    MR. BRYCE: We are doing our best to get it.
    MR. SLOAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to introduce the Labourers' Bill until the information is forthcoming?
    MR. BRYCE: No, Sir, I hope to introduce it immediately.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: On what day?
    MR. BRYCE: I hope next Monday.

    North Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    Mil. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when an inspector will visit North Kerry to inquire into the condition of the evicted tenants, with the object of their reinstatement.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that one of their inspectors is already in Kerry for the purpose of inquiring into the cases of evicted tenants.

    Cork City Railway.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the secretary to the Treasury whether he will publish and lay upon the Table immediately any correspondence that may have passed between the Treasury and the promoters of certain railway schemes in the south of Ireland in the years 1905–6, having the object of uniting existing railway systems north and south of Cork City, especially with regard to any proposals or promises made to such promoters on behalf of the; Treasury of financial support of these schemes out of a fund at the disposal of the Treasury, arising out of and in consideration for local taxation of certain; districts in the county Waterford in respect to railways constructed in the county Waterford.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by publishing any such correspondence, as I have already stated the nature of the offer which the Government have made.
    MR. POWER: Is it not a fact that application by the railway company to devote the whole of this
    1298
    £93,000 towards connecting the railways of Cork was promptly refused in 1901?
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir. The ground of refusal was that the money was allocated under another Act and that the allocation of this Act did not expire until 1905.
    Mil. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Cork Railway Bill sanctioned by a Committee is to be hung up the much-needed connection of railways in the City of Cork will be indefinitely postponed?
    MR. MCKENNA: I am informed that the Committee has passed the Bill.
    MR. MOONEY: The correspondence between the Treasury and the Railway Company, was issued as a Parliamentary Paper in 1901–2. Why should the hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between this correspondence and that which is published?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action of the Government in this matter has the strong support of many Irish Members?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish Land Act, Treasury Advances.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the secretary to the Treasury whether there is any class of cases other than these under the Irish Land Act of 1903, in which the Treasury advances a so-called price, and a bonus calculated upon that price for jointly-owned property to one of the joint owners, and holds the other joint owner responsible for the repayment of the entire price with interest, al though to the extent of his property there is no sale to him; and will the Treasury have the validity of the decision tested, according to which numerous transactions of this kind are now in progress in Ireland.
    MR. MCKENNA: Generally speaking, Irish property cannot technically be said to be jointly owned by landlord and tenant, but assuming the hon. Member means by the expression, tenant right combined with the landlord's ownership,

    1299
    I am not aware of any cases of the kind referred to. In any case the Treasury have no power to interfere.

    Roscommon Local Government Election Petition.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the demand made by the Treasury on the County Council of Roscommon for the payment of a sum of £500, the expenses alleged to be incurred in connection with the trial of a local government election petition; whether he will state how this sum is made up, giving the items, and the principal or scale on which the payments were calculated; on what area the charge is made payable, and who fixed the area, and upon whose certificate the charge is sanctioned; and whether he is aware that the county council has made a protest against the payment of this demand, in view of the extraordinary length of the inquiry; and whether he proposes to take any notice of this protest.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Treasury has paid the sum of £544 13s. 4d. to the officers engaged on the trial of a petition arising out of an election to the Roscommon County Council. The amount is made up of the following payments, viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    To the Commissioner who tried the petition

    252

    0

    0

    To the Registrar

    85

    14

    10

    To the Crier

    26

    16

    7

    To the Shorthand writer

    117

    1

    11

    To the Representative of the Attorney-General

    63

    0

    0

    Total

    £544

    13

    4

    The payments were calculated according to the scale prescribed by the Judges, with the approval of the Treasury, under Section 101 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. The money is advanced by the Treasury upon the certificate of the Commissioner who tried the petition as to the length of time occupied, and is repayable by the county council, out of the county fund or rate, under the above-mentioned Section 101, as applied by Section 75 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and Section 104 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. I am
    1300
    not aware that the county council has made any protest, but I may say that the Government has no option whatever in the matter, nor any power of regulating the length of the inquiry.
    MR. HAYDENsaid he hoped that in future expense would be saved by having these election petitions tried by Judges in receipt of salaries.

    Monaghan Post Office.
    MR. O'HARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the site for the new post office for Monaghan has been under consideration for over four years; will he say when it may be expected to be completed; and whether, seeing that the present office has been condemned as insanitary, and in view of the fact that the staff at the office are compelled to work under disadvantageous circumstances owing to the noxious smells and sewer gas from the basement, steps will be taken to complete the purchase of the site under consideration, for which the money was voted in 1903, or to accept the site offered to the post office in Market Street.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I regret that the negotiations for the purchase of a site for a new post office at Monaghan have been unavoidably protracted, mainly on account of legal difficulties; but I hope that a satisfactory arrangement will be come to-at an early date.

    Portadown Postman's Character Cleared.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the result of his inquiries into the allegation of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, that a postman attached to the-Portadown office was found lying in a state of intoxication when in charge of a mail-bag?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: After careful inquiry I find that the postman referred to was not under the influence of drink, but was incapacitated from another cause. The postman in question has a clear record and bears an excellent character; and the case will not be recorded against him.
    MR. LONSDALE: Was inquiry made of the railway officials?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Full inquiry was made into the facts.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I think the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh owes some expression of regret to the man for bringing a charge proved to be absolutely false. He would be afraid to make a like statement outside the House.

    The Local Government Board and the Unemployed.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to present a Bill to the House providing for the creation of a separate Department to deal with the problem of the unemployed; if so, whether such separate Department will be under the control of a now Minister, to be known as the Minister of Labour?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have no intention of creating a separate Department to deal with the problem of the unemployed.
    MR. O'GRADY: Is not the Premier of opinion that the Local Government Board is already overcrowded with work, and cannot be expected to deal with the question of the unemployed?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot be expected to share that opinion.

    Irish Self-Government.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in considering plans for associating the people of Ireland with the Government of their country, he will consider whether the devolution of the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the county councils, as in Great Britain, is not advisable.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not at present in a position to make any statement regarding the steps which it may be proposed to take for better associating the people of Ireland with the Government of their country.

    Derby Day.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Wednesday, the 30th instant, is the date of an important national festival at which many Members of the House are desirous of assisting, he will consider the possibility of moving the adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess on Tuesday, the 29th.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know of any national festival which is celebrated on May 30th, and therefore I am not open to consider the suggestion put forward.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: May I respectfully remind the Prime Minister that May 30th is the anniversary of the conclusion of peace with the Boers and of the birth of Mr. Alfred Austin, the Poet Laureate?

    Religious Census of Prisoners.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the small proportion of inmates in His Majesty's prisons returned as of no religious opinion; and whether, in view of this revelation, he will favourably consider Amendments to the Education Bill making all State education of a secular character.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not consider that the statements made by inmates of prisons as to their religious opinion furnish any test of the feeling of the country.

    Women and Local Government.
    DR. SHIPMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now see his way to indicate on behalf of the Government that facilities will be given for the passing of the Local Authorities (Qualification of Women) Bill through the House this session.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government have every sympathy with the objects of the Local Authorities (Qualification of Women) Bill, but it is impossible, I fear, at this moment to make any promise as to placing Government time at the disposal of its promoters.

    Alien Pilots.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked the President of the Board of

    1303
    Trade a Question of which he had given private notice—namely, whether he could embody in the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill, now in Committee, a clause dealing with the restriction of the employment of alien pilots in British waters.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): There are a good many legal difficulties in the way of dealing with the matter. The Government have, after careful consideration, decided that they can deal with future applications, and an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Bill will be placed on the Paper to that effect.

    SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill:—Mr. Munro Ferguson; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Morse.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Workmen's Compensation Bill:—Mr. Lloyd Morgan; and had appointed in substitution:—Mr. Alexander Black.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    SOLICITORS BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]
    EXTRADITION BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]
    MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMEND- MENT BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]
NEW BILL
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  "To appoint additional Commissioners for executing the Acts granting a Land Tax and other Rates and Taxes, and to remove the qualification by estate required in the case of all such Commissioners, whether appointed under this or any previous Act," presented by Mr. McKenna; supported by Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]
  RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to public Rights of Way," presented by Mr. Paulton; supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Abel THOMAS, and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, June 12th, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

EDUCATTON (ENGLAND AND WALES), BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, at the end, to add the words 'and unless provision is made that religious instruction shall not be given therein during school hours, nor at the public expense.'"—(Mr. Maddison.)
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'during school hours, nor.'"—(Mr Chamberlain.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that when progress was reported the previous night a very interesting and important Amendment was before the Committee. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if the statement were now made by the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment

1305
to the Amendment, whether, in the event of his proposition being taken into the lobbies, he was going to carry his Party along with him. A great deal of the importance which ought to attach to the second Amendment would depend, for instance, upon the fact whether the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City was going to follow the right hon. Member for West "Birmingham on the present occasion [Cries of "Order."], and whether the Amendment was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the representative for the Oxford University, who had been taking such an important part in the discussions upon the Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would indicate to the Committee how the matter stood in that respect; whether he had moved it with the due concurrence of these with whom he acted, and whether he really held out that as an olive branch on behalf of the official Opposition to these who were trying to establish peace upon a secular basis. Were they or were they not to take it that the Amendment was a genuine attempt to get the Committee to declare that a Bill, drafted upon a secular basis with some important provisions modifying that basis, was acceptable to the Unionist Party in this House; that it was to be amended only in detail, and would be taken from this House and held up to the country and to the responsible leaders of the Church as a Bill which ought to be accepted as a satisfactory solution of the religious question 1 The Committee ought to know how it stood in that respect, and he would venture to say that al though they had an objection— indeed, it might be a serious objection—to the Amendment which, perhaps, for convenience sake, he might refer to as the Amendment itself, yet if they felt that that Amendment came with the weight and authority he had got in his mind, many of them would be willing seriously to consider whether they ought not to waive these objections in order to give a guarantee to the religious organisations of the country who were opposing the Bill that they were anxious to meet them. In consideration of the important issue involved, the Committee ought, at the earliest possible opportunity, to receive an official statement from the Opposition as to what their attitude was with regard to the Amendment. "What he had to say upon the Amendment
1306
would no doubt be modified if the statement to be made by the Opposition were-satisfactory. At the present time, however, he did not see that the Amendment carried them very far. It raised some very serious difficulties. Let them see how it would apply to the Bill before them. Under the Bill there were three kinds of schools established, or at all events recognised. The first was the ordinary public school as they now knew it—the school where religious instruction was given in accordance with the Cowper-Temple clause—Cowper-Temple religion, as it had been called. The second which Clause 3 recognised was what was known as the "ordinary facilities" school. Three days in the week that school would be conducted as an ordinary public school, two days as an ordinary voluntary school. Then there was the third kind of school created by Clause 4—the "special facilities" school—where Cowper-Temple religion disappeared and where ordinary denominational instruction was given from Monday until Friday inclusive. The question, they had to decide was what the effect upon these three classes of schools would be, supposing the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was carried. It would not affect the schools created under Clause 4, because, as it was, the religious instruction given in them was not to be paid from the rates. Neither would it affect the schools created under Clause 3 on the days in the week when they were conducted as voluntary schools, because the education must be given from voluntary sources. But it would affect these schools on three days in the week when they were subject to the Cowper-Temple clause, and also the "provided" schools every day in the week. The effect of the Amendment would be to knock out religious instruction altogether from the Cowper-Temple schools, unless it were promoted by voluntary religious organisations, by church or chapel, or by organisations neither church nor chapel, organisations such as the right hon. Gentleman and his Birmingham friends were connected with in the early days of the board school experiment, organisations which he might call ad hoc organisations, which were created for the special purpose of providing facilities for religious, education to children attending board schools. That solution was not likely to be accepted by anyone. In fact, it meant

1307
a general application of the right of entry. If he might say so with the due humility of a new Member, he thought that, after the attack the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made upon that idea, they need not waste any time at present in discussing it. Undoubtedly the proposal before them did meet very largely the demand assumed to be made by the people of the country, and he thought perhaps the Committee would agree with him when he said that that view had been voiced with the roughness and absoluteness by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on the previous evening. The only remark he would make on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was that while he agreed with it in large measure he could not see how it could be fitted in within the four corners of this Bill. He found such expressions in it as—
"The teachers in the national schools were becoming more skilled every day ";
and the hon. Gentleman put special emphasis on "skilled "— though it did not appear in the printed letter of the speech—
"And they knew the way to the child's mind Letter than anyone else."
Then why limit the teachers in imparting religious knowledge. Skilled teachers! Skilled in what? How was the skill of a teacher in this respect to be tested? That was dangerous doctrine for a member of the Ministry to preach. He ventured to say that before these discussions were over and this Bill left the Committee stage, the hon. Member would have that phrase quoted very often, not by hon. Members behind him, but by hon. Members above the gangway on the Opposition side. Again the hon. Gentleman said—
"No child was properly equipped for the battle of life who did not get somewhere simple religious instruction."
But the hon. Gentleman went on to say that—
"Simple Bible teaching would not do."
THE PAELIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.)said that while not denying that he had used the words "simple Bible teaching," what he intended to say was "simple Bible reading."
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid his hon. friend did not get himself out of the difficulty by that remark. He did not think that simple Bible reading would do. Then there was a difference between simple Bible reading and simple religious instruction? If that difference existed the case put up by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone was absolutely unassailable. The idea of the Government was to impart simple religious instruction by Bible reading or Bible teaching. They were met by the argument that that was not religion. They could only rebut that argument by claiming that it was the foundation of religion and all that was necessary to be given in a State school. And how the hon. Gentleman could say that in a State school they could give simple religious instruction which was more then mere Bible reading, and then defend the inclusive religious character of the Bill surpassed his comprehension. The speech with which he had said he was very much in agreement, and which raised the whole question they were now discussing, seemed to him to have been delivered in a vacuum. If they had been beginning with their religious difficulties to-day then his vote would have been probably put at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman. If they had had no experience, no history, no past, then he thought that these considerations presented by the hon. Gentleman would nave been simply overwhelming in their influence on the Committee. But this question had a past, and it was no good talking about simple Bible reading or simple religious instruction, as though that could be made the basis of peace, because it became absolutely impossible to keep denominationalism out of the schools under such circumstances. They either taught the Bible with or without comment—if without comment they treated the Bible as a secular textbook. Surely at the beginning of the 20th century nobody would rise in the Committee and tell them that the mere reading of the Old or New Testament begun at a certain hour and continued for a certain number of minutes was a religious exercise. He denied that it was. The mere reading of the Bible without comment was a secular exercise

1309
and there was no religious value attached to it unless one had some superstitious regard for the Book. But he ventured to say that that regard came at a very much later period in their lives than the school period. The moment they taught it with comment they introduced creeds and catechisms and denominational points of view, and it was absolutely unfair to say that their standard of undenominationalism must be thrust down the throats of these who had conscientious objections to it. Any one who had read the history of educational controversies during the last 100 years would acknowledge that what he was saying was absolutely true. Then it was slid that Cowper-Temple teaching had been a success. What did they mean by its being a success? Within the limits of their meaning could it have been a failure? He supposed success meant that there had been no great body of opinion among parents opposed to it. But how could the parents show their opposition?
AN HON. MEMBER ON THE MINISTERIAL BENCHES: By a vote at the school board election.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that that was no fair test at all. The only practicable way open to parents to object was to withdraw their children from religious instruction. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "No; the school board election."] As the right hon. the secretary for India had said, and said truly, an adult could afford to be a Nonconformist because his conscience made up for what he had to sacrifice for it; but a child could not possibly be a Nonconformist, because the cruelty of asking a child to stand out among its fellows was so great that no wise parent; would eve ask it of his child. At the present moment he had a child at a Council school. He objected to Cowper-Templeism because it did not satisfy his ideas of what religious education should be. But was he going to withdraw his child from the Cowper-Temple teaching and expose him to be the butt of his fellows in the school? Yet the hon. Member for North Camberwell might class him amongst the great crowd of people
1310
who were perfectly satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching! A great body of people outside had objected to the Act of 1902, but that Act was not merely a logical result of Cowper-Templeism, but a biological result of Cowper-Templeism. It flowed from it naturally, and if they were denied the opportunity of making this a secular Bill they were obliged to take the consequences and settle the status of religious education by making Clause 4 compulsory, and making it much wider in its scope. He was not however going to labour the point about religious instruction, though he was bound to say that it was the point that affected him most of all. It was all very well for hon. Members to talk about Secularists and secularism, and he was rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham used that expression the day before, because it was exceedingly misleading to talk about the endowment of secularism as the result of their proceedings, and in all good part he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he did not use that expression when he was associated with the Birmingham Association, which practically took up the same position in 1870 and onwards, as he and his friends were taking up at the present time. He begged the Committee, however, not to miss what was after all the kernel of their position. They objected to simple Bible teaching, as it was called, not because they were secularists, but because they were in favour of genuine religious instruction throughout the country. When he referred to the matter before, there was a good deal of objection taken, because he suggested that the teaching of the people under the Cowper-Temple system had not been quite the success from the religious point of view that had been claimed. He held in his hand a statement made by a London County Council inspector on this very point. The inspector was a man, whose knowledge of the schools was very extensive and a man whose study of moral and religious teaching had been equally extensive. Mr. Hayward said—
"No man who really reverences the Bible can tolerate, if he once opens his eyes, the state of degradation it eccupies in most schools. Even Shakespeare used for the purposes of parsing and analysis is not degraded so low as

1311
the Bible read in one school 'without note or comment,' in another enforced by cane and detention, in all schools devoid of plates and illustrations, badly printed and without external signs of distinction between prose and poetry."
He would like to draw the attention of hon. Members for Scottish constituencies who also objected to certain extracts he read from a Scottish inspector's report, to the fact that Mr. Hay ward went on to quote Dr. Kerr, and those Members who had any experience of Scottish education knew the supreme importance of Dr. Kerr's opinion. Mr. Hayward said—
"Is it any wonder that Dr. Kerr has expressed the doubt whether the use of the Bible as a reading book in Scottish schools has conduced to reverence for its pages? "
Therefore if he erred, he erred in the company of learned and expert gentlemen who knew what they were writing about. He would also remind the Committee of what the late Bishop of London, writing to Bishop Mitchinson on May 20th, 1895, said in regard to diocesan inspection. Bishop Creighton said—
"My own opinion is that it aims at the wrong end. It formalises and secularises what ought to be free and religious ……Men say Scripture knowledge is best taught by the master, but I want them to teach religion."
That was the criticism of the late Bishop of London, not upon board schools but upon voluntary schools, for which the Church, of which he was such a distinguished ornament, was herself responsible. Finally when the right hon. Gentleman dealt with Dr. Dale's opinion he would remind him of the title of one of Dr. Dale's most powerful pamphlets, which, with another sister pamphlet he wrote, was issued under the auspices of the Birmingham Liberal Two thousand of that day. He thought the title of that pamphlet indicated the position taken up in Birmingham. It was "Religious Teaching by Board Schools perilous to the Life and Faith of the Nation." He was not foolish enough to imagine for a single moment that the secular solution would be unanimously accepted. He was not even concerned at the present moment to suggest how the superstructure should be built upon the secular basis. That was not their
1312
business. He should like very much, if he could, to put that responsibility upon the shoulders of his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education; but what they were concerned about now by means of this Amendment was simply urgently to ask the Committee not to declare for a particular superstructure, but to declare what was the best foundation upon which it could be erected. That was what the; Committee was asked to do in voting for against this Amendment, whether it was to be amended as the right hon. Gentleman proposed or not. All that the Committee was asked to do was simply to lay down the fundamental principle of State education. Was or was not the State going to make itself responsible for religious instruction? these who occupied the middle line of Nonconformist advance said "No." these who did not occupy that line must say "Yes," and there was no half-way house. This Bill was simply built upon an incline. It could not stand, because it hid no stable foundation. It proposed to meet the Liberationist without accepting his principles; it proposed to meet both the English Catholic; and the Roman Catholic without accepting their principles; it endeavoured to build a house to accommodate all styles of religious architecture and all degrees of religious and conscientious objection. It could not be done. Not even this Government could do such a thing. But he believed that a satisfactory Bill based upon a secular foundation could be drafted. Provided the basis of the Bill were secular, modifications of Clauses like 2, 3, and 4 could be grafted upon it. If they applied the facilities idea to the secular basis their task was not so difficult. He merely threw out as a suggestion that if that were done the details were not so exceedingly difficult as might be imagined at the first blush. In regard to supporters, first of all, there was the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, in 1870 or thereabouts, voted for this Amendment couched in words which expressed the position of the time. But he was very glad that they had not to go so far back as that period, because only three or four years ago, at the Alexandra Palace, the right hon. Gentleman declared that he was still in favour

1313
of keeping religious instruction out of the schools altogether, and he went further and said that not only was that his idea, but that it was the position of nine-tenths of the Party which they were all glad to see him leading. Taking the Premier's own estimate, therefore, nine-tenths of hon. Members opposite were coming into the lobby with them upon this Amendment. Might he for the purposes of this debate and for the purposes of this division join with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who had always been a consistent advocate of the secular basis? They might have cause to disagree with the fabric which the right hon. Gentleman erected upon it, but, nevertheless, from the earliest school board days up to now the right hon. Gentleman's position had always been consistent upon that point. There were therefore two great forces united in the lobby with them, Their Nonconformist friends of the Liberation Society could not refuse to support the Amendment if they were at all consistent. It remained to be seen whether they were consistent, but if the life of that venerable and venerated organisation had not gone out of it, its friends must be sent into the lobby with the supporters of the Amendment. The British Weekly declared week after week that it would prefer a secular solution to any other because it knew there could be obtainable no solution short of this that would be satisfactory to these who were not in favour of denominational education in our public schools. There was one great difficulty. He did not propose to deal with it, but simply proposed to state it to the House. If he felt that there was any soundness in the objection that the secular solution would leave tens of thousands of children to grow up without the knowledge of anything higher than the gutter, his position would be difficult. The objection would be a paramount consideration in determining his action. He did not think the objection was sound. From inside knowledge of schools and acquaintance with some of the worst districts of the metropolis he was convinced that so long as they went about in a happy-go-lucky sort of way regarding either
1314
voluntary or board school religion as an adequate or satisfactory substitute for parental religion, they would simply be living in a fool's paradise. They were putting 710 pressure upon these parents to do their duty, and were allowing themselves to be deceived into thinking that by their rates and taxes they could take the place of the parent who acted conscientiously in a religious state of mind. The argument, however, was insignificant in its force if that assumption of his was inaccurate, and if behind their minds hon. Members had not an idea that the parent could be supplanted by the State in his religious aspects. Hon. Members might interrupt and deny. He was afraid their ideas were very confused. The argument to which he was alluding was powerful only on the assumption that they could to a satisfactory degree by their rates and taxes take the place of the parent in religious teaching. He did not believe they could. It was said, too, that the churches would not do their duty. He was glad that accusation would not come from him. He could not understand how anybody who had any faith or belief in the power of our churches, free and established, could rise in their place and make such an accusation. For his part he would be slow to believe that the churches were going to allow the teeming millions of the towns and cities to pass their lives in darkness. The truth was that the more they stood by the Cowper-Temple system, the more they attempted to draft education Bills upon a supposed compromise between expressions of conscience that were absolutely opposed and could not possibly be made the subject of compromise, the more they invited the neglectful parent to go on with his neglect, and the more they assisted the churches, which failed in their duty, to remain faithless to their trust.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that technically the question before the Committee was the Amendment to the Amendment, and strictly speaking the discussion ought to be confined to the Amendment to the Amendment. But obviously it would spoil the discussion to confine it strictly to that point, and he had therefore allowed the hon. Member

1315
to go on with a speech which dealt considerably more with the Amendment than with the proposed Amendment. He proposed to continue to allow it to proceed on the original Amendment, as well as on the Amendment to the Amendment, if the Committee agreed; but if he did that, he did not think there should be two discussions on the two separate points.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that everybody who had heard the last three hours of the discussion yesterday, and who had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester to-day must have recognised that the Committee had now come to one of these points in the discussion of the Bill which rendered necessary the consideration of the underlying principles which ought to regulate legislation with respect to elementary religious instruction. He did not know that on a strict interpretation of the Amendment or the Amendment to the Amendment, these principles could be raised. But they had been raised; and if he might say so without impertinence, he thought the Committee would do well to follow the ruling and advice of the Chairman as to the course the discussion should take. With respect to the Amendment to the Amendment he would say that he thought it an improvement on the original Amendment, and he should certainly support his right hon. friend in the lobby. But the main stress of the debate fell upon the original Amendment, and it was to that he would address, in the main, such observations as he had to make to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them truly that they could not consider the question of religious education in the abstract, as if the question had no historical basis, as if they were beginning with a new state of things, without the prejudices or prepossessions that had come to them from the past. The question had a past, and, whether they liked it or not, it was upon that past that they had to build. The hon. Gentleman had done no more than justice to the Education Act of 1902 when he pointed out that in the great majority of its proposals it was an Act for the re-organisation of secular education. The late Government dealt with
1316
religious instruction on the basis which they found in existence. In other words, they accepted the system of the voluntary schools on the one side and the Cowper-Temple system on the other, attempting to abolish neither the one nor the other. What the present Government had failed to see was that, at the worst, the edifice erected by their predecessors had the faults necessarily inherent in an edifice erected on an old historic foundation, as well as its merits. They proposed to abolish, almost entirely, the voluntary system, and to leave wholly untouched the Cowper-Temple system; and it was because they had failed to see that this way of treating this historic problem could not but be considered, rightly or wrongly, as grossly unjust by a large portion of the population that he could find no satisfactory solution on the lines which they had developed. If that was true, it inevitably followed that there should be attempts to build up a new system, not by pulling down half the old system and leaving the other half untouched, but to build it upon some new, systematic, and logical basis. He had listened with intense interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for North West Ham, last night, and the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Leicester. Both hon. Gentlemen conceived themselves to have found that clear, logical, and consistent plan upon which to build the future education of the country, a system which should not be open to the attack—as he believed, the irresistible attack—which would be directed against the system of this Bill as it stood, but which contained within itself a solution that would be generally acceptable. But he could not help thinking that both these hon. Gentlemen had failed to understand the full difficulties of the position. Both of them had spoken from the religious education point of view. As he understood them, they desired that the children should be brought up—either by the schools or by the parents, but preferably by the parents—in religious beliefs which were not limited by the arbitrary and wholly illogical limitations of the Cowper-Temple clause, but should enjoy that unhampered freedom which religious teaching, if it was to be of the smallest

1317
value, must have. They called themselves secularists.
MR. MASTERMAN: No.
MR. J.RAMSAY MACDONALD: What I want is education on a secular foundation, not on a secularist foundation.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the phraseology of the hon. Gentleman did make the matter clearer. They proposed to build on a secular foundation. On that foundation they expected to secure an adequate system of secular education, and to have in addition, by the agencies of the churches and the co-operation of the parents, the religious instruction which they desired for the children. He could not help thinking that they both undervalued the objections to such a system which were so powerfully stated last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Education Board. Neither of the hon. Gentlemen, though they followed the Parliamentary Secretary, attempted to meet his arguments. The Parliamentary Secretary had pointed out that as a matter of fact a large number of the parents were not qualified by knowledge or by opportunity to give adequate religious instruction from the point of view of any denomination. The hon. Gentleman had pointed out further that, however urgent might be the zeal of the churches, it was difficult or impossible for them to rival the trained teacher in giving religious instruction, and c might have added that if that were to be done in the school at all, it must be done in school hours. Did the hon. Members for North West Ham and Leicester seriously think that this religious instruction could be given out of school hours elsewhere than in school by the parents? The hon. Member for Leicester had paid a deserved tribute to the churches. H ad the churches ever fully succeeded in doing this even with their system of Sunday schools? The Parliamentary Secretary had given a perfectly clear negative to that suggestion, and he agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary. He did not believe it ever had been done adequately in Sunday schools, and he did not believe it was being done adequately at this moment either here, or in America, or in the
1318
Colonies. And if they wore going to keep the children on weekdays in the secular schools, and to reserve Sunday, and Sunday alone, and the Sunday schools, and the Sunday schools alone, as machinery for religious education, he was as certain as he was of any practical proposition that, however ardent might be the zeal of the Churches in favour of the religious education of the young, they would fail in their object. The education would not be given; it would fall into disrepute because it was outside that to which the State gave the imprimatur and the authority of its encouragement. And they would discover that, however unsatisfactory might be the religious education of the children at the present time —and he was not here to say it was satisfactory either in Board or voluntary schools—a generation would not have passed over their heads before they found that the religious teaching of the children of this country was a thing of the past, a thing which might have an historic interest and influence, but had no present effect and would carry with it no future benefit. If he were right in saying that, the secular basis which the hon. Member for North West Ham and the hon. Member for Leicester recommended would inevitably degenerate into that which they least of all desired, a secularist result, and they would be the unwilling and unconscious instruments of some of the most dangerous forces, as he thought, affecting the thoughts of the rising generation, and would, as a matter of fact, without really desiring that result, destroy the religious teaching in the schools and homes of this country. If that were so, he could not possibly vote for an Amendment which he believed would be fatal to the objects which both the hon. Members to whom be was referring were in favour of. They and he, and he believed everybody, were in favour of religious education. He did not believe that a secular basis, as they described secular basis, would produce the results which they expected. They knew perfectly well that the scheme they had proposed was entirely different from that proposed by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. His right hon. friend might, if he thought fit, describe his scheme as based on a secular foundation, but his scheme was wholly different. He desired that there should be, within the compulsory school hours, an opportunity for the

1319
Churches and for the teachers to teach religion in the schools. Whatever might be said of that, it was not a system which, as far as he could see, was a secular system, and would not lead to secularism. It was, on the contrary, a scheme involving religious, and denominational religious, education as its very essence. It abolished the Cowper-Temple clause, of course, as he thought the Cowper-Temple clause ought to be and must be abolished, if they were ever to have a coherent and clear system of education in this country. His right hon. friend proposed to abolish the Cowper-Temple clause and to erect upon the vacant space thereby created a scheme for religious instruction which might well satisfy, and did satisfy, a very large number of the most earnest thinkers on all sides of politics and among all religious denominations. He erected a religious structure upon the ground thus cleared by the abolition of the Cowper-Temple clause. That was not true of the authors of the present Amendment. They did away with the Cowper-Temple clause and put nothing religious in its place, and that was their deliberate and avowed intention. They did not conceal it, and, indeed, it was on the very face of the Amendment. The Cowper-Temple clause had no stronger opponent than he, if they were to consider it as the sole mechanism and me the d by which religious instruction was to be given to the children. To say that Cowper-Temple religion, as it was called, and Cowper-Temple religion alone, should be taught in our public elementary schools seemed to him not only grossly absurd, but grossly unfair. But he confessed that he was not prepared to do away even with that gross unfairness and gross inequality if, in doing that, they destroyed all religions teaching in the schools. That was a deeper thing than any of their other quarrels. He quite agreed that under the Cowper-Temple clause they had a variety of teaching which was almost infinite in its character—teaching which varied from the mere reading of the Bible as a collection of literary works produced at different stages of human development to teaching as dogmatic as the Council of Trent, which was not regarded by the courts of law as dogmatic, because more than one sect I happened to agree with it. But at all events they did have in some cases, and they could have in all cases under the
1320
Cowper-Temple clause, most substantial, valuable religious education. If they were going to clear that away, let them know what they were going to put in its place. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and the hon. Member for North West Ham cleared it away and left the Churches to manage their own affairs. He could not accept that statement. If the Government would assure them, or if there wore any clear prospect that by clearing away the Cowper-Temple clause they were to have any scheme—his right hon. friend's scheme, or, at all events, some scheme—which gave them the assurance that there would continue to be valuable religious education in every one of the schools, then by all means let them clear away the Cowper-Temple clause with all its absurdities, all its illogicalities, all its frictions, all these shams for which it was responsible But until he had some security that this Amendment was only to be the prelude to another scheme, and not in itself a complete scheme, he could not support it, because he would be open to the charge that he was himself desirous of seeing education upon a secular basis. That was not his view. He did not think it ought to be on a secular basis, and were he, therefore, to vote for the Amendment, he would give an entirely false impression of the views which he held. He held that the best plan of all was to find some scheme by which free play should be given to denominational teaching, dogmatic teaching, teaching which the parents desired, to all the varieties of teaching which they must have in a country where religious belief was itself so varied. That was the scheme he wanted. It was not given by the Bill, but even less was it given by the Amendment. The Bill in Clause 4 left some opening for religious denominational teaching. Even in Clause 3, though in a form which, he thought the Committee would insist on amending, there was some recognition of a free denominational element. But this Amendment, according to the intention of its movers, left no such possibility and no such opening; and if their carrying it meant that they accepted the views of these who proposed it, it meant that they had for ever banished religion from the schools. He could not personally lend any colour to the view that he shared these opinions. He did not share them. There was an illimitable abyss between

1321
the secular scheme of the two hon. Gentlemen to whom he had been referring and the scheme of his right hon. friend. There was an impassable abyss between that scheme and the scheme of any one who desired to see the voluntary school system maintained, and between that system and these who desired to see full religious teaching under the Cowper-Temple clause preserved in the schools. Of all the many plans that had been put before the Committee for dealing with the religious difficulty, the one which cut schools wholly adrift from religion was the one most repellant to his mind. Much as he objected, deeply as he objected to the Bill of the Government, unjust, provocative, unhistorical, and inadequate as he thought it was, he would rather have it than the scheme which for ever made the schools of the country schools for secular instruction and secular instruction alone. And although he fully admitted that on the basis proposed by these hon. Gentlemen they might erect other schemes of religious education which they did not agree with, it seemed to him that, if he were to support their Amendment in the hope of doing something afterwards which they did not agree with, he would only be misleading the Committee as to the true direction in which, upon this religious question, his opinions moved. For these reasons, though he should support the Amendment to the Amendment, the original Amendment itself seemed to be so inimical to the interests of religious education in elementary schools that, deeply as he sympathised with nine-tenths of what had fallen from the two eloquent speakers, he could not himself follow them into the lobby.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that, al though he had no right to speak on behalf of any great body of his fellow countrymen, he claimed to have some knowledge with regard to the condition of religious education of the country and of the opinions of the great body of Nonconformists. Whatever scheme was put before the Committee would be objected to by somebody and a variety of difficulties would be brought forward which were supposed to be insuperable. He thought the Government had endeavoured in the best possible way to meet these difficulties. Of course some of the proposals in the Bill did
1322
not satisfy him, but, if the measure gave him complete satisfaction, probably it would prove unjust to some other sections of the community. An attempt had been made in the Bill to meet some of the difficulties of the minorities, and there was every disposition on the part of these whom he represented to regard the difficulties of the situation with the utmost fairness and a desire that they should be met. He thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education went a little beyond his brief in the speech he had made the previous day. Perhaps there was a measure of excuse for the ardour with which he took up the cause of religious education, but in his remarks he thought the hon. Member did scant justice to the great Sunday school institutions of the country, and he did not think they had had fair treatment or justice at the hands of many other speakers, probably from want of absolute knowledge of the facts. It would help to reassure the Committee if he stated one or two facts in connection with Sunday school institutions. He had the honour of being the president of one of the great Sunday school organisations connected with the Free Churches, and there were no less than 3,500,000 scholars in attendance in the so Churches. He was free to admit that they wore not staffed with the same efficient teachers as the day schools, but a great many of these teachers were also on the day schools staffs of both the council and the non-provided schools. In these Free Church Sunday schools they had some 400,000 teachers, many of whom belonged to the educated classes, and they gave the best religious instruction they could. Outside the Free Churches there were probably some 3,000,000 more children in attendance at Sunday schools. He thought that was something of an answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, who dismissed so lightly the idea that parents were in favour of simple Bible teaching. These scholars wore gathered in the Sunday schools by their own desire or by the desire of their parents, and they received there this religious education for whatever it was worth. He thought that in a debate where religious education took the lead, at least Sunday schools should have a little more prominent recognition than they had received up to the present. He had been connected with Sunday schools for

1323
fifty years and knew a great many parents, and he was not prepared to deny the fact that in a great many instances parents were not capable, and had not the disposition to give religious education; yet they desired that their children should have it, and they showed that desire by sending their children to our Sunday schools. One thing that had surprised him was that Members of this Committee who seemed to be extremely anxious for the religious education of the children of the working classes belonged to a class which did not care for this dogmatic teaching. He could give many extracts on this point from good authorities, but he would quote only two. The Bishop of London had testified that the children of the wealthier classes who came forward for confirmation had no religious education at all, while the other classes were well grounded.
MR. SHACKLETON: But that relates to the Sunday school.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid the late Colonial Secretary had said in regard to Bible reading without the explanations associated with creeds that—
"It would be absurd to say it widely differs from the instruction we receive at Eton and probably at Harrow and Rugby."
He could give other quotations to show that dogmatic teaching was not in great favour with those classes who were constantly insisting upon it for the children. The secular position had been ably dealt with, and if any advocacy could command assent to the principle in this Committee it would be the advocacy of the hon. Member for North West Ham and the hon. Member for Leicester. But after all the hon. Member for Leicester had really delivered a doctrinaire speech without any practical results following, and there was nothing upon which to build up what he himself regarded as the essential part of the education of the young of this country. Whilst he had the greatest sympathy with very much which the hon. Member had advanced and would deprecate anything that would force dogmatic teaching upon the children in the schools, he did not think the hon. Member had moved the question one inch forward, good and powerful as his advocacy was from many points of view. The Nonconformist Party had
1324
always more or less sympathised with the secular movement, because it seemed to meet the one thing they were driven to in opposition to the dogmatic teaching of a certain dominant sect. The position of Nonconformists prior to 1870 was perhaps not altogether understood by the so who had the advantage of being young and who had not gone through the contest of that period. Their position was that they could not justly separate religion from education and that it must be a part of it. Therefore, as the State had no right to interfere with the religious education of its people, therefore it could not undertake education as such. That was the primary position of the Nonconformists, and circumstances drove them to that position the great ignorance in which the population of the country was then growing up and which increased year by year drove them from that position, and therefore the compromise of 1870 was made. Some extra-ordinary charges had boon made against Cowper-Temple teaching by the late Prime Minister. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not need reminding that Cowper-Temple teaching had the imprimatur of the loading members of the Anglican Church, the Nonconformist Church, and these belonging to no Church at all. Therefore it could not deserve the epithets which had been applied to it. But whatever defects it might have, it at least kept the Bible before the children. Those who advocated a purely secular basis must say whether the Board of Education was to forbid the Bible entering the schools. Wore they prepared to take up that position and insist that the Bible was the one book which the Board of Education was to declare should not enter the schools?
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: When the hon. Member says that we declare that the Bible is the only book that should be kept out of the school he is wrong.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he was aware that there might be other books which the hon. Member would not like to see introduced into the schools, but the Bible was the only book which under this Amendment the Board of Education would have to interdict To adopt that position would be absolutely fatal to any Education Bill and strong as the present

1325
Government was it would he fatal to them. There were many Members of the Committee, some of them on the Ministerial side, who advocated secular teaching. He thought there were many who would feel justified in saying that if the Government had gone to the country with a programme of secular education as part of its education policy it would have come back as strong. That, of course, was the practical way of looking at it. Even now, some of these who had been engaged in Bible teaching for half a century were charged with being Atheists and Godless people because they were not prepared to take up this dogmatic teaching. He did not know what they could be called more than they had boon called already, but if there were any other epithets they would have been used if the Government had gone to the country with a programme of that sort. He desired to say a few words upon the Amendment to the Amendment, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West, Birmingham. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Leicester who claimed that the right hon. Gentleman had shown consistency in the programme he had put before the Committee. He was old enough to remember the time when the right hon. Gentleman was a prominent member of the Birmingham Education League. At that time he was in favour of secular, or what was then called unsectarian education, and he did not then propound anything as an addition to secular education like what he had foreshadowed in his speech of the previous night. The right hon. Gentleman first of all laid down the principle that the State had no right to interefere in religion. So far his hon. friend the Member for Burnley thought he had caught a very big fish, but the right hon. Gentleman very soon eluded his grasp by indicating what he desired to have done on this basis of purely secular education, namely, that all sorts of religious teaching should be given in the State schools in school hours by State paid teachers. That was rather a wide basis for secular education. How the right hon. Gentleman could claim to be in favour of secular education after what he had said the previous night was difficult to understand. The only saving clause was that it must not be at the public expense. It would be extremely unjust to attempt to
1326
carry out this Amendment and to say that it must not be at the public expense. The Bill provided for an expenditure of something like £1,000,000. The bulk of that money would go to one denomination and it should pay for all its religious teaching. Therefore it would be at the public expense, whereas the other denominations if they chose to deal with religious teaching at all on behalf of the sects to which they belonged, would have to pay for it out of their own pockets. The dominant church could pay for it out of the receipts from rent of buildings, and it would not cost them a penny. It seemed to him therefore on financial grounds that it would be unjust. He wondered how many teachers in the schools would be willing to support this introduction of religious teaching by all denominations in school hours. Nothing could be more disastrous. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose that they should enter on one day or that they should go on separate days of the week? How were all the sects to be accommodated? The free churches asked no such thing. They were willing to submit to some fair and reasonable arrangement for giving undogmatic teaching in school hours, and they wore willing to supplement the undogmatic teaching by such teaching as they were able themselves to provide. Referring to this undogmatic teaching Lord Hugh Cecil in one of hs speeches had said—
"Board school teaching may be very good religious instruction so far as it goes, but there is then the fundamental objection that it cannot attach the child to a denomination."
He thought that that was the very strongest argument which could possibly be used in favour of this kind of teaching. The State had no right to give such re ligious teaching as would attach the child to a religious denomination. Therefore he and these who sympathised with him adopted this not logical position, but, as they thought, the best position that had yet been found. Were the members of the Catholic Church and of the Anglican Church prepared to let him as a Baptist into their schools, and to teach what he should undoubtedly have to teach if he took up the line of dogmatic teaching, that there was absolute error in proclaiming that salvation came from the sacraments, and a variety of other dogmas of that sort?
LORD R. CECIL: Certainly, so far as Baptist children are concerned.
MR. GEORGE WHITE: I am delighted to see the liberal spirit which is growing.
LORD R. CECIL: It always was there.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that so far as his experience of the rural districts went—and it was somewhat large—that liberal spirit did not prevail in the Anglican Church generally. It was absolutely wrong for the State to give dogmatic religious teaching in the schools. What effect would that have on the children? Could there be anything more deplorable than the setting of children aside in little groups in their early life, being made to take part in sectarian bickerings, which they would do, because though they understood nothing whatever about them they still would say, "I belong to this clergyman or that minister?" He had heard of two little girls who were discussing about their separate schools, and one of them said, "My school has got a fine weathercock." The other girl replied, "My school has got a mortgage." He thought the giving of this religious instruction would be grossly unfair in many other ways, and that it would operate against the very best interests of education. What was the position in which they found themselves by these two Amendments. One asked the Committee to say that there must be no flavour whatever of religion in the schools. To carry that out logically they must banish from the schools much of the very finest literature. He was sure his hon. friend the Member for Burnley did not take that position. Logically, the books built up on the Bible and many others were the very finest volumes in literature. If they were to deal with these things logically these books could be, and probably would be, excluded on the part of a section, but if logic was to rule they must follow that section just as they might follow the section now asking for the purely secular basis. He thought he bad shown that it was impracticable to attempt to force on the Government a clause like this in connection with a Bill which they hoped to carry, and which would be for the benefit of education. He was sure the
1328
Amendment to the Amendment would be rejected by an enormous majority, because it not only did not banish the religious difficulties but increased them a thousand-fold. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley, though it was one for which he had more sympathy than he had for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member for Leicester had made an appeal to him at the commencement of his speech which necessitated his making a further explanation. The hon. Member had asked, in effect, how far he should carry his Party with him in the Amendment he had moved to the Amendment. He thought the hon. Member implied that if he could assure him of substantial support for the Amendment as amended, the view of himself and many others who agreed with him, would be in favour of accepting that Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Then he thought he was hardly in a position to call him to account and invite him to explain how many of these who sat near him and behind him would follow him into the lobby. He did not know, but he could say for himself, that his proposal, which was made in all sincerity and honesty, was one which in his belief would be the ideal form, and that at any rate it was one out of two just solutions. The only two just solutions of the question were that the State should pay for all religions alike, or that it should pay for none. To pay for all was what was called denominationalism—an ugly word which might be accepted as defining the situation. That he had no doubt would be favoured by his friends behind him and by the Church for which they would principally speak, and at least it would be a fair solution. His only difficulty with regard to it was that he did not think it would be practicable. Then as to the other solution that the State should pay for none, he thought that was the principal object of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Burnley, and he thought that the words "during school hours" had slipped in and were not an essential part of his proposition. He would tell the hon. Member for Leicester that he was inaccurately expressing the effect

1329
of his statement when he said that he desired or ever had desired education to be upon what he now called a "secular basis." The distinction between secular and secularist was a fine distinction which, al though understood by the hon. Member and others skilled in dialectics, was not likely to be appreciated by the masses of the country. They would attribute the same meaning to both words. If the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had shown that he was assenting to the word "secular" then he might be accused of being a secularist as the hon Gentleman for Leicester inaccurately declared that he was in 1870. He was not a secularist in any souse in which that word was used in an expression by the hon. Member for Leicester attributed to the Prime Minister, when he said he had in a speech declared that he wished to keep religion out of the schools. He did not wish to keep religion out of the schools and never had. That was not the proposal of the National Education League and these associated with him in that agitation. On the contrary it was complementary to their proposal that the State should have nothing to do with religion, but that facility should be given equally to all denominations, in order that they might enter the schools am give their religious instruction. He imagined that the hon. Member for Burnley was not opposed to the facilities being given, provided it was not at the cost of the State, and that it was no given in school hours.
MR. MADDISONsaid he made it perfectly plain in his speed that during school hours he was opposed to any form of religious instruction being given. They were quite in favour of fill facilities for all denominations out o school hours.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the difference between them was perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman would allow the same facilities as he would only they must come half an hour before compulsory attendance. It was to their coming half an hour after compulsory attendance to which the hon. Gentleman objected.
MR. MADDISONsaid he did not commit hon. Members who agreed with him in this Amendment, because if this Amendment were carried, many con-
1330
sequential Amendments would be necessary. Speaking for himself, he made a great distinction between after school hours and before school hours, and he would only commit himself to facilities after school hours.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid that this was where they differed, and this difference was important, because if this instruction was given out of school hours it would not be availed of. It would be perfectly useless and a sham. If it wore the object of the hon. Member for Burnley that this religious instruction should not be banished from the schools, but should be given out of school hour? he was convinced that the hon. Gentleman would not obtain what he wished unless the instruction were given at the time of compulsory attendance He did not claim perfect consistency with what he had said in 1870. In 1870 there was a beginning of a new system, and they had had no practical experience of how an attempt to give instruction by voluntary means would succeed. He said perfectly frankly the other day that the great scheme proposed by Dr. Dale had practically broken down, and that they were compelled to introduce into the schools of Birmingham a system of reading the Bible without note or comment. But they had gone through three stages since then. As regarded the teacher, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk had practically caricatured what he had said. He maintained that the real question was the liberty of the subject. They had no right to impose a disability on the teacher in the time for which he was not paid by the State, or to bring in any regulations whatever as to the use he wished to make of it. It was in the interest of the teacher and of freedom I that the teacher should be allowed if he desired to give his services to any denomination to which he might belong and which might be willing to engage him.
MR. WHITEsaid he never questioned that for a moment. That was not the point he touched.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid he was glad to hear it. His proposal therefore was that, without calling upon the State to be responsible in any way for one penny of

1331
expenditure in the matter, all denominations should, be allowed the entry which would enable them to give religious instruction. What was the objection? The hon. Member declared it was very unfair. Why? Because under the Bill the Government were going to take the property of the Church and to pay for it, and therefore that would put into the hands of the Church a sum of money they might apply to this kind of teaching. How did that come about? Simply because the Church had property which even this Government did not propose absolutely to confiscate. There was a time when the Nonconformists had a great deal of property. The Wesleyans had property in their schools to this day. Those who had provided schools at their own cost— whether Nonconformist, Wesleyan or Anglican would, if they surrendered their schools under this Bill, be entitled to compensation. That was a mere accident, and it did not follow that the money they thus obtained for their own property would be earmarked and applied to giving religious instruction. What was at the bottom of a great deal of the opposition to this proposal? Simply the thought that the Church was too rich, and therefore better able to pay the cost. That was why the Nonconformists refused to allow equal justice to all sects. They wore satisfied with a form of religious education which did not satisfy a minority, if not a majority, in the country, and desired to provide their system at the national expense, but would not allow the others to provide the education they desired even at their own expense. In these two Amendments they were dealing with the separation between religious and secular instruction. The fourth clause was a separate matter to be dealt with on its merits. He should vote for his Amendment. If that was carried he would certainly vote for the amended Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Burnley. If his Amendment was not carried he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley on the ground that it would not provide facilities which would be given to secure elementary religious education in the schools.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury)said he would never presume to charge the right hon. Gentle-
1332
man the Member for West Birmingham with inconsistency in the views which he held in 1870 and those which he held now, because he gathered that they were different only so far as regarded administration. And surely in that question they ought freely to admit that any proposal must be in the nature of an experiment, and the experiment which the right hon. Gentleman suggested in 1870 had been found to be a failure. It never caught the imagination of the country. It had not been tolerated in a single great city of the country, so far as he knew, for any length of time. Having said that, he thought they might examine the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman without any reference to what he said in 1870 or 1874 when the agitation was at its height. The proposal now made seemed to him to centre round two points, namely, whether the religious instruction should be given within school hours or outside school hours, and whether that religious teaching should be given by the teachers or by someone who came from outside.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: May be given by the teachers.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but what does it amount to? The right hon. Gentleman desires that attendance at religious instruction shall be compulsory.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: May I say what I propose is that every child should be required to go in at the proper time, and according to the desire of his parents he should go either to the secular instruction or to the religious instruction?
MR. RUNCIMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that there should be compulsory attendance during the hour for this specific purpose [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!] that was what in practice it must amount to. And if so, he wanted to know what became of the parent. Why should not the parent, have the right to absent his child from the school at these very hours which were earmarked for religious instruction? Let him turn to another point, namely, that of the teachers. Really the whole subject of tests for teachers turned on the conditions of employment and the payment which should be made. It was not only a question of whether or not they induced

1333
the teacher de facto to be attached to a denomination in order to secure what he believed to be a fair remuneration for the work he performed. That might not be particularly obvious without illustration. He would take an illustration. They might have a school of say 400 children, where the headmaster was paid £250 a year in the gross. Under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme it might be possible for £50 to be paid from denominational funds, and £200 from public funds. He became, in fact, partly the servant of the denomination, and partly the servant of the public body. Such a proposal as that was unworkable. They ought not to ask any teach or to be the servant of two masters. He would turn from that subject to the real subject of discussion that afternoon, namely, the question whether or not we were to have in this country a system of purely secular instruction. He should like to know, in the first place, what was the meaning of purely secular instruction. He knew that his hon. friends the Members for Leicester and for North West Ham appeared to have clear ideas in their heads as to what they meant, but he would point out to them that whenever the system of secular instruction had been tried throughout the English speaking world, the syllabus had been frequently changed. In some cases it went so far as to lay down that any reference to God was to be cut out of Shakespeare, Paradise Lost was expurgated, and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was placed in the Index Expurgatorius. It was perfectly obvious that nothing of that kind could be tolerated in this country, and he believed it had already been abandoned in some of our Colonies. In others where they had what was called purely secular instruction, Biblical instruction was carried on very much as in our own schools at the present time. He understood that in some they did not commence with prayer, but they had Biblical instruction. In others where they adhered to the system of purely secular instruction they had hymns but no prayers, and they had the Bible. He thought, therefore, when his hon. friends advocated a system of purely secular instruction and endeavoured to persuade the Government to adopt it, they ought to define clearly what they meant. After all, the whole thing centred around what appeared in the syllabus. He knew that there was one hon. Member who was a
1334
very prominent speaker for the Labour Party in this country—tho hon. Member for Blackburn—who in most eloquent language had expressed his views on the subject. Only in February of this year, he said it would indeed be an irreparable loss if the Bible, the most beautiful book of history, of poetry, and of moral teaching ever given to the world, wore to be excluded from the children's education because of unfortunate differences as to certain parts of the book. The hon. Member had said that to any liberal education or moral training the Bible must contribute. That was the view of one of the Labour Members who sat upon the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Leicester had made no statement whatever of his views as to the inclusion or exclusion of the Bible from our schools. He quite agreed that the hon. Member did not say that the Bible was the one book which he would exclude, nor did he say that the Bible was one of the books which he would include, and until they had some definite assurance as to what was meant by purely secular instruction he thought they were adopting the safer course if they adhered to the syllabus which almost throughout the whole country had been found the most workable and most successful. He could not agree that there had been any particular advance towards the secular position, even during the last few years. He knew that the majority sitting below the gangway on the other side were in favour of purely secular instruction; that there were also some Nonconformists who said they were in favour of it, and also some Bishops, High Churchmen and Catholics; but he thought one ought to point out that in nearly every case the reason why these gentlemen had declared in favour of purely secular instruction was not because they preferred it to religious instruction, but because from sheer desperation they thought it was the only way out of the difficulty. [Cries of "No."] Well, he was only stating his own view.
MR. BYLES: You are pretending to speak our views.
MR. RUNCI.MANsaid that as to the Nonconformists he was absolutely convinced that taking any of the villages in any county of the United Kingdom, the Nonconformists as a body were not in favour

1335
of purely secular instruction. He ventured to say that nine-tenths of those who now sat on the Ministerial side of the House of Commons would not have boon there if they had advocated at the last election, or any previous election, the secularising of our schools. He believed that these gentlemen had been driven to this position because of the unreasonableness of those who occupied an extreme position on either side. The man in the street, after all, did not appreciate the extreme views on one side or the other. When they saw a prominent ecclesiastical journal describing the Bill as a brutal one and drawing attention to its frank savagery, he thought they might well understand why some men said that such extravagant language was unintelligible to them. On the other side was to be put the equally extravagant and unintelligible language of people who said, "Let us have an end of all these parsons and their religion, let us take the purely secular position." These gentlemen adopted this position out of sheer desperation. Was there any hon. Gentleman in this Committee who would declare that the majority of elementary school teachers in the country wished to see a purely secular system of education? Could the hon. Member for North Camberwell declare that the teachers with whom he was associated by a majority were in favour of purely secular education? He believed they were not. [Dr. MACNAMARA: "Hear, hear."] The value of Bible teaching, simple Bible reading, to the teachers was supposed to be enormous; they relied upon it to a large extent and they did not wish to see it wiped out of the syllabus. Of course he knew that they did not want to go into the finer distinctions of theology. He doubted whether there were any teachers who taught up to the sixth standard who entered on dissertations on baptismal regeneration, upon which he remarked that even the dignitaries of the Church of England were not agreed any more than those who were attached to the great Nonconformist bodies. Nor did they wish in the voluntary schools to describe all the definitions of the Atonement, nor to go into the arguments for or against the Immaculate Conception, nor to express he various views of the Resurrection. But the simple Bible teaching and the
1336
very elements of Christianity were regarded as being of supreme value.
He wished to point out how very difficult it would be for a teacher who wished to give religious instruction to his children to keep his religious feelings out of his tuition. For instance, the teacher who wished to inculcate a respect for truth into his pupils—the chances were that if he were a religious man he would immediately draw the attention of the child to the fact that the Scripture said that "no liar shall inherit the Kingdom of God," and who was to find fault with him for doing that? If he wished to inculcate the principles of justice he would immediately quote another portion of Scripture which says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," and so on throughout all the great moral maxims. They would turn to the authority of Scripture for support. They might ask the teacher to teach his children purity, and he might do it merely on principles of hygiene, but it was probable that if he were a religious man he would appeal to the old Book and say, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." In fact there was hardly any department of moral instruction where the teacher would not turn to the Bible not only for his own moral inspiration, but also for the exercise of the authority which he wished to exercise over the child. He did not wish to labour the point of the teachers' case, because they had many of them in the Committee who were capable of speaking for themselves, and he wished they had more. I If they had, they would soon get rid of a great deal of nonsense which was I talked about Cowper-Templeism. He had taken the trouble to obtain copies of the syllabus used by the Education Committees of Manchester, Middlesex, Kent, Lancashire, Hertfordshire Hampshire, and others, indeed from almost every county educational committee in the Kingdom. These committees were now running their schools upon Cowper-Temple lines, and it would not be believed by the Committee that an attack was made upon Cowper-Templeism if he referred to the syllabus itself. In Middlesex, in Standard I. the children learnt the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the 23rd Psalm, and a number of select hymns and texts; in Standard II.,

1337
a little of the New Testament, and certain portions of St. Matthew's Gospel; in Standard III., Psalm 19 and St. Matthew's Gospel; in Standard IV., Deuteronomy; and the Gospel of St. John; in Standard V., Psalm 25, the Epistle to the Ephesians, a portion of the Epistle to the Corinthians, and also the lives of Samuel, Saul, David, and Elisha; in Standard VI. a portion of Isaiah, and the Epistle to the Ephesians; and in Standard VII., other Old Testament Prophets, another portion of Isaiah, and the Gospel of St. John. Such was the syllabus which was now being attacked by those who were against the Cowper-Temple teaching. How many hon. Gentlemen opposite approved of Cowper-Temple teaching? He ventured to think that there were not 10 per cent, of them who would get up and advocate it. The ordinary proceedings of the day began with prayers for the benefit of the morning school which consisted of the Lord's Prayer, and prayers which were drawn up in Middlesex as elsewhere by those who were denominationalists including not only Nonconformists, but also members of the English Church. Then in the evening they closed with prayers and hymns which were not of great dogmatic value but had a certain influence on the mind and on the memory of the child. That was what was being talked of by Members like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City, when they said they did not like Cowper-Temple teaching.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite misrepresenting mo. On the contrary I attach the greatest value to Cowper-Temple teaching. I not only said I attached great value to it, but I said in my speech that I would prefer this unjust and one-sided system to a system which excluded religion.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I ask the right hon. Gentleman's pardon if I misrepresented him. I quite understood him to assert that he was not in favour of Cowper-Temple teaching. May I ask whether he is or is not?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A Cowper-Temple Clause which forbids anything but Cowper-Temple teaching I think grossly unfair and unjust, but a great deal
1338
of the most admirable religious teaching is given under that grossly unfair and unjust system.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I had no desire to misrepresent him. What I understood him to say was that Cowper-Temple teaching could not be satisfactory to him. It could not be regarded as adequate, and it was for the purposes of religious instruction not what he desired. If I misunderstood him I accept his explanation quite fully. If, said the hon. Member continuing, they were going to remove Cowper-Templeism from the schools they were going to take away the great basis on which he believed they could, as the children grew older raise up a fine religious superstructure. It was perfectly clear that to the man in the street this quarrel over the Cowper-Temple clause was absolutely unintelligible. Many of those who were educated in schools where the Cowper Temple clause was supposed to be adequate could not understand how objection was taken to it, and why it was not adequate now. He believed the Government Bill met the very difficulty that had been raised. He believed that in Clause 4 facilities were provided which would allow to be added to this basis of Cowper-Templeism a certain amount of dogmatic teaching of which no doubt a large number of Denominationalists would avail themselves. The ordinary man in the street, however, when he was at school and learnt to sing "Load, Kindly Light," did not know there was anything wrong in its undenominational character, and when he sang "Nearer My God to Thee" or the Old Hundredth he did not recognise them as purely Nonconformist hymns. Then why say that the Cowper-Temple clause was Nonconformist teaching? [OPPOSITION cries of "We do not."] This was the first time they had had, either in this debate or in that of 1902, any admission that it was other than Nonconformist teaching. For his part he should be prepared to vote against purely secular instruction, no matter from what quarter the proposal might come, and he could not believe that the people cared anything about the political quarrel here, but they wanted their children to lead godly, righteous, and sober lives, and did not wish to banish the Bible from the schools.
MR. BUTCHERsaid the Amendment now before the Committee raised the most momentous issue that had yet been opened up in these debates. His strong conviction was in agreement with the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that whatever might be the defects of the Bill now before the Committee, however great its inequalities and want of equity in many respects, it was infinitely superior to the Amendments which in different ways accepted the secular basis of education. In 1888 a Commission dealt with the question of secularism and religious teaching and one of the findings of the Commission was as follows—
"We are convinced that if the State were to secularise education it would be a violation of the wishes of the parents."
That result was arrived at after much inquiry, and he believed that if at this time the question could come before the country as to whether it wished for secularism, its opinion would be as clearly expressed as was that of the Commission of 1888. He freely admitted that the Amendment to the Amendment, proposed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was, from the point of view of those who wished to retain definite religious teaching in the schools, far superior to the original Amendment. It gave them three things. It gave religious teaching in compulsory school hours; it allowed religious teaching to be given by one of the staff of the school; and it admitted of the free entry of the denominations to give such teaching as they desired. Yet he could not think that the Amendment, though it did differ widely from the first Amendment, would not in its final result bring about secular education pure and simple. It needed but one more stop to force on the secularist position and lead to the State disassociating itself entirely from religion. The Amendment laid it down that the State had no financial concern with religious instruction, though it was so far concerned as to set aside a compulsory school hour in which religious instruction should be given by the denominations. The driving force of logic on the secularist side was strong; it would be said irresistibly "if the State has no financial concern with religious instruction, why should it have any concern with it at all." Such was the intention of the original
1340
Amendment. Religious teaching was to be taken out of school hours and to be left entirely in the hands of the denominations, with teachers brought in from outside. The first result would be that the moral unity of the school would be lost; the moral unity, the tone and discipline which arose from the connection of religious with secular instruction. Once those two were dissociated, and the link severed that bound them together through the personality of the teacher, the educational framework of the school would be disjointed. There was, however, a far more important objection to the proposal than that. The Commission of 1888 found that there were two large and typical classes of parents in our great cities, whose children would probably get no religious instruction if it were not given by the State. There were, first, those poor but deserving parents whose lives were passed in the strain and stress of industrial competition; whose time was so occupied day and night as to render them unable, even if they were willing, to have regard to the spiritual welfare of their children; parents who were themselves uninstructed, and who, even if they had the time, had not the knowledge to instruct their children in religious matters. Next, there were parents who were negligent, criminal, or dissolute, and it was needless to speak of the education that would be given by them to their children. So that of the possible agencies which might take the place of the schools for religious instruction, the home and home influence might for those great multitudes of children be set aside. Then as to the other agencies, the Church, the Chapel, the Clergy, and all the voluntary associations that were in existence. he believed it was even more true to-day than when the Commission made its Report, that if all the organisations of the churches were put together, all their staffs of clergy and teachers would be utterly inadequate to cope with our great and growing population, especially when regard was had to the mobility of that population; it was in many places a loose and shifting population. The Report of the Commission in 1888 said—
"For the mass of children above described, we must put on record our opinion, that if they do not receive religious instruction and training from the teachers in the public elementary schools, they will receive none, and

1341
this is a matter of the gravest concern to the State."
These words carried greater force to-day than when they were written. No one who honestly reflected on the conditions of life in our great industrial centres could fail to see that there were children who were mere waifs and strays, derelict children, who were outside the membership of the Churches, and who would be brought up in blank and heathenish ignorance unless the State stepped in and set in motion that great machinery which the State alone was able to supply. They must face the actual facts and not trust to some ideal hopes of what reorganised religious bodies might do in the future. Bishop Butler somewhere spoke of children as strangers who entered a world which was already in the possession of grown people. Towards those strangers the Members of this Committee owed enormous responsibilities. To multitudes of them they stood, as regards their religious welfare, in the place of parents; and he entreated the Committee to pass no vote by which those children should remain strangers and aliens, exiled for ever from the larger hope. He intended to vote against the first Amendment.
SIH W. J. COLLINSsaid there was a desire in all parts of the Committee that in carrying out the principles of popular control and the abolition of tests for teachers, and in so doing removing grievances which had been in existence since 1902, there should be due regard to the neutrality of the State towards all religions. Clause I endeavoured to secure uniformity, but where that clause kept the promise of hope to the ear, Clauses 3 and 4, he thought, would break it to the hope. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had stated that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman for Burnley offered one out of the only two solutions whereby the principle of absolute neutrality of the State in regard to all religions might be secured. If the State was to be neutral towards religion it must subsidise either all religions or none. There must be concurrent endowment of all, or no endowment of any. The Bill in its present form did neither. The inalienable right of the parent to demand that the State should provide at its expense religious instruction in accord with the
1342
faith of the parent was repudiated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he did not think anyone had revived that proposition since the right hon. Gentleman spoke on the Second Reading. The only logical alternative, therefore, was to confine the secular arm of the State to secular matters, and neither compel attendance at public elementary schools for religious instruction nor exact payment from the ratepayers for purposes of religious instruction. When the right hon. Member for West Birmingham endeavoured to divide the double-barrelled Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley into two parts and accepted the one and declined the other he put himself in a somewhat illogical position in maintaining that it was not part of the duty of the State to compulsorily exact payment for the purpose of religious instruction, but that it was part of the duty of the State to compel the attendance of children at public elementary schools in order to receive religious instruction. They had been told by the Minister for Education that the position taken up by the Member for Burnley was the logical position, and he (Sir William Collins) had yet to learn that the logical and the rational position in this matter must be the supremely bad, and that that which was illogical should alone be the supremely wise position. The Minister for Education was not always so severe upon the logical position. It was dangerous to quote him, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, having given one quotation in the earlier debate, was assured that it was meant ironically, and that he was misapprehending the intention of his right hon. friend. But in that charming book which every one had read, Obiter Dicta, he found at the commencement of one of the most entertaining chapters these words—
"The world is governed by logic. Truth, as well as Providence, is always on the side of the strongest battalions. An illogical opinion only requires rope enough to hang itself."
He did not know whether his right hon. friend in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill was providing rope enough to secure the hanging of the illogical opinion. They were told that although the position was logical it was absolutely impossible, but he warned the Committee that in this matter the words of Charles Reade might come true and the impossible might disguise itself as a fact and go through the hollow mockery of taking place.

1343
What was the grievance of the passive resister? He understood it to be that he was compelled to pay for teaching a religion he abhorred. The Bill shifted the grievance, but it did not cure it. They had been told by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, speaking on behalf of the Catholics, that the Catholics regarded simple Bible teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause not only as inadequate, but as bad, as hostile, and as abhorrent to their religious convictions, and in great part as a hostile religion. He agreed entirely with those who said that in these matters of conscience it was the individual who suffered under the law, and not the majority who made the law who should have the final word as to what it was that offended the conscience, and he took it that under the proposals of the Government the conscience of a large section of the community would be offended by sanctioning the teaching of Cowper-Templeism at the expense of the State. He had listened to the able speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, and he would venture to appeal from the new to the old Nonconformist opinion, which he thought was somewhat more liberal with regard to this question. In the year 1870, when the memorable Amendment of Mr. Richard was moved in this House, the mover said—
"If I know anything of the principles of Nonconformity, one of the most fundamental and universally acknowledged by them is this —that it is not right to take money received from the general taxation of the country and apply it to purposes of religious instruction and worship."
He appealed from the new Nonconformity to the old Nonconformity, which he thought represented a truer type of liberal opinion than some of those he had heard expressed recently. Moreover, they knew in the year 1870, from that interesting biography of Mr. Gladstone by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, that an important correspondence took place between Cardinal Manning and Mr. Gladstone about that time. Cardinal Manning wrote to Mr. Gladstone in these words—
"I am glad to see you lay down the broad and intelligible line that State grants go to secular education and voluntary efforts must do the rest."
That solution Mr. Gladstone maintained and believed was in no way
1344
unfriendly to religion. The Amendment of Mr. Richard in 1870 received the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, in a speech at the Alexandra Palace in November, 1902, said—
"If we had our way there would he no religious differences at all. We should confine ourselves (I believe nine-tenths of Liberals would confine themselves) to secular education, and to such moral precepts as would be common to all and would not be obnoxious to people who do not come within the range of Christianity."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that a system of secular instruction need not exclude the Bible. From his (Sir William Collins') point of view he did not believe any secular education would be complete without a knowledge of the literature of the Bible and of the historical matters with which it dealt. It was said that it was difficult or almost impracticable to separate moral from religious instruction. That was a point urged by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. It was true, no doubt, that no matter with what subject of education they were, dealing, no matter what science they might be studying, if they went deep or far enough they were confronted with the great problems of law, cause, and force, and questions of how, why, whence, and whither, on which they came to the shore of the infinite, the abyss of the absolute. Religious teaching differed from all other instruction in that at the very outset these fundamental questions arose and were answered variously according to different creeds. For his own part he associated himself entirely with those who advocated this solution on grounds of true religion and piety. The use of the ambiguous word "secular" was apt to mislead. In one sense it meant neutrality towards all religions, and in another, antagonism towards any religion. It was because he believed that this secular solution as it was called would tend to awaken fresh life in the Churches, the Chapels, and the Sunday school, when they realised that their work was not to be imperfectly done by the State, and because he believed that this solution would be really carrying out the Divine injunction of rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's, that he desired to limit the intervention of the State to

1345
secular education with reference to both payment and compulsory attendance.
MR. ARNOLD-FOKSTERsaid he thought he had some grounds for speaking in this debate. In the first place he had the right every hon. Member had to speak on what, after all, was by far the most important part of this important Bill. He was brought up in the echoes of the 25th clause of the Education Act of 1870, and he supposed those with whom he had lived had been as closely concerned with the cause of education as any Member of this Committee. He wished he could worthily represent what he believed would have been the testimony of every one of those persons in the discussion which was now taking place. He believed that the universal testimony of all those whom he had known and who had been associated with this great educational problem would be that which he also desired to offer, and which he would like to render in a way worthy of them. Nonconformists professed that they had taken a liberal view of this question, but in many respects they failed to see how local and temporary their view was. Some of the dogmatic utterances which had been put forward were far from having any relation to the general movement throughout the world. He thought the Committee ought to vote for the last Amendment. By law they compelled every parent to Bind his child to school, and they had taken upon themselves the enormous responsibility of providing an avenue between the child's soul and any knowledge of and communication with the spiritual world and spiritual things. The hon. Member for Leicester had urged that they should cut away I all religious teaching from the State, but he could not accept that argument. They had already declared by the Bill that the child should be educated in religion, at the expense of the State, and therefore they should take care that the religion in which their children were educated should be the greatest boon which could possibly be bestowed upon them. It was said that this duty could only be carried out by giving the child a limited teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Did the history of mankind justify the view that we could have really well-educated children without the co-operation of and without
1346
taking into their confidence those to whom faith was a living reality? The hon. Member for Dewsbury had told the Committee that they were justified in relying on the fact that certain passages were taught to the children. Every one of those passages might be taught, and the minds and spirits of the children loft absolutely untouched. The teacher might make the whole difference between truth and falsehood, life and death, reality and nonentity, by the spirit in which he taught these things. The teaching of the London School Board had been described as very good. He had hoard that the teachers who taught under the Board at the commencement of the school board r½gime were for the most part men who brought to their work a keen faith in what they taught; but he understood that that was no longer so to the same degree. Even the hon. Member for Leicester had admitted that the standard had not been maintained. The Committee had been told that they ought to be guided by the examples of France, Australia, and the United States. He thought the Committee would not do well to adopt that recommendation. He once prepared a set of text-books for Australian schools under an extreme r½gime, which he was happy to think had now boon abandoned. He was not allowed to mention the name of the Deity, or to quote from Scripture or to enlarge on any Scripture doctrine, but merely to put in its place some machine-made morality. He had some acquaintance with a French work intended to teach morality apart from religious instruction. Children were told that they must honour their parents, and it was explained that those who did not do so were liable to an amende of 5 francs under the code. He did not think Australia had got very far on the journey upon which it set out, and they were finding out it was leading them to a sad conclusion. He did not know enough of what took place in the great States of the Union to say much in regard to the teaching there, but what he had heard made him feel that the United States had not received much encouragement to pursue the path upon which they had set out. What he did suggest to the Committee was that, if religion was to be taught, they must give that religion the chance which all religions had demanded and at the best times

1347
had obtained. The idea of teaching the morality of the Bible by merely repeating the verses of the Bible was childish. No country had ever attempted to inculcate morality in its people by merely reciting its religious books without any exegesis of those books. They could not give religious instruction by merely reciting passages from the Bible without comment, because the whole value of that recitation depended absolutely upon the spirit of the person reading and the comment with which it was accompanied. As they had ordained that religious instruction should be taught, then they should let those who were most competent teach it. Was the House of Commons going to say, "This is the religion of the people of England." Such an idea was absurd. By this Bill they were endeavouring to fix a minimum which was not acceptable to a large number of conscientious people, and they were trying to prevent them going beyond that minimum. With regard to Cowper-Temple teaching he had known instances where it had been given as devotedly and conscientiously as any denominational teaching, but they had no guarantee in regard to it. If they excluded from the schools people who loved what they taught, they would sterilise and atrophy what they taught. In this matter they had to look further than the duration of this Parliament. As the State had made up its mind that it would be responsible for the spiritual guidance of children in our schools, he desired to range himself on the side of those who would not keep out of the schools those who cared most about making their teaching a living reality. Some hard things and some true things had been said about the teaching in schools other than the elementary school. Those, however, who had been educated at public schools knew the help and power they derived from homo teaching and from coming in contact with great minds, but hon. Members should not forget that there were millions of poor children who were likely to be deprived of that enormous advantage which came from personal contact with a great soul and a great teacher. The Christian Brothers had been mentioned. He thought that was an extraordinary example of what they could gain by enlisting on their side men who had a whole-hearted ambition to do their duty,
1348
and teach that which they believed to be true. He knew the work the Christian Brothers had done, and they dare not shut out in Ireland the Christian Brothers from the schools. [An HON. MEMBER: But they do not take State funds.] He knew that quite well, but the object of this very Amendment was that they should have people teaching religion because they believed in it without being supported from State funds, and that was why he had quoted the Christian Brothers. For those reasons he proposed to support the Amendment to the Amendment, and he hoped it would be made effective by the carrying of the Amendment as well.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down on what evidence he had made the statement that religious teaching bad deteriorated under the London School Board. It was laid down first of all in a scheme in the preparation of which a former Tory Leader of this House, Mr. W. H. Smith, took an honourable part. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the hon. Member for Leicester as decrying the London system, but he said nothing of the sort.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would be only too delighted if he was shown to be wrong. He believed that the reason alleged was that a smaller proportion of teachers went through the training colleges.
DR. MACNAMARAreplied that there were more teachers going through the training colleges, and more going through denominational colleges, than ever. the right hon. Gentleman's statement was entirely groundless. The right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee some of his reminiscences as a book writer for the Colony of Australia. He was asked to write a book suited to all tastes, and he appeared to be admirably adapted for I he task. If it failed he could always have an expurgated second edition. All he could hope was that the right hon. Gentleman would not treat the Deity as he treated free trade and cut Him out of the second edition altogether. He wished to express his gratitude to the leader of the exposition for his deliberate statement that, bad as

1349
it was from his point of view, he would rather have Cowper-Temple teaching than nothing at all. He hoped that statement would reach the ears of the noble Lord who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman and of many militant Bishops. The Bishop of Rochester, who was now Bishop of Southwark, once said that the Cowper-Temple clause was an ugly, shifting, shapeless monster. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would, he gathered, receive the support of the Party opposite. It had the support of the Leader of the Opposition, and it had the equal distinction of being blessed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. It was therefore to that Amendment that he desired to direct particular attention. He was deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham for his statement on the Second Reading that, now that the teaching profession was a branch of the Civil Service, teachers must be immune from religious tests. It was, however, no longer ago than four years that the Loader of the Opposition when Prime Minister, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred for confirmation, said that anybody who advocated that was guilty of raving lunacy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, by his Amendment, said in effect, "We will spend public money in compelling parents to send their children to school to get religious teaching, or set their children aside for secular instruction during the time of religious teaching." He would ask the out-and-out secularists who were in favour of secular schools, and who were on a much firmer basis than the right hon. Gentleman, whether they could vote for a proposition which did one of two things, namely, compelled parents to send their children to get religious instruction which they did not wish them to receive, or compelled them to have their children invidiously set aside while religious instruction was going on. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme provided for the right on entry all round. Did he think that at all a practical scheme? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were setting up and endowing undenominationalism, but he was himself setting up and endowing pandemonium. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition was entirely
1350
fantastic and did not come up to his suggestion that they should not spend public money on the religion of anyone. The hon. Member for Burnley and those who were associated with him were on firmer ground. They went straight for secular schools, and he admitted they had all the logic and all the doctrinaire arguments on their side. He admitted that the scheme of the Bill was indefensible from the point of view of dry and doctrinaire logic; but it had behind it ! thirty-five years of unqualified practical success. Secular schools were entirely out of touch with national sentiment. Their institution was possible from the moment Mr. Forster's Bill was passed, because the Cowper-Temple clause permitted them to be set up. Why had they never been set up? He objected to the advocates of a secular solution superimposing upon the statute-book that which they might have got, and had not got, locally. What was the good of saying that the people wanted secular schools. The history of the school boards shewed they did not. If the Committee would permit him he would read an extremely interesting letter which Mr. Cowper-Temple wrote on May 6th, 1872, and which was absolutely apposite to the present situation. He said—
"The Bill nearly made shipwreck on account of the religious difficulty, which was so enormously exaggerated by theorists, but which has never appeared a very real difficulty to those who are practically acquainted with education. The great difficulty was that of the secular party trying to persuade other people that those who advocated unsectarianism were adopting a visionary, hopeless, and impossible scheme. If the thing had been argued upon merely theoretical grounds, I think the secular party might have succeeded in convincing people that unsectarian education was impossible, but the arguments they used went for very little.…Experience has shown that in unsectarian schools religion can be taught in a most practical, efficient, and useful way, supplying to the children the amount of religious knowledge which they require without trenching upon those theological disputes, controversial difficulties, and alarming apprehensions which have induced many good men who love the Bible themselves to be driven to the extreme and abhorrent view that they must absolutely exclude the Bible from the schools."
That was very applicable to the present situation. On all the theoretical argument he would give the supporters of the secular basis their own way; but here I was Mr. Cowper-Temple's statement that: what they said was impossible could be

1351
carried to a success. Tens of thousands of children would be shut out from the sweetening and beautifying influence of religious truth if Bible teaching was excluded from the schools, and even if he had no other argument, he would urge it with all the power he could command.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he agreed with one remark of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was extremely easy to make a strong argumentative case for a purely secular solution of this difficulty. He had listened with the greatest admiration to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester who had disposed once for all of the idea that there could be such a thing as undogmatic Christianity taught in our schools. He, therefore, was surprised that the last speaker from the- Treasury Bench had not realised that the teaching he was defending was not undogmatic teaching. Christianity was dogma, and it was absolutely impossible to teach it without teaching dogma. The case for the secular solution had been best put on the previous evening by the hon. Member for North West Ham, whose two arguments were that the secular solution was the simple and natural solution, and that there was no alternative between that solution and the Bill now under discussion. He admitted that it was apparently the simplest way of putting out that fire which for twenty six years had either smouldered or flamed in this country. It was an open question whether it had done more harm smouldering or in flames, for when it smouldered the system of elementary education remained unchanged, because no political Party was willing to face the danger of changing it. The children's interests were thus sacrificed on the altars of religious bigotry. [Cries of "No."] No one knew this better than the Member for the City of London, who knowingly risked unpopularity to improve elementary education. This Bill proved his success, for it left the educational system practically as it was left by his right hon. friend. The business of the Government was not to take the easiest solution; it was to choose the solution that was best for the people of England. In talking of the logic of facts, the hon. Member for North West Ham had omitted to note the one fact that the majority of the people
1352
of England wished to have religious instruction in their schools. That fact excluded absolutely from their purview the secular solution. For the hon. Member's second point that there was no alternative solution except this Bill, the argument was extremely weak— the mandate of the country. The hon. Member had poured deserved contempt on the idea that there was any mandate.
MR. MASTERMANsaid that what he had stated was that there was a mandate for popular control.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he accepted the hon. Gentlemen's explanation, but he had read the hon. Gentleman's speech that morning and certainly he did ridicule the idea that there was any mandate for the; particular Bill now before the House.
MR. MASTERMAN: Quite right.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid there was nothing now as to the theory of mandates. The only mandate clearly given was that the country was tired of them and desired a change; and there were indications that perhaps they were repenting of that view. [An HON. MEMBER: Where are they?] If any mandate was given on the education question, it was to correct the injustice which any particular class of the community suffered under the education system as left by the Act of 1902. If the Government had set themselves only to that task, it would have been much easier, more statesmanlike, and in the end better even for their Party interests than the course they had taken. The Minister for Education had made use of an epigram of which he had since repented. Had he ever discovered why this particular epigram had "taken on" so much? It was not that it was a particularly good one.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRKELL, Bristol, N.): It is not an epigram at all.
MR. BONAR LAWthought it sounded like one. What did the right hon. Gentleman call it then?
MR. BIRRELL: A platitude.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made hundreds of other

1353
platitudes—if he preferred that word— which were far better, but which no one remembered. Why was "minorities must suffer" remembered? It was remembered because it was true, because it exactly expressed the spirit in which this Bill had been introduced. The President of the Board of Trade, who represented far better than any other Minister the force—strong because it was so narrow— that was behind the Bill, gave his views to the House with perfect frankness and distinctness. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"We are willing to give facilities to Roman Catholics; but as for the Church of England, it ought to he either Catholic or Protestant, and if it is Protestant, what we propose ought to be good enough for it."
[MINISTERIAL cheers.] Hon. Members cheered; but did they not see that that was precisely the spirit which always animated religious intolerance and persecution? Men never or rarely persecuted on religious grounds unless they believed that the views which they tried to compel other people to adopt were good for the other people. That was exactly the position of the President of the Board of Trade. But the right hon. Gentleman should realise that the real question at issue was not whether the Bill ought to satisfy the Church of England, but whether it did, in fact, satisfy the Church of England. It was said that the agitation against the Bill was got up by the Bishops and clergy. If that were true the Bill might pass. But if, as he believed, hostility to the Bill was felt by the great body of the Church of England; no majority, no power that the Government possessed, could make the Bill the law of England.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! I think the hon. Gentleman is now transcending even the rattier wide limits of this Amendment.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he desired to show that there was an alternative to secularism. The hon. Member for North West Ham had referred to Canada to prove that there was no solution but secularism.
MR. MASTERMANsaid he referred to Upper Canada to show that the system which he recommended was in operation there.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the hon. Member had forgotten that during the last two or throe years there had been the keenest struggle in Canada, not about Quebec, but over the form of religious instruction to be adopted in the New Provinces, and that the problem had been solved by a Liberal Government, not by such a system as was proposed by the Bill or by secularism, but by a system of denominational education. The President of the Board of Trade had described Dr. Clifford and Oliver Cromwell as the two greatest outstanding Nonconformists. Personally he had always had a strong admiration for Cromwell, which perhaps was a strange confession from one who imagined himself to be a Tory. He thought that Cromwell had boon badly treated by the Party opposite. It was bad enough that a year or two ago an oration was delivered over him by Lord Rosebery and at the same time his life was written by the Secretary for India. Every one knew that the character of Cromwell and the character of the Secretary for India were in every respect antipathetic. But the President of the Board of Trade had gone much further in his view of Cromwell. As a matter of fact Cromwell was, for his day, a man who above all his contemporaries was distinguished by a desire for religious tolerance. [Loud cries of "Oh" from the NATIONALIST Benches.] He did not expect that that statement would be accepted by hon. Members for Ireland. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Have you read history at all?] There were plenty Dr. Clifford's and plenty Presidents of the Board of Trade in Cromwell's time, and one of Cromwell's most difficult tasks was to prevent these gentlemen from flying at the throats of those with whom they disagreed on religious grounds.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that thirty-five years had shown that under the Cowper-Temple clause fundamental Christianity could be taught without any difficulty. Parents of all denominations accepted it, and often sent their children to board schools in order to get it. There was no religious difficulty in the schools themselves. He had been a member of a school board in which Anglicans, Nonconformists, Conservatives, and Liberals were represented, and' they had always worked together without any friction. In the school

1355
religious instruction was given by a member of the Church of England, and was without the slightest taint of dogma. He acknowledged that it was not possible to give simple Bible teaching without comment; for instance, it was impossible to teach children about publicans and sinners without telling them that a publican was not a man who kept a public-house. In his view the difficulty was to introduce dogma into teaching, and for his own part he would not teach the difference between the various denominations in the Evangelical Churches. He quite understood the difficulties of the Roman Catholics and Jews. The Roman Catholics believed that secular education must be permeated through and through by religious instruction. It was only fair, therefore, that when they were in sufficient numbers to make a school for themselves that should be done, although in isolated cases they must be content to withdraw their children from instruction. The Amendment before them would not, however, moot the Roman Catholics' view. the right hon. Member for Dover had spoken of the parent's right to have his child brought up in the faith which he himself professed. But the Church of England was not a faith. It was only a form of worship; the faith was the Protestant faith. If on five days of the week children were grounded in those fundamental truths upon which all Protestants were agreed, they could be taught the tenets of the different sects in the Sunday school or on Saturday evening. Personally he thought it better the children should not know of the s-sectarian differences. To say it was impossible to get children to attend Sunday school was a lamentable confession of weakness on the part of those who were always talking about the earnest desire of parents that their children should have denominational teaching. A great number of the Church schools were founded in the first half of the nineteenth century, but without any idea of any particular kind of denominational teaching at all. The Nonconformists were quite willing to accept the teaching of the National Society which was founded in 1811, because it was the same as what was called undenominational teaching to-day. If the Church of England teaching of fifty or sixty years ago had been continued this religious difficulty would not have arisen now; it was the Romanising teaching that people
1356
were afraid of. The right hon. Member for Dover had mentioned the case of Eton and other public schools where there were compulsory chapels. Nobody objected to hearing the beautiful Litany of the English Church read; it was the modern additions to it to which people objected. It appeared that denominational teaching was not necessary for the wealthier classes—it was only necessary for the poorer classes. This was like the lady at a Primrose League meeting who declared "that eternal punishment was an excellent doctrine—for the lower classes." By accepting the Amendment of the Member for West Birmingham they would be accentuating the differences between denominations. Could not all Protestants agree to teach their children the real truths in which all believed— the matters concerning which Christians were at peace, and not those points upon which Christians were at war?
MR. DILLONsaid that what seemed to be the chief ground, the chief cause, which made this Bill in its present shape unjust was that it unquestionably proposed to endow a particular form of religious teaching which was not acceptable to a large section of the population and to pay for that religious teaching out of the public rates and taxes. This discussion, which had been exceedingly interesting and informing, must have conveyed to the mind of every hon. Member present the growing conviction that if this Bill could not be so modified as to meet the religious convictions of a considerable section of the English people, the solution advocated by the hon. Member for Burnley would become absolutely inevitable. He believed with his slight knowledge of this country that a proposal of the Government to put the Bible out of the schools would come to grief. And that was the answer, the only answer to the hon. Member for Burnley, and to the admirable speeches of the hon. Member for North West Ham and the hon. Member for Leicester. But as sure as this Bill was forced through this House in a shape which would leave large sections of the English people suffering under religious grievances, so sure would the day come, and it would be near at hand, when the secular solution of the hon. Member for Burnley would be forced on the country. It was admitted by the supporters of the Government that, the

1357
Bill could not be made a success unless it satisfied substantially the religious convictions of all considerable sections of thy population. In order to make the Bill, which was drawn in the spirit of compromise, successful for a long period, like the compromise of 1870, it was necessary to satisfy the religious convictions of all sections, and with regard to their conscientious objections the Government must receive the statements of the spokesmen of those communities. It was no use for the President of the Board of Trade or any hon. member below the gangway to say they were unreasonable. They themselves were the best judges, the only judges of whether this Bill pressed on their conscientious convictions or not. If the Bill proposed as it did propose to endow one form of religious teaching at the public expense, it was obvious to everybody that it could not continue to be a solution unless such concessions were made as would ensure that other denominations were upon an equality in this matter. That was the great principle which the Government had to keep in mind and which every Member who desired to keep the Bible in the schools had to keep before him. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the speech he had just now made had gone further than any Members on that side in approving Cowper-Temple teaching. He had said that excellent religious teaching was given under the Cowper-Temple clause, and that if he were driven to make a choice between secular education and the general application of the Cowper-Temple clause he would accept the latter. But the position of the Roman Catholics was very different; if they were forced to make a choice they would support the hon. Members for Burnley and Leicester. If he himself were forced to choose between the Cowper-Temple clause and secular education, he would choose the latter, and that was the education which all the Irish Members, and the whole of the community for which they spoke, would choose. He had no desire to make any invidious distinction between his case and that of hon. Members above the gangway; all he wished to point out was that their case was, a fortiori, that the Bill in its present shape would weigh more heavily upon them than on the consciences for which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. The right hon. Gentleman had complained only
1358
of interference; they complained of actual hostility. Roman Catholic Members said that to force their children into schools where there was simple Bible teaching—Protestant teaching endowed by the State out of rates and taxes paid by Roman Catholics—was not even handed justice. he had heard a good deal said about Australia, Canada, and America, and it had been said that every English speaking community in the world but England had accepted the principle of totally secular schools. That was not accurate. Let him warn hon. Members not to be led into the belief that the thinking people of America and Australia were entirely satisfied. These great causes did not produce their full effect in one generation, nor in two generations. One of the greatest statesmen in Australia had said to him—
"Mr. Dillon, I am not a man who is very strong in my religions convictions. I cannot say that I belong at present to any church, but I must confess that I view with the utmost alarm and doubt the great experiment that is being tried for the first time in the history of Australia. We are breeding a race with no religious convictions whatever. No nation that I have ever read of has ever continued to exist for any length of time without religious convictions."
That showed that there were men in Australia who were extremely doubtful of the result of the experiment. In New South Wales they had gone back on that system. There was free entry allowed to ministers of all religious denominations, and arrangements were made to give denominational instruction; and there was provision for religious teaching at the public expense of something analogous to the teaching allowed under the Cowper-Temple clause. He found in a great public school in New South Wales a teacher giving a lecture on the Sermon on the Mount. He called that dogmatic teaching; but at any rate it was good and religious teaching. He also went round the great school system of New York, which was magnificent in all its equipment. In the city of New York the system was supposed to be purely secular, but the head of the schools, an Irishman, said they always opened the session with the Lord's Prayer and sang hymns. He was puzzled to know how men could call that purely secular education. If he had his choice he would without hesitation select for Catholic schools the right to have that constant influence of good

1359
example of reverence and prayer and religious symbols in preference to the Catechism. Could any man who understood the nature of children put in competition in point of importance for the future of the child the influence, whether of the home or of the school, which went on from hour to hour and almost from moment to moment, against the Catechism? In conclusion let him allude once more to the most powerful speech delivered by the hon. Member for Leicester. In a peroration full of eloquence the hon. Gentleman had referred to the influence of parents compared with the influence of the school, and had said it was a melancholy state of things that parents were encouraged by the present system to leave the religious education of their children to the schools and to cultivate the idea that they were safe in abandoning the children to the influence of the school. He heard the hon. Member for Leicester a few days ago say that the child had a right to appeal from the parent to the State for protection against the religious teaching of the parent, and Nationalist Members objected at the time; but now to his amazement, the hon. Member for Leicester became the most extravagant champion in this Committee for the rights of the parent against the school and the State in this matter. But the hon. Member for Leicester was a young man, and perhaps he would get wiser when he was older. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of the comparative insignificance of the school in the life of the child, he was ignorant of the experience of mankind. He did not wish to; speak lightly of the influence upon the child of a Christian home or of any kind of morally good home, for he had always recognised that there were excellent moral people who had no religious belief at all; but when the hon. Gentleman said that the school and the college through which the child passed had little or no influence upon the future of its moral life he knew very little of the mind of youth. If they banished religion from the schools as they were invited to do by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley, they would be doing a mighty and momentous thing, and generations might pass before the full results of that proceeding would be brought to light; but he believed they would be inflicting a tremendous injury
1360
upon the nation and the race. No nation had ever continued to exist without religious faith. What the soul was to the body, religious faith was to nations and to peoples, and when they killed the religious faith of a people, he believed in his heart and conscience they killed their capacity of life as a nation, and therefore the injury to the nation was enormous. The position of Catholics had been exactly described by the Leader of the Opposition. They would support this Amendment, because it was an improvement on the original Amendment, but they would vote against the original Amendment, because they were against secularism in the schools. He repeated his previous warning, that unless the Bill were so altered as to ease the consciences of a considerable section of people in this country, although they might defeat the Motion for secular education that day, it would come on the morrow as surely as the sunrise.
MR. HELMEsaid the Committee had a very serious responsibility in dealing with the Amendment before it. Would it not be well if they were to approach each other in a spirit of compromise? He remembered very well, in the year 1901, the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University appealed to the then Government to allow him to select nine men from around him, and ten men from the other side of the House, and said he would promise to bring in a Bill in the following year that would go through the House almost without opposition. If they had more of that spirit to-day, they would be very much nearer a settlement. The Bill did not attempt to drive denominational teaching from the schools; and it must have been a disappointment to the President of the Board of Education to find that his efforts in this direction had been so summarily rejected by many. They had to consider how far they could adopt into a really national system, teaching which was desired by many earnest men and good citizens throughout the country. When the teaching of sectarianism was put upon the rates in 1902, it raised a storm of opposition and passive resistance which it was absolutely necessary to allay; but whilst endeavouring to meet the objections which had been made, care ought to be taken that another storm was not raised which would force many Christian men

1361
into hostility to this measure. The object of this Bill was to secure the combination of popular control with facilities, and only by adopting that principle could they secure a compromise that would last for many years. By this Amendment to establish a secular system of education the interests of the children and of the country would be jeopardised and irretrievably damaged. They had before them the great question whether there should first be public control, and he held it was their duty as representing the State, in the first instance, to insist upon public control, accompanying the expenditure of public money, to adopt Clause 1, and at the same time avoid making it impossible for religious instruction to be given in the future. The Wesleyan Methodist Church had declared emphatically, by an unanimous vote of its conference, that there should be a public elementary school within reach of every child in which non-sectarian Christian instruction should be given, but they did not necessarily object to alternative denominational teaching being offered in populous places. They should do what they could to prevent the feuds of the past being continued, and therefore he begged in a spirit of earnestness that each section should try to understand the position and views of the other. Roman Catholics had a high claim to sympathy, but they should not forget that there were men of equal earnestness of conviction who had as great a claim upon the Committee. They should try to meet each other in this matter. Character and the highest ideals of conduct were based on religion; therefore he protested against an Amendment which would banish religious teaching from the schools.
MR. HUNTsaid that, as the only Roman Catholic Member of the Opposition present, he wished to say a few words on this Amendment. Catholics were quite willing to pay for their own religion, but they must have Catholic teachers in Catholic schools, and until this was granted they would continue to oppose this Bill to the best of their ability. If the Government granted this concession to Catholics, of course they should grant it to the Church of England as well. From a Catholic point of view it appeared to him that the Bill was most
1362
unjust to the poor, and almost all Catholics were poor people. Those who could afford to pay a few shillings per week for the education of their children could nearly always find some school where they could get their own religion taught, but the poor man was compelled to send his child to school, and if he wished to have any religious instruction at all—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entering upon Second Reading considerations. The discussion now is, between what this Bill provides and the secular solution.
MR. HUNTsaid the case under the Bill would be bad enough if the Government had built all the schools. Millions of money had been spent upon denominational schools and they were really saying to the great majority of the people that they would be compelled to pay rates and taxes—
THE CHAIRMAN: These observations might be relevant on Clause 4, but they are not relevant to this Amendment.
MR. HUNTsaid that as Clause 4 was mentioned by the last speaker on the front Government Bench, perhaps he would be allowed to remark that Clause 4—
THE CHAIRMAN: I have to warn the hon. Member that his remarks are irrelevant.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.) moved to report progress.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that the hon. Member for Ludlow had not given way, and as he was not told to discontinue his speech he thought he was in order in proceeding.
THE CHAIRMAN: I did not call upon the hon. Member to discontinue his speech, but he sat down and did not resume, and so I called upon the hon. Member for Glamorganshire.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress; and

1363
ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. Samuel Evans)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

DRIFT-NET FISHING (SCOTLAND).
MR. EUGENE WASONrose to move a Resolution expressing the opinion that drift net fishing should not be prohibited in the Forth and other rivers in Scotland where fishing by net and coble was not possible or practicable. He said the river Forth was one of the most important in the whole of Scotland. Rising north of Ben Lomond, it continued its course 120 miles east to the German Ocean. The portion of the Forth to which he would refer was that between Alloa, the principal town of Clackmannan, and the Royal Burgh of Culross, which was represented by the Prime Minister in this House. Twenty years ago, when he first had the honour of being a Member of the House, it would have been unnecessary to move this Resolution, because at that time drift netting was legal not only on the rivers Tay and Forth, but on many other rivers in Scotland. On May 28th, 1900, the House of Lords, in a case which was brought before them, unanimously reversed a decision of the Court of Session, which had unanimously decided that fishing by drift net was legal. The House of Lords declared this method of fishing to be an obstruction or an "engine" which prevented the free access of fish up the river. He might say that the policy of the law had always been that there should be as far as possible a free run of salmon from the sea up the rivers, and in order to give the upper proprietors a chance of getting some salmon netting in either sea or river was not allowed from six o'clock on Saturday night to six o'clock on Monday morning—a clear space of thirty-six hours for the fish to run up. No one was entitled to put an obstruction in a river which would prevent the salmon from getting free access to the upper waters. He quite agreed with that policy, but his contention was that a drift net was not in the nature of a fixed engine. Up to May, 1900, drift-net fishing was the recognised mode of fishing. When he
1364
stated that at Alloa at low water there was a tide of fifteen feet, and that the spring tide went up to twenty-two feet, it would be admitted that the Forth there could hardly be called a, river at all. It was, in fact, the estuary of the Forth, and he should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland where the estuary began, because, as a matter of fact, drift netting was perfectly legal in the open sea. The decision of the House of Lords in regard to a case on the Tay was to the effect that drift-net fishing, which was only carried on for something like three or four hours out of the twenty-four hours per day, was in the nature of a fixed engine. It was declared to be an illegal mode of fishing. The Forth Fisheries Board did not, after the decision in the House of Lords, at once stop fishing by means of drift nets in the estuary of the Forth, but lately they had been putting the law in force. He was not here to say that they were wrong, the law being what it was, but he asked the House to say that drift-net fishing ought not to be illegal where no other means of fishing could possibly be carried on. He understood that the Royal Burgh of Stirling did not want any alteration in the law at all. That burgh wished drift-net fishing still to be prohibited. On the other hand, the Royal Burgh of Culross and Kincardine on Forth strongly supported the Motion he had now the honour to submit to the House. He was sorry that he had not been able to get very accurate information as to the loss which the fishermen had sustained since the prohibition of fishing by drift net. At Alloa thirty boats carried on this method of fishing up to the time the Forth Fisheries Board put the law into force, and at present there were only seven. Each boat employed a couple of men, and he was told that the average earnings were something like.£50 while the drift-net fishing was going on. Since then the average value of the fish taken by the seven boats was only £25 per boat. That meant that forty-six men had been thrown out of employment, and that the loss in the shape of fish was something like £1,200. While Stirling and Culross held different views on this matter, there was in the places on the opposite side of the river in Stirlingshire and Linlithgowshire a strong feeling on the part of the fishermen that it was unfair that they should be deprived of the one

1365
means by which they got their livelihood. They thought that the right of drift net fishing should be restored to them. The Forth from Alloa downwards to the Forth Bridge varied in width from 400 yards to something over three miles. It was a public, tidal, navigable river, and he should like to ask how it could be that a drift net 120 yards in length, when put into such a river, could be called a fixed engine. Of course, the net had to be lifted when steamers were passing. Sometimes the nets drifted from Alloa to Kincardine-on-Forth, a distance of three miles. They went with the wind and tide, and although they extended 120 yards across the river originally, in the course of an hour, or an hour and a half, very often they did not extend to half their width. His contention was that this was the only practicable mode of fishing in the river Forth. He had referred in the Resolution to fishing by net and coble. It was carried on by sweeping the net, and was a much more effective way of catching salmon than the drift net, but on the Forth, which was of great width, it was not possible, owing to the muddy nature of the banks, to fish with a sweep net. There was practically no other mode of fishing for salmon from Alloa to the Forth Bridge, a distance of fifteen miles, except by the drift net. The fishermen on the Forth were not parties to the action which was decided by the House of Lords, but, of course, they were bound by the law as it had been laid down. He had tried to ascertain from the Scottish Fisheries Board how the order in regard to the Forth had come to be promulgated, and the chairman of the Board had informed him that so far as the salmon fisheries were concerned the Scottish Fisheries Board had nothing to do with them. The chairman referred him to the Office of Woods and Forests, and that office referred him to Mr. Walsh. On asking information as to the number of fish caught, Mr. Walsh wrote that there were no statistics, and that he could give him no sort of information as to the quantity of fish taken in the Forth before the prohibition of drift-net fishing, or after it had ceased to exist. But Mr. Walsh sent out a memorandum to every Scottish Member except himself against the Resolution which he had the honour of moving. He thought Mr. Walsh would have been better advised if he had
1366
done him the honour of sending him a copy of the memorandum, so that he might have known what he had to answer. The fishermen at Bo'ness and Grange-mouth were unanimous in saying that the only way in which they could catch salmon in the estuary of the Forth was by the drift not. He brought this question before the House, because he felt deeply that these men had a great hardship, had been deprived of considerable sums of money, and of employment for many months in the year. He was quite willing that the fishing with the sweep net should be continued wherever possible, but the prohibition of the use of the drift net deprived the public of a large portion of the salmon which would otherwise be caught. It might be said that the House of Lords had unanimously reversed the decision of the Court of Session. Only two years ago the House of Lords by a majority reversed the unanimous decision of the Court of Session in reference to the union of the Presbyterian Churches, and last year the Churches Disputes Act was passed, which had in some sense done away with the bitterness caused in Scotland by the decision of the House of Lords; and if the Resolution which he now moved, and which he hoped would be adopted by the House, was passed it would have a good effect on the Scottish people, who did not like to see the decisions of their own Courts overturned by the House of Lords. He begged to move.
MR. SMEATONsaid that he very cordially supported the Resolution, which was fully justified by the evidence received from the constituencies affected and by his own knowledge of the subject. He thought that perhaps too much had been made of the plea ad misericordiam by his hon. friend, if he might say so with all respect. He believed that there was a clear claim of right to use the drift net. He had had some experience of fishing methods, not only in this country, but in other parts of the world. He had had among other multifarious duties to administer the fisheries in the estuaries of the Irrawaddy, and he found exactly the same kind of quarrel between the fishermen of the upper and the lower reaches. The fishermen in the upper reaches invariably tried to find some fault with the methods of fishing in the

1367
lower reaches, especially if they had to pay high rents. But if he had said in determining a dispute between the lower and the upper fishermen that the drift-net fishing was improper, he would have been scoffed at. It was just the same old story on the Forth. The upper fishermen were paying high rents to the landlords, and they said that if the drift-net below could only be abolished the whole river would be open to them— a monopoly—and they could then pay the high rents the landlords demanded. Fishermen and landlords were thus united in the desire to abolish the drift net on the lower tidal reaches. The case for the drift-net fishing was threefold. First, the drift net was in no sense a fixed engine or obstruction; secondly, drift-net fishing for the last thirty or forty years had been tacitly admitted in Scottish estuaries until the decision of the House of Lords in 1900; thirdly, in the lower reaches of the Forth it was absolutely impracticable to employ the sweep-net method of fishing. With the sweep net one end of the net was taken out in the boat and the other end was held by a man on the shore and the net was swept round in a curve, the man on shore marching forward till he met the boat. But if that method were attempted on the Forth, where the banks were soft and slimy, the man on shore would soon be up to his nock in mud, so that that method of fishing was impossible. The only way to catch the fish in these reaches of the Forth was by the drift net, which was a hundred or a hundred and fifty yards in length, and twelve to fifteen feet deep, with a thick rope to keep the net perpendicular when in motion in the water. In fact it was a method of actually catching the fish, where as the essence of a fixed engine was that the fish were driven into a trap or bag net, or on to hooks, and lay there until the fishermen came to take them off. At the town of Grangemouth the river was two miles broad and at a low tide there were thirty feet of water. A drift net occupied at most only 150 yards out of 3,500 yards, and left below it a depth of water of twenty feet, and the mesh was ten inches and thus only caught large fish. How could that possibly be described as an obstruction? Drift-net fishing according to Lord Westbury was very similar to cast-net fishing. Now he defied anyone to say that the cast-net
1368
fishing was an obstruction. In his constituency there were 400 or 500 men dependent on these fishings during the summer months, and the decision of the House of Lords had inflicted great hardship upon them. If the House affirmed the Resolution the effect would be to relieve several hundreds of unemployed men without a single penny of expenditure from the Exchequer. It would be a great boon if the British Government, like the Government in India, assumed the position; of plenary proprietor of all fisheries, and nationalised all fisheries in this country and administered them as trustee for the nation.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, while recognising that no fixed net or engine should be placed in the River Forth or other rivers of Scotland, expresses its opinion that drift-net fishing should not be prohibited where fishing by not and coble is not possible or practicable."—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he had listened with some interest to the speeches of both the proposer and seconder of this Resolution in order to find out on what grounds they justified the alteration of the law in order to abolish the limitations in regard to drift-net fishing. It appeared to him that they used two arguments in favour of allowing this form of fishing. First of all they said that in their constituencies there were a certain number of people who were thrown out of employment through its prohibition and because the law stood as it did at the present moment. Their second argument was that salmon, being an important part of the food of the people, it was important that the fish should be caught in order to provide the people with food. In reference to the first contention, he would, in the first instance, like to have some information. The two hon. Members were no doubt perfectly right to express the views of their constituents who objected to a state of things under which a certain number of them could not work these drift nets as in the past. He thought the hon. Member who moved the Resolution said that, in consequence of the present state of the law, thirty nets could not be worked.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he only gave that figure as applying to one place —Alloa.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he did not understand that the figure only applied to one place, and was glad to be corrected. The hon. Member who seconded said that some 200 or 300 people were thrown out of employment, but he was a little doubtful whether that was of such importance as hon. Members might be led to believe, and indeed he was a little doubtful upon the whole subject of the number of men who were thrown out of employment through not being allowed to use drift nets.
MR. SMEATONsaid he knew as a fact that there were between 400 or 500 men dependent in the summer upon this drift net fishing.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that the Provost of Alloa, who was politically of the same way of thinking as the noble Lord, said that some 400 men were thrown out of employment.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he was willing to accept the statement that there were in each of these places 400 men thrown out of employment. It was the fact, however, that the men employed in drift-net fishing were so employed at a period of the year when other employment was most easily obtainable. From what he had hoard it appeared that these drift nets were used in the River Forth and other rivers almost invariably between the middle of July and the end of August, so that the drift-net fishing only lasted for a month or six weeks. Therefore it would be seen that in upholding the law they were not depriving men of regular and permanent employment. With all due respect to the hon. Members who had moved and seconded this Resolution, he would point out that these men were thrown out of employment just at the time of the hay and the corn harvests in Scotland, and could probably find work as good as the employment at the drift nets. The hon. Members had omitted to mention the point that there was a responsible board which looked after the fishing in the River Forth in the best possible manner with a view to seeing
1370
that the number of salmon should not be decreased and protecting the interests of a large number of men employed in the fishing industry. This body was the Forth District Fishery Board, and from communications which he had had from them he gathered that they were absolutely opposed to any alteration of the law which would allow the use of drift nets in the Estuary of the River Forth.
MR. EUGENE WASONinquired who were the members of the Forth Fishery Board. Could the noble Lord give their names to the House?
LORD WILLOUGHBY DB ERESBYsaid he could not give their names, but they were elected by the upper and lower proprietors on the banks of the river, and these people were naturally anxious to preserve the river in the best possible condition for salmon, so that it should be as prolific and profitable as possible.
MR. EUGENE WASON: For themselves.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid it might be for themselves, but they paid rates and taxes and they preserved the river in a state which gave work to fishermen. What he, however, was concerned to point out was that the Forth Fishery Board, who were largely interested in the river, were in favour of maintaining the law as it stood at present under which fishing by means of these drift nets was illegal. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion had made a considerable point in regard to the regulation of fisheries in the East and had quoted cases. He was afraid he could not go into these matters as he was not acquainted with fishing in India and other places in the world, although he had had a little experience of fishing in these islands. The crux of the whole question was, as the hon. Member had pointed out, whether drift-net fishing was an illegal thing under the law of Scotland as it was understood. The law of Scotland said that there were two ways of taking salmon. One was by rod and line and the other was by net and coble, and the whole question was whether taking fish by means of a drift net came within the definition of taking them by net and coble. He knew that there had been decisions on this point and that cases had

1371
been tried before the court of session, who had held that this kind of fishing was illegal. The decision of the House of Lords was that this fishing by net and coble was fishing by means of a fixed engine, and if hon. Members quarrelled with that and said that it was not a fixed engine, he would point out that, as he understood the law with regard to net fishing in Scotland, it was that the fish should be taken by the act of the fisherman, and that the fish should be pulled up by the fisherman working the net, but that the net should not be so placed as to get the fish to entangle themselves and so to speak catch themselves. When he had been fishing with rod and line he had found it very difficult if not impossible to get the fish to catch themselves. Of course he had known gentlemen who said that when they were pulling a hook out of the water, they had caught a fish which had just jumped out of the water, but luck of that kind had not come his way, and if it had he should as a sportsman under the circumstances have felt inclined to return the fish to the water. In the case of drift net fishing the fish was caught by getting entangled in the net, and when the corks at the top of the net began to bob the fisherman proceeded to carry out the capture by means of the gaff or some other means. That had been held by the House of Lords to be an illegal method of killing fish, but they left aside the question of whether a drift net was an illegal method of fishing. He knew that hon. Members opposite looked upon the drift net as a perfectly legal appliance and not a fixed engine, and they pointed out that it was impossible for the drift net to prevent fish from going up the river. He, however, took a different view of that question. He believed that where drift nets were employed upon a river they prevented hundreds of thousands of fish from ascending that river. He had not the actual figures with him as to how drift net fishing had affected different rivers, but he was sure that with regard to the river Tay the statistics would show that after the licences in regard to drift net fishing were withdrawn more fish ascended the river and more fish had been caught. He was willing to admit that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Kinross was, to a certain extent, drawn in reasonable terms, but if once they allowed drift net fishing he feared
1372
they would open the door to the use of drift nets to a very large extent. He was sorry for the constituents of the hon. Members who could not fish for six weeks in the year, but it was not a question of one drift net but of dozens, and if that were allowed the whole of the river would be choked and no live fish would be able to come up or down. The whole thing came down to this, that although a small proportion of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom might be thrown out of employment which they could get elsewhere, an industry valuable to the landowners and also to the ratepayers and taxpayers was being preserved. He was perfectly certain that if drift nets were allowed in our rivers there would be an enormous decrease in the number of fish. Since it had been abolished he thought it would be found that the "takes" in rivers, notably the Tay, had enormously increased. The fact that a certain number of men were deprived of employment should not he thought operate on the minds of hon. Members in order to induce them to alter a beneficial law, in view of the importance of preserving the fish in our rivers and the supply of salmon for the use of the people of this country. On these grounds he begged to move to amend the Resolution by leaving out all the words after "House" in order to insert "is of opinion that no alteration of the law as to drift net fishing is desirable."
MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Amendment was really a negative of the Motion and therefore need not be put.
MR. GULLANDsaid that the unfortunate, thing about the decision which had been arrived at in this matter was that it would affect all the rivers in Scotland. He had no knowledge about the Forth or the Tay, but he had some knowledge of the Solway, with regard to which the judgment had been made to run. The Solway was half English and half Scotch and the fisheries in it were regulated by many Acts of Parliament. It was of interest to recall that under the Statute Law Revision Act these Acts in regard to the salmon fisheries of Scotland and the Solway fisheries had been imposed and continued during the last four or five centuries. If the Acts of Parliament and the cases in reference to them were collected they would

1373
make a very largo volume. In the Solway the net which was used was called a whammel, and those who used it were called whammellers, and the process they used whammelling. No one who know how the tide ran in the Solway would even dream of saying that the drift not there was a fixed engine. In regard to the Solway, Reports had boon presented to Parliament of a most interesting character and some quotations were made in them from the works of Sir Walter Scott in regard to fishing rights. A Royal Commission made a recommendation which had never been carried out that there should be created a Solway District Board of Conservators containing representatives of the existing Fishery Board, representatives of the county council, of the holders of licences which had been granted by that Board, and of those interested in private rights in salmon fishing. Another suggestion was that this Board should be allowed to borrow money from the Public Works Commissioners, he thought £40,000 was the sum suggested; but these suggestions, like many others, were not carried out, in consequence of the failure of the Treasury to find the money. The Commission recommended that the Board should give licences to fishermen to whammel in a certain urea, and should have power to deal with the size of the net. There was a general feeling that that solution was a fair one, and people in that part of the world had been waiting for the Government to carry out these recommendations. Then there came along the judgment of the House of Lords to frighten those who had interests on the Solway, because it might apply to that river. The result of it was that no licences for whammelling had been issued during the last six years, and the fishermen of Annan had been deprived of their living. In the port of Annan alone there were no fewer than 600 persons dependent upon this industry, and 384 people carrying it on. Licences had, however, been granted in Scottish rivers other than the Forth, the Tay, and the Solway. The House of Lords in Scotland was not a very popular body at present. That did not arise only over the Church case, but in other respects, and though the people of Scotland felt that the judgments of the House of Lords might be good law, still they preferred the low as enunciated by their own
1374
judges. The decision of the House of Lords in this matter had not operated justly, and he should prefer the decision of the present Lord Chancellor whom he had the honour to succeed in the representation of Dumfries to that of his predecessor. the present Lord Chancellor was indeed the chief authority on this question of drift net fishing, and was the chief witness before the Royal Commission in favour of the whammellers. He denied that the supply of salmon had diminished during the years that whammelling was carried on in the Solway. On the contrary, since it had been stopped by the refusal of licences, the supply of salmon had fallen off, so that the decrease of salmon was not duo to drift not fishing. If drift net fishing was to be stopped why should not these men be paid compensation? Why was it that only the rich men obtained compensation? These men had been carrying on this business for thirty-five years under the law; they had bought boats and tackle and spent thousands of pounds, and if they were deprived of their livelihood they ought to be compensated. They did not, however, want to be compensated, but to be permitted to earn their living. He was present at a conference called together by the Board of Crown Fisheries, and the Chairman of that Board stated that it was the view of the Government of the day that some consideration should be given to the whammellers in regard to the fisheries, and that a solution should be sought for. If there were to be restrictions they should not be in the private interest of the landlord or owner of fixed nets, but in the public interest. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. There was no need for any further investigations. The matter had been thoroughly thrashed out, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would soon introduce legislation and do an act of justice to brave, industrious and God-fearing men.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he represented no particular interest in this matter. In his constituency he did not believe there was a single fisherman, because he did not think there was a single fish. He desired

1375
to say a word in the interest of the salmon, I and from the point of view of fish preservation. This was a Motion to call attention to the prohibition of drift-net fishing. That prohibition was not due to any action of the authorities. Drift-net fishing was prohibited because of the action of private proprietors on the banks of the rivers. The Fisheries Board of Scotland had no power to institute prosecutions. Drift net fishing was not an offence against the statute law, but against the common law of the land. The law of Scotland was perfectly clear upon the subject. It recognised that in the rivers and estuaries there were, roughly speaking, three ways by which salmon might be taken. Salmon might, under certain special charters from the Crown, be taken by creel. The other ways were rod and line and netting from cobles. The latter system had been endeavoured to be extended as widely as possible by those who had the opportunity of extending it. It consisted of men going out from the shore and dropping a sort of trawl net and returning to the spot from whence they started. The net formed a sort of bag and was drawn in short and the fish landed. From the point of view of the salmon the advantage of this method of fishing was that, in the first place, it offered only a limited obstruction to the passage of the fish up the river, and, in the second place, all fish were brought to the bank alive; and the undersized fish, smelt, and other unclean fish could be put back. Then there was the drift net, which hung, a wall of net, across the river. It was set at low water and on the average remained in position an hour. It was all very well to say that it did not constitute a permanent barrier and was only there for a few hours a day, but the hon. Member when he said that forgot to add that it was exactly at slack water that the greatest number of fish run. It was exactly at that time that the net was put into position, and it was exactly then that the damage was done, because if a fish coming up was caught by the gills and hung there it was gradually drowned. The drift net caught every fish that happened to be coming up the river at that height, and inasmuch as all the fish came up about fifteen feet under water it caught them all, and once a fish was caught it was impossible to extricate it from the net sufficiently soon to return it to the water alive. It was worth observing
1376
that this method of fishing came into being in 1879. The first case decided was not decided on evidence but upon what was called a stated case. Each side put in its statement, and the judge, having compared them, gave his decision. That decision was always regarded with suspicion by many lawyers in Scotland. Other eases followed in which the judges decided that they were ruled by that decision. In the case of 1897 the judges again ruled that they were governed by that decision, but in that case the evidence was reviewed by the House of Lords, who decided that drift nets were illegal, not merely because they were fixed engines, but because they created an obstruction to the run of fish up river. That ruling was carried into effect on the River Tay, but not at once on the Forth. Warnings were given to the fishermen on the Forth. They were told what the effect would be if they continued the practice, and eventually after two years, when they declined to abandon the system, the prohibition was put into force. He did not think anyone could say that there had been any hasty action to coerce the fishermen. When they came to the question whether or not this kind of fishing should be declared illegal, they were face to face with very much the same consideration. But they had to consider why it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal because it was an obstruction to the passage of the fish up the river to spawn, in obedience to natural laws. If they obstructed the free passage of the fish in this way, they were bound in the long run to injure the supply. If hon. Members who were interested in the subject would read the expert evidence, they would at once realise that this was not an opinion which he was putting forward on his own authority; it represented the balance of expert evidence given before the Royal Commission on salmon fishing in 1962. It seemed to him somewhat extraordinary that hon. Members who had spoken upon this question had not devoted any portion of their speeches to tin analysis of the Report of that Commission, which declared that in order to safeguard the fair distribution of the fish, and secure an adequate stock, it was absolutely necessary that the fish should have a free passage up the river to spawn.

1377
That Report went even further, and recommended that drift-net fishing should be made a statutory offence. In the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, introduced in 1905—
MR. EUGENE WASON: I do not think any such Bill was introduced.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid it must have been introduced in another place.
MR. EUGENE WASON: I have also made inquiries in another place, and I find that no such Bill was introduced there.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid it must have been on the stocks, but the point was not really of much importance. He wished to say a word or two in regard to the special pleading which had been brought forward on this occasion. He fully appreciated the tone in which hon. Members had made their remarks, but they had founded their case upon the argument of proscription, which in effect meant that a certain course had been pursued for a long time, and that consequently it was not advisable to change it. It was certain that prescription could not sanction an illegal method of fishing, and the argument that it was a hardship to cut down the livelihood of certain men who practised this method must give way to the general interests of the community. He earnestly hoped the Resolution would not be accepted by the House.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid the law seemed to be exercised in favour of the man who fished for pleasure and sport and against the man who fished to earn his livelihood. A fisherman was prevented from catching salmon at the mouth of a river after the end of August, but further up the river a man was allowed to ply his rod till the end of October. In the town he represented a fisherman had to pay £5 for his licence and buy a full equipment of nets, which might be destroyed by a passing steamer the first night they were put into the water. No compensation would be paid, and he contended that as these men were poor they had a right to receive more consideration than they got under the present law. If the law could give
1378
these men greater facilities for pursuing their calling it would do no harm to anyone, because everyone know that a drift net was not a fixed engine. The argument of the hon. Member for the Horncastle Division and others who opposed this Motion seemed to be that so long as plenty of fish were left in the river for them to enjoy some sport at their leisure it did not matter what obstacles were placed in the way of these poor men earning their livelihood. His hon. friend's objections as to the cruelty of this method and its illegality were too finely drawn altogether, and were brought forward in order to secure a plentiful supply of fish at a certain time of the year for sport and pleasure.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid the whole point of his argument was that if they permitted drift not fishing in the estuaries of the river, the fish could not get up the river to spawn.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid if it was only a question of permitting the fish to spawn, why did the noble Lord not ask for a change which would apply equally to the man who fished with a rod and line and the fisherman who used nets?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire)said this interesting debate had travelled over a somewhat extensive field. He was very glad that his hon. friend had had an opportunity of bringing this matter before the House, but he was sorry that they had not had an opportunity of considering in a more complete fashion what could hardly be considered in so fragmentary a way. He found himself in the unusual position of not entirely agreeing with his hon. friend in the definite proposition which he had made for the acceptance of the House, in the sense that he could not endorse the Motion or accept it on behalf of the Government. The subject was one of considerable importance, and the hon. Members who had spoken had stated the case with moderation and accuracy. He could well understand his hon. friend's desire to call the attention of the House to the question. No one would desire to minimise the hardship caused by the loss of employment which the cessation of this mode of fishing had caused in various parts of the country. It seemed

1379
to him that there was also some hardship in the fact that the period during which drift-net fishing had been allowed might be described as an interlude. Drift net fishing was not permitted till about 1870, when it was introduced with success and profit to those engaged in it. It was in some sense a decision of the Court of Session which, if it did not encourage it, led to its development. This had been stopped by a judgment of the House of Lords, which had been acquiesced in by the authorities in the river Tay and elsewhere. The authorities of the river Forth had been properly deliberate in enforcing the law, but were now taking steps to enforce it. He would put aside for the purposes of the debate the question as it affected the Solway, not because of any want of sympathy, but because the Solway case was not on the same level as the others and was more complicated. He was not going to argue the point whether drift-net fishing was or was not a destructive or profitable method of fishing, but he thought that those who argued that it was not a destructive method destroyed their case, because if it were not destructive and profitable, he did not suppose that they should now be engaged in this debate. The matter went much further than the case of the fishermen who were out of employment. the statute book had a great deal of legislation upon it in regard to the salmon fisheries. Much of that legislation arose—in fact all of it—through conflicting interests. He did not conceive that they were here in any except the public interest. Though incidentally the protection afforded to salmon brought profit and rent to this or that man, or to this or the other class, the theory of the law was that the sea was the place to kill salmon, talking broadly, and that while in a river the fish ought to be protected in the public interest. It would be out of place to complicate the discussion by raising such points, but he only mentioned this point to emphasise the fact that what the Motion really asked the Government to do was to alter the present policy in regard to salmon fishing in Scotland. The views of the late Government on the subject were to be found in the Bill they introduced in the House of Lords last session, but did not pass, in which drift-net fishing was included among the offences under the Bill. He should like to say on behalf of the present
1380
Government that they were in no way fettered by the proposals of the late Government, and that they approached the question with an entirely open mind. A Commission presided over by the present Secretary for the Colonies had gone into the whole question of salmon fishing in Scotland, and he would ask his hon. friend and the House to suspend their judgment on it. The Government regarded as an inheritance the consideration of the work, and the Report of that Commission. As soon as time permitted they would take it into consideration, and he could promise his hon. friend that, whatever form any Bill brought forward dealing with the salmon fisheries of Scotland might take, there would be ample opportunity for deliberating upon and discussing the question. He thought that was the wisest course for them to take on the present occasion. He would not elaborate the reasons for it; he thought they were on the surface, and must be apparent to everyone. The important question discussed to-night was only part of a still larger question, and it would obviously be impossible for the Government to legislate on so small a portion, important though it might be. When the Government arrived at a decision on the subject they would take the earliest opportunity of laying it before the House.
MR. WEIRsaid the debate had been confined to the Forth and the Solway. The latter reminded him that one of his ancestors, Margaret Wilson, was tied to a stake and thus drowned by the rising tide for her religous convictions. He could point out many famous salmon rivers in the Highlands. The laws as to fishing had been made purely in the interest of a class to enable the landlords to get higher rents. So-called sportsmen had been the curse of Highlands. Where they came in the population decreased, and those who remained were afflicted with poverty and want. In the town of Alloa, it was said, there were 400 fishermen out of employment. That represented 2,000 persons, allowing five to a family, all on account of the decision of the House of Lords. It was impossible to say how many unemployed there were in Culross and Kinkardine. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland, for the statement he had

1381
made. He believed the right hon. Gentleman desired to do what was right.
MR. MORTONsaid he quite agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, that on a question of this sort the people of the Highlands should be considered. The Highlands had undoubtedly been ruined in the attempt to use them for sporting purposes only. [Ironical laughter.] It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but he maintained that the best use to which a country could be put was to support its native population, and not to sporting purposes. If people were driven out of the counties bordering the estuary of the Forth by this decision of the House of Lords, the unemployed question would become more acute than it was at, present. What he wanted to know was on what side of the fence the Secretary for Scotland was going to sit. Was he going to sit with the proprietors or with the public? They were entitled to know the position taken up by this democratic Government. It was true that they could not pass a Bill that night, but they could express an opinion which might be embodied in a Bill next year. The Resolution was an exceedingly moderate one. [An HON. MEMBER: Too moderate] It only asked that the use of the drift not might be allowed when fishing by net and coble was impracticable. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow them to pass this moderate Resolution which was in the interests of the people. After all, what were salmon for, if they were not to be caught? Nobody objected to their being caught except the hon. Gentleman for Lanarkshire, who said they ought to be protected. But the hon. Gentleman ought to know enough of fishing to know that if too many fish were allowed to go up river they got diseased. It was necessary, therefore, in the interests of the fish themselves that many of them should be caught. There were thousands of men employed in this dangerous occupation, and the House ought to consider their interests. Besides which we wanted the fish as food for the people. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division on the matter, in which case they would have done something, for they would have instructed this democratic Government at least as to one clause which they
1382
should put into their Fisheries Dill next year.
MR. EUGENE WASONregretted that he could not oblige the hon. Member, but after the conciliatory speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland he begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MACEDONIA.
MR. LYNCH (York, W.E., Ripon),in moving a Motion declaring that further reforms were urgently required in Macedonia, said he found with special pleasure that his first speech in this House, for which he must claim its kind indulgence, would be directed to the important problem of the social peace and advancement of some of the peoples inhabiting the Ottoman Empire. He approached this question, not so much from the point of view of the philanthropist, as from that of the traveller who was conversant with its practical aspects and had breathed the atmosphere in which it had become evolved. It was true that the air of the Balkans was not so familiar to him as that of the Asiatic provinces of Turkey, but he felt that the problem with which they had to deal in the one case was much the same as the problem in the other. In fact the case of Macedonia could only be solved by similar methods to those which should be applied to some of the provinces of Asiatic Turkey where people of different race and creed were living side by side under Ottoman sway. If there existed any doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to the reality of the suffering of these peoples, or of the wrongs for which they claimed redress, he could assure them that nothing they read or heard of was more pathetic than what the traveller daily saw and heard. His own experience in relation to the Mohammedan states generally was that while the Persian Empire had comparatively stood still Turkey had steadily deteriorated. That was very regrettable to anyone who like himself desired to see a strong and progressive Turkey. The House was probably aware that while the Sultan had contracted certain special and individual obligations to this

1383
country in regard to certain provinces of Asiatic Turkey, our own engagements towards the Turkish peoples in Europe under Turkish rule were legally of a collective character, that was to say, they were shared by other Powers. But while that was true we must not forget that it was we who were mainly responsible for the rescission of the treaty of St. Stefano and for handing back large districts of Macedonia to Turkey. Therefore, we had assumed a special responsibility towards these peoples. We had prevented the formation of a big Bulgaria. In acting in that way we were not animated by any jealousy of Bulgaria, but by a fear lest these territorial changes might be merely a cloak for the extension of one of the great military Empires of Europe—an expansion which was the last thing that could be wished in the interests of the peoples of Asiatic or European Turkey. To seek such a solution would be very much like endeavouring to find a remedy for the grievances under which the Nonconformists of this country had suffered so patiently and so long by handing them over in a body to the Pope. He was glad to think that Lord Lansdowne had initiated a policy more in consonance with the responsibilities of this country, which, if strenuously pursued, would be in the best interests of Macedonia and of Europe. The first part of his Motion stated that this House considered that further reforms were urgently required in Macedonia in the interest alike of the Christian and Mohammedan population. Some hon. Members interested in this question might ask why he had limited himself to Macedonia, and why he had not included the remainder of the peoples of European Turkey. He was quite prepared to admit that there would be force in that contention. He saw no reason why the peoples of the Adrianople Villayet should not be included in a scheme of reform. But he thought they must allow proper weight to the opinions of the Governments of Russia and Austria-Hungary, that the Macedonian problem should be solved before that of the Villayet of Adrianople was undertaken. Therefore, he had confined his Motion to Macedonia. The time at his disposal would not permit of his giving the House any sufficient account of a country which was certainly by nature one of the richest in Europe,
1384
but which contained inhabitants who were, he believed, the poorest on the Continent. Macedonia was a homogeneous geographical unit, with a population of many races professing various creeds, the Bulgars being most numerous, and the Christians far outnumbering the Mussulmans, of whom about a third were Osmanli Turks. The country was infested by agents of the various Balkan States, whose political propaganda sharpened the animosities due to differences of race and creed. He was sure the House would approve of the representatitions which had recently been made on this subject by our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Greek Government. At the same time he would venture to say that the only effective way of putting an end to the incessant political propaganda carried on was by the institution of real reforms. The Balkan States could not afford to relax their efforts in Macedonia, unless and until they should have been assured that the province was really to be placed on its legs. They knew very well that partition of the province would be almost certain to lead to war. The great statesman Tricoupi tried that in 1891 and signally failed. The Balkan States, therefore acquiesced in the cry of Macedonia for the Macedonians. But they required from the Powers interested some earnest of such a fortunate consummation. The urgency of the need of reforms was demonstrated in the pages of the recently issued Blue-book. The joint action of Russia and Austria had been attended by very poor results. Indeed, one was inclined to doubt whether those Powers ever intended reforms. Murders were frequent, there was no security for life and property, and over largo districts security for the lives of the people depended upon that illegitimate organisation called the Committees. During eight months ending August 1905, 785 persons lost their lives by violence. It was true that many of those outrages were due to bands of men fighting one with another; but there could be little doubt that the authorities in Macedonia, like the Russian authorities in recent occurrences in the Caucasus, had at all events shown a very largo measure of complacence towards the practice. The authorities in those provinces knew, like the Russian authorities in the Caucasus, that if they could only divide the people and set them by

1385
the ears there was far less danger of their own authority being undermined. As a result of this baneful system they had seen the rise of the Committees in Macedonia, and the law of those Committees was in certain districts practically the law of the laud. What were the reforms that were most urgently needed? He would like to turn first to the weighty despatch of Lord Lansdowne dated January 11th 1905. In that despatch the British Government laid down the general lines upon which, in their opinion, the reforms should be framed. First, there was to be an immediate reduction of the military forces now maintained by Turkey in Macedonia to the number strictly required for the maintenance of internal order and security, such reduction to be for a definite number of years. At the same time it was proposed by Lord Lansdowne that a collective guarantee should be given by the Powers to the effect that Macedonia should not be invaded by Bulgaria, and he could only therefore assume it should not be invaded by the army of any other Balkan State. Nothing whatever had been done, even up to the present time, towards the realisation of this important reform. He understood that the British Government was about to conclude an arrangement with Turkey under which the Customs dues all over Turkey were to be raised from 8 to 11 per cent. Lord Lansdowne calculated in the despatch he had quoted that the cost of the Turkish military forces in Macedonia amounted to £3,000,000 a year, the number of men employed being 130,000. This cost was saddled on the province, which as a consequence showed a deficit of from £700,000 to £800,000 in Turkish pounds, which were a little loss in value than English sovereigns. This deficit corresponded very nearly to the total estimated yield of the additional Customs duties. In connection with the financial Regulation which was the outcome of the Naval demonstration organised last winter against Turkey, the Powers granted to the Porte the right of making up this deficit of £700,000 or £800,000 by drafts on the Customs duties. This was almost tantamount to permitting an increase of the Customs, and he was sorry the British Government had oven listened to it on the terms obtained. At least 60 per cent. of
1386
the Turkish Customs were levied on British trade. But inasmuch as it had been admitted that the deficit in question should be made up from Customs duties, it became of the utmost importance that this military expenditure should be considerably reduced. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had recently stated that the sum included in the last Budget for Civil Administration amounted to £768,697. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what was the sum allotted in that Budget for military expenditure? The second reform postulated by Lord Lansdowne was the formation of a Commission to consist of delegates of the Powers, and to be invested with executive functions with control over finances and justice. The Regulation to which he had referred as the outcome of the Naval demonstration, and of which at his instance a copy had been presented to Parliament, altered the status of the proposed "delegates" on the Commission to that of "advisers," added a Turkish adviser to the board, on which already sat the Ottoman Inspector-General, and also limited the exercise of their functions by the "advisers" to a period of two years. They were not invested with executive functions. They were not given a voice in the administration of justice. Surely this was a very poor result of the Naval demonstration. He trusted that His Majesty's Government would not embark in the future on collective action with the Powers before arriving at a preliminary and binding understanding with them as to the minimum demands to be satisfied by the Porte, and that the demonstration would not be withdrawn before those demands were satisfied. The measures formulated by Lord Lansdowne constituted the minimum of what was necessary to restore order in these provinces. He would mention a condition which, he thought, ought to be added. The boundaries of Macedonia urgently required readjustment, especially on the side of Albania. At present those boundaries were based, not on the principle of sound or convenient administration, but on that of including as many discordant nationalities as possible. Therefore one of the first things to be done to obtain efficient administration was to readjust the boundaries, nor should this be one of the last reforms. Time did not

1387
permit him to enter upon the very important question as to what the attitude of His Majesty's Government should be in regard to the pressing of reforms upon the Sultan. He would only say that he thought that in dealing with such a special provincial problem as that of Macedonia, His Majesty's Government were proceeding on sound lines. It was no use dissipating their efforts, as in the past they had no doubt dissipated them, by insisting upon reforms over the whole length and breadth of Turkey. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had inherited a thoroughly sound policy from his predecessor. They were told the other day by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place of the difficulties under which that policy had been evolved. There was at that time the the great question of Morocco, which presented a most delicate international situation; but in the course of that same speech they were happily informed by the Under Secretary that those difficulties had now, to a great extent, been dissipated, and that, in his own words, "their hands were now comparatively free." He expressed the hope that those hands might now be applied to an earnest solution of this problem of Macedonia. This was a problem in which we had contracted special obligations, or, at all events, special moral responsibilities towards the people of that country; and he felt that the interests of this country could never be safely dissociated from the interests of any of the peoples in any sense committed to our charge. He begged to move.
MR. GOOCHsaid there were two questions pending between this country and the Porte. The first dated back nearly three months ago and related to the gendarmerie, the Sultan being asked to increase the very limited powers which they now enjoyed. The second point was that the Sultan was anxious to obtain the consent of this country to the raising of the tariff on foreign goods from 8 to 11 per cent. The House would remember that Lord Lansdowne expressed the opinion last year that this concession could only be granted by this country in return for very substantial reforms or guarantees of reforms on the part of the Sultan. He hoped the Foreign Secretary would be able to assure them that before allowing the Sultan to
1388
increase his tariff and thus increase the money at his disposal for maintaining the garrison in Macedonia, the English had done their utmost to see that substantial reforms were not only promised, but actually carried out. He begged to second the Motion.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House considers that further reforms are urgently required in Macedonia in the interest alike of the Christian and Mohammedan population, and is prepared to support His Majesty's Government in taking whatever steps are necessary to secure that end."—{Mr. Lynch.)
THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The hon. Member who moved this Motion has spoken on a subject of which he has great knowledge and great experience, not only commercially, but locally, and I congratulate him on having chosen for his first speech in the House a subject on which he speaks with special authority and special knowledge. I do not demur in the least to the statement that the reforms hitherto achieved have not yet gone far enough, nor do depreciate in any way the value of the advice he has given us as to what further reforms should be asked for, and, if possible, obtained. So far from demurring to it, I welcome some of the suggestions as to the further reforms which are desirable and which should be kept in view. In this matter of Macedonia our hands are comparatively free, but our action is bound to keep step with that of the other Powers. It is not a matter in which we can act in such a way as to separate ourselves from the other Powers; and I think it would be exceedingly undesirable, however strong our feelings in this House, however clear our views as to the larger measures of reform still required, if we were on our own behalf to sketch out a large programme unless we are sure that it is likely to receive the support of the other Powers; because if we do take a departure of that kind, which is in advance of what the Powers could support, the only result will be to disturb and alarm some of them and to weaken our power of joining with them and to concentrate with them in that which they are prepared to join with us in pressing. It is not because I do

1389
not think the reforms he sketched desirable or necessary, but because I want to do as Lord Lansdowne did formerly—to do what he could to get the other Powers to join with him in pressing for what they believed to be practicable, but keeping step with them and not going in advance of them. But something has been done. The hon. Member was right in saying that Lord Lansdowne's policy has had some good results. It is true that there were some things which he outlined and which he was not able to press. He did not press as far as he wished the reduction of the military forces in Macedonia, because in order to do that it would be necessary to guarantee the Turkish frontier of Macedonia against violation. That is a guarantee which might be undertaken by every Power, and it would have to be carried out by other Powers than ourselves; and that depends on the action of other Powers. But something has been done. The hon. Member said that Lord Lansdowne estimated the military expenditure in the vilayets in Macedonia at £3,000,000. This estimate of Lord Lansdowne included the vilayet of Adrianopole, which is not included in the three vilayets under discussion this evening. It is estimated that the expenditure of Lord Lansdowne for the three vilayets would have been£2,200,000. In the Budget drawn up by the Financial Commission, and sanctioned by Imperial Irad½, that expenditure is now reduced to £1,344,600. That is a considerable reduction in the military expenditure for the financial year ending March, 1907. As to reform of the judiciary, Lord Lansdowne found it impossible to press that, but he did find it possible to get the Powers to concentrate on the reform of finance. he rightly considered that the reform of finance underlay all the other reforms; that you could not get everything; and that, if you were obliged to concentrate on one thing, the best thing was the reform of finance. The Financial Commission was introduced shortly before Lord Lansdowne left office. I do not think its powers are large
1390
enough. I hope in time those powers will be increased. But it has already done something. It has drawn up a Budget which is, at all events, an intelligible Budget, and I think there is a nearer approach to accuracy in the finances of Macedonia than has been reached before. That is something gained. Then it has also made a step forward by better organisation and better attention to the finances. It estimates that it will be able to increase the revenue by about £60,000 in the year; that about £90,000 more revenue will be devoted to Civil purposes than has been done before; and that £9,000 will be devoted to the improvement of prison accommodation. I do not say that that is a large result, but it is, at any rate, a beginning. In the course of next year the Financial Commission hopes to revise the rates of pay of the Civil administration. Something has been done already to improve the position of the officials, on the effective performance of whose duties really depends the efficiency of the local administration. That is a step in advance, because the irregularity or inadequacy of the pay of the civil functionaries is no doubt one of the great troubles of government in the Turkish Empire, and anything which will make that pay more regular and adequate is a definite step forward towards the improvement of local administration. Then the collection of tithe is no longer made upon the estimated but upon the actual yield of the crops; and that in itself should tend to make the levy of tithes not only more just but more productive. These are small results, but they are steps in the right direction. It took considerable effort to get the Financial Commission even on its present footing; and I think it would be impossible to expect the Powers to join in collective action of a strenuous kind until they have had at least a year's experience of the working of the present Financial Commission. We have already results enough to show that that year's time will not be wasted, but that there will be

1391
some improvement in the financial position of Macedonia; and I hope in addition that the reports of the Powers received from each of the delegates that they have on the Financial Commission, founded on their own experience, will enable the Powers to draw up and formulate certain other improvements in the constitution of the Financial Commission, which they can press as reasonable on the Porte, and with hope of their being accepted. That at any rate is some, if not quick progress; and it justifies my hon, friend in saying that the policy which has been pursued was a policy worth carrying out. With regard to the gendarmerie, I have not yet a satisfactory answer to give. I am sorry that we have not yet received the reply of the Porto to the request that further powers should be given, or, rather, that the powers of the gendarmerie should be recognised as it was understood originally that they would be. It is, no doubt, time that an answer should have been received. But we on our part have naturally been engaged lately in pressing other matters at Constantinople; and it would not have been reasonable that the initiative in pressing for a reply on this point should have rested with us. It is a matter on which all the Powers have joined, and there is no doubt that, if a reply is not received soon, one Power or another will take the initiative. We shall certainly support the request that a favourable reply should be returned to the demand. With regard to the general question, I will only repeat that there is no intention of losing sight of the further objects which Lord Lansdowne had in view. We intend to follow out his policy of not separating ourselves from the other Powers and of acting with them in order to secure what results we can concentrate upon and what results they can approve. Lord Lansdowne, in the despatch which my hon. friend quoted, said—
"If these Powers are prepared to put forward proposals of the kind I have indicated in this despatch, they may count on the loyal support of His Majesty's Government, and they may rest assured that nothing is further from on
1392
intentions than to cause embarrassment by action which might have the appearance of being antagonistic to theirs."
It is necessary to bear that in mind, because some of these Powers have interests more intimate and more direct in this part of the world than we have. Our policy in this matter is a purely disinterested policy. But to prove that it is disinterested we are bound, when other Powers are sensitive, or are desirous that questions should not be pressed for fear their own interests should be affected, though our interests might be unaffected by them, to pay some regard to their wishes. We shall carry on the policy of Lord Lansdowne as strenuously as we can. We shall carry it on in concert with the other Powers; and I do not in the least deprecate—on the contrary, I think it is perfectly natural—that the House of Commons should express its opinion in favour of that policy, that further reforms are required, and that the support of the House of Commons will be forthcoming, as the support of His Majesty's Government will certainly be forthcoming, in any steps which the other Powers are prepared to join with us in taking to improve the condition of affairs in Macedonia
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, that this House considers that further reforms are urgently required in Macedonia in the interest alike of the Christian and Mohammedan population, and is prepared to support His Majesty's Government in taking whatever steps are necessary to secure that end.—(Mr. Lynch.)

GROUND GAME BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1;—
Committee report progress; to sit again upon Friday.
Adjourned at five minutes after Eleven o'clock.