Commons Sitting of 28 May 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Rugby Lower School Bill [Lords]; Railway Clearing System (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords]; Crediton Gas Bill [Lords]; Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill [Lords]; London and North Western Railway Bill [Lords); Scottish Provident Institution Buildings Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6 Bill);

  29
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Derby Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Pontefract Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  Rochester, Chatham, and Strood Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Lancashire Electric Power Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords] [not amended]. Considered; to be read the third time.
  Metropolitan Water Board Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Clacton Urban District Council Bill {Lords]; Glamorgan and South Wales Water Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords]; Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  St. Pancras Electricity Bill (by order), as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5). Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill; Sea Fisheries Provi-
  30
  sional Order Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  Electric Power and Supply Bills. Ordered, That the Memorandum, of the Commissioners of Works on Electric Power and Supply Bills [Command Paper, 2930], be referred to the Committee on the Hackney Electricity Bill.— (Mr. Harcourt.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]; Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society Bill [Lords]; Milford Docks Bill [Lords]; Mirfield Gas Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Newport with regard to the health, improvement, and good government of the borough; and for other purposes." [Newport Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  Newport Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA AND CHINA (OPIUM TRAFFIC).
  Petition from Penarth, for suppression; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Wandsworth, and Gayton; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Aldwincle; Firle; Mundham and

  31
  Hunston; North Mundham and Hunston; Scissett; Soho; and, South Kensington; to lie upon the Table.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petition from Brighton, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Petition from Lambeth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Bridport, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Secondary Schools (from 1st August, 1906 to 31st July, 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the Total Payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the financial year, 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3,600 to 3,604 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 651 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIES (COLONIAL ACTS, ROYAL ASSENT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 28th March;Colonel Legge]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 184.]

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the Councils of the Boroughs of Hyde and Merthyr Tydvil and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart
  32
  ment fixing the Hours of Closing for Barbers' Shops within the Boroughs [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  DUBLIN METOPOLITAN POLICE.
  Copy presented, of Statistical Tables for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WARLIKE OPERATIONS (EAST INDIA).
  Address for "Return of the number of sailors and soldiers killed or wounded in war or warlike operations carried on by the Government of India during the years 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903, respectively, in the same form as. the Return granted in Session 1895."—(Mr. Morton.)
  PENSIONS AND SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.
  Return ordered, "showing the number of Persons in receipt of Pensions or Superanuation Allowances granted by the under-mentioned Local Authorities in England and Wales and the amounts expended by the Local Authorities in the payment of such Pensions and Superannuation Allowances during the year ended the 31st March, 1900, viz.: County Councils, Town Councils, Visiting Committees of Lunatic Asylums, the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, Metropolitan Borough Councils, the Corporation of the City of London, Boards of Guardians, Managers of Sick Asylum and School Districts, the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, and the Metropolitan Water Board."— (Mr. Barnes.)
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Uutenanted Land on the Clanmorris Estate.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that there is a. tract of grazing land on the Clanmorris estate, in the Ballinrobe Union, county Mayo, which is suitable for tillage purposes, still in the hands of the Estates Commissioners and undivided; that over 100 young men and women emigrated this year from the district immediately surrounding this

    33
    grazing ranch, many of whom could be accommodated thereon; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have this part of the estate broken up into suitable sized holdings, and thereby complete the good work done by the transfer of the rest of the estate from the landlord to the tenants.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have purchased 140 acres of untenanted land on the estate of Lord Clanmorris. An action at the suit of Lord Clanmorris and others has been instituted in the Chancery Division with the object of compelling the Commissioners to sell the lands in question to Messrs. Good and Black, and until this action has been decided it is not possible for the Commissioners to arrange for the distribution of the lands.

    Irish Land Act—Mill Holdings.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill to amend the Land Act of 1903 in the present or next Session; if so, whether he will insert a clause therein dealing with what is known in Ireland as mill holdings, the occupiers of which are at present debarred from going into the Land Courts, with a view to enable this class to derive some benefits from Land Acts passed since the milling industry got crippled by foreign competition; and whether he will at the same time insert a further clause dealing with farmers who hold one hundred year leases with the same object in view.

    Gross Income brought under the review of the Inland Revenue Department.

    Income on which Tax was received.

    Total Amount.

    Relative Percentages to the Joint Total.

    Total Amount.

    Relative Percentages to the Joint Total.

    £

    £

    Ireland

    35,093,000

    3·9

    19,552,000

    3·2

    Great Britain

    867,666,000

    96·1

    595,460,000

    96·8

    Joint Total

    902,759,000

    100

    615,012,000

    100

    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Government are carefully watching the operation of the Land Acts, but I cannot, at present, make any statement as to possible further legislation.

    Income-tax Assessments in Great Britain and Ireland.
    MR. O'MARATo ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amounts of the assessments for Income-tax in Ireland and Great Britain, respectively; whether he will state their relative percentage to the joint total; and whether these percentages were recommended by the Royal Commission on Financial Relations as a means of ascertaining the taxable capacity of the Two Kingdoms; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
    MR. O'MARA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amounts of assessment for death duties for the ten years 1896 to 1906 for Ireland and Great Britain, respectively, and their relative percentages of the joint total; whether these percentages were recommended by the Royal Commission on Financial Relations of the Two Kingdoms as a means of ascertaining their relative taxable capacity; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The under-mentioned are the total amounts of the assessments for Income-tax in Ireland and Great Britain, respectively, for the year 1903–4, the latest year for which the statistics are complete:—

    35
    The net capital values of estates liable to estate duty for the years 1896–97 to 1904–5 for Ireland and Great Britain, respectively, and the relative percentage.

    Net Capital Values of Estates and Percentages of the Joint Totals.

    Years.

    Ireland.

    Great Britain.

    Joint Totals.

    Amounts.

    Percentages.

    Amounts.

    Percentages.

    Amounts.

    Percentages.

    £

    £

    £

    1896–97

    11,628,000

    5·4

    204,224,000

    94·6

    215,852,000

    100

    1897–98

    11,664,000

    4·7

    235,678,000

    95·3

    247,342,000

    100

    1898–99

    12,886,000

    5·1

    237,733,000

    9·49

    250,619,000

    100

    1899–00

    12,842,000

    4·4

    279,973,000

    95·6

    292,815,000

    100

    1900–01

    14,147,000

    5·3

    250,367,000

    94·7

    264,514,000

    100

    1901–02

    12,561,000

    4·3

    276,309,000

    95·7

    288,870,000

    100

    1902–03

    11,093,000

    4·1

    259,380,000

    95·9

    270,473,000

    100

    1903·04

    12,897,000

    4·9

    251,221,000

    95·1

    264,118,000

    100

    1904–05

    12,252,000

    4·6

    252,851,000

    95·4

    255,103,000

    100

    The general Report signed by eleven of the thirteen members of the Financial Relations Commission contained no recommendation as to the most suitable means of estimating the relative taxable capacity of Great Britain and Ireland. But in separate Reports, signed by groups of members, the income-tax assessment, the assessments to the death duties, and other bases of comparison were discussed. As I stated in the discussion on the Budget Resolutions, the whole matter is receiving my consideration.

    Osborne Cadetships.
    MR. SMEATON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state how many applicants there were for nominations to cadetships at Osborne in 1905; how many appeared before the selection board; how many passed the selection board; how many passed their medical examination; how many took part in the qualifying examination; and how many passed the qualifying examination.
    of the joint totals are as shown below. The statistics for the year 1905–6 are not yet complete.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). 548 boys applied for the cadetships vacant in 1905, and were all interviewed by the Interview Committee which sat in February, June, or November of that year. 275 were afterwards nominated for the qualifying examination, subject to passing a medical examination. 240 passed the medical examination, and of these 212 passed the qualifying examination and entered the college at Osborne.

    Workmen's Compensation—Deaf and Dumb Workmen.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a petition representing the adult deaf and dumb of the United Kingdom, praying that a clause be inserted into the Workmen's Compensation Bill to safeguard their interest; and what action, if any, does he intend to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have received one or two communications of the nature referred to by the

    37
    hon. Member, and I should be glad if anything could be done to prevent the Workmen's Compensation Act increasing the difficulties which must in any case be experienced by the deaf and dumb in obtaining and keeping employment. The matter is one which will in due course be considered by the Committee to which the Bill is referred.

    Child Labour on Sundays.
    MR. H. J. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of proposed by-laws under the Employment of Children Act submitted for his sanction have contained provisions for the prohibition of child labour on Sundays; and whether he would view with favour a universal prohibition of this nature.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am not able, at such short notice, to give the hon. Member the information asked for in the first part of the Question, which would involve some search; but so far as regards by-laws confirmed and now in force the figures are as follows:—In thirteen cases by-laws have been confirmed prohibiting employment on Sunday in industrial work at home; in one of these cases also employment on Sunday in certain specified occupations is limited to two hours; and in thirty cases street trading on Sunday has been prohibited. Several proposals from other authorities with regard to Sunday employment are now under my consideration. As regards the second part of the Question, I shall give careful consideration to any proposals from local authorities for restricting as much as possible the employment of children on Sundays, but I am not prepared to say that a universal and complete prohibition of such employment would be warranted.

    Sale of Disused Warships to Foreign Countries.
    MR. BARKER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether facilities are given to enable foreign countries to acquire disused and obsolete ships of war which are offered for sale by auction; and, if so, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will take steps to prevent such warships being acquired by foreign countries.
    38
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Facilities are not specially given to enable foreign countries to acquire obsolete ships of war offered for sale by auction. Such ships are usually offered at public auction at His Majesty's dockyards, and except in the case of those of fighting value, are sold without restriction of any kind.

    Construction of Boat Slip at Cooscroum.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will now consider the advisability of giving the fishermen of Cooscroum, near Cahirciveen, facilities for launching and hauling up their boats; can he say when steps will be taken to make the slip at Roads of real use to the fishermen; and when the end of the Boat Cove slip will be completed.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board have postponed work at Cooscroum landing place as in their opinion other localities have stronger claims on their funds. The Board have already expended £l,015 upon the landing place at Roads, but they are advised that no reasonable expenditure would render such an exposed landing place safe at all times. Their engineer has been instructed to report as to the removal of a ledge of rock, but no other improvements are contemplated. The small addition proposed to be made to the slip at Glen Boat Cove will be carried out as soon as the services of a diver are available in the district.

    Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of teachers whose salaries were withdrawn during the years 1897 to 1905, respectively; whether teachers of thirty years service have, since the change of rules, been declared inefficient and dismissed without compensation or pension; and whether steps will be taken to have the whole scheme of rules and programme and treatment of teachers of the national board thoroughly inquired into.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that during the nine years ended

    39
    December 31st, 1905, salary was withdrawn from 260 teachers because of long continued inefficiency or neglect of duty. In the case of any such teacher who had thirty years service, consideration was always given to that fact, and wherever it was possible with due regard to the educational interests of the pupils to suspend final action teachers were permitted to continue their service until they became eligible for pension under the Teachers' Pension Act. The powers of the Lord-Lieutenant in respect of the Commissioners' rules arise only in cases in which the Commissioners seek to change any fundamental rule.

    Sale of the Holding of Patrick M'Glone of Aghanlish.
    MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the holding of Patrick M'Glone of Aghanlish, Largydonnell, county Leitrim, the Estates Commissioners have used their powers under Section 19 of The land Act, 1903, to compel the tenant to sell for £193; that this price is thirty-one and a half years purchase of the rent fixed by the county court judge; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the case in question is under their consideration, and they are not prepared to make any statement upon it until they have arrived at a decision as to what action they may take.

    Enlargement of Uneconomic Holdings on the Dickson Estate at Tawley.
    MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Ross acting as Land Judge has recently sold a grazing farm on the Dickson estate at Tawley, situate between Tullaghan and Kinlough in the county of Leitrim, to Mrs Dickson, who resides at Tullaghan, four miles from the grazing farm; and that adjoining the grazing farm there are twenty-six uneconomic holdings, the average valuation of which is under £3; will he say if the sale to Mrs. Dickson was a judicial act; and whether, seeing that the Congested Districts Board had the estate inspected, and was prepared to purchase it with a
    40
    view to the enlargement of the uneconomic holdings, anything can now be done to relieve congestion on this estate.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that the sale to Mrs. Dickson was approved by the Court in 1904, and that the giving of that approval was a judicial decision which could only be varied by the Court of Appeal. I have no information as to the character of the holdings adjoining the farms referred to. Subsequent to the sale to Mrs. Dickson the Congested Districts Board issued a request to the Land Judge under Section 7 of the Act of 1903, but on being made aware that the sale to Mrs. Dickson had already taken place, and that the majority of the tenants had agreed to purchase direct from the Land Judge, the Board decided not to purchase the residue of the estate then for sale.

    Delay in Erection of Breakwater at New bridge, County Donegal.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in erecting the breakwater at Newbridge, Rathmullan, county Donegal, and how the matter now stands.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Question seems to imply that the Government have undertaken to carry out works at Newbridge. This is not the case, but the claims of that place to a grant under the Marine Works Act are receiving consideration in conjunction with the claims of other localities. If it should be decided to make a grant in respect of Newbridge the works could hardly be undertaken during the present year.

    Appointment of Sergeant Ballantine at Belleek.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Ballantine, who has been placed in charge of the constabulary at Belleek in substitution of Sergeant Dolan, busied himself when at Castlecoldwell, a few miles from Belleek, in getting up a testimonial on behalf of a Post Office official and came to Belleek in order to solicit contributions to that testimonial, thereby bringing himself

    41
    under obligations to the persons who subscribed and suffering rebuffs from those who declined to subscribe; whether it is usual for a constabulary officer to be promoted to the charge of a district with whose inhabitants he came in contact as an organiser of a testimonial and a collector of subscriptions to its funds; and whether he will explain why Ballantine, a Protestant, was appointed to Belleek in substitution of a Catholic sergeant, the practice being for many years that the position of sergeant at this station should be hold by a Catholic, and what are the circumstances under which Ballantine was appointed to this station.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that about three years ago Acting Sergeant-Ballantine and other members of the constabulary gave subscriptions to a testimonial which was presented to a Post Office official at Belleek, and to which persons of all religious creeds in the locality subscribed. The acting sergeant, however, took no part in organising or receiving subscriptions, and did not go to Belleek to solicit subscriptions, and is therefore under no obligation to any of the subscribers to the testimonial. Acting Sergeant Ballantine, who is a Protestant, was recently appointed by the County Inspector, with the approval of the Inspector-General, to the charge of Belleek station, of which the former sergeant in charge was a Catholic. The Inspector-General informs me that there is no reason why a Protestant sergeant should not be appointed to the station. There is no sectarian feeling in the locality.

    Retirement of Sergeant Dolan at Belleek.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Assistant Inspector Waters, while on a visit to a near relative in the sub-district of Belleek, county Fermanagh, visited the Belleek Royal Irish Constabulary barracks, and on meeting Sergeant Dolan, the sergeant in charge, asked him whether he was about to resign, and stated that he should resign and peremptorily requested him to do so; what, if any, specific charges did Mr. Waters bring against this sergeant, who has now been superseded; what investi-
    42
    gation was held; under whose authority did Mr Waters act; has his visit to Pettigo been made at the public expense; and what explanation, if any, have the Constabulary authorities to offer with reference to this incident.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In December 1905, Mr. Waters, Assistant Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, inspected the county Fermanagh force, and in the course of that duty visited Belleek barracks, of which Sergeant Dolan was the sergeant in charge. The Assistant Inspector-General found the barracks in a dirty condition and the sergeant himself very dirty and untidy. As the sergeant had more than completed the service at which he was entitled to retire on pension, Mr. Waters asked him if he intended to retire, and the sergeant replied in the affirmative. Mr. Waters then informed him that unless he did so it would be his duty to recommend that he should be compulsorily retired by the Inspector-General under the provisions of the Constabulary Act of 1883, as he considered the sergeant unfitted to continue in charge of a station. No further investigation was held. The sergeant subsequently applied to be retired and was discharged on pension on the 28th February. He had completed twenty-nine years service. Mr. Waters acted under the authority of his office and with the sanction of the Inspector-General. As Mr. Waters was on public duty inspecting the force his expenses were paid out of public funds. He, however, stayed one night with a relative near Belleek.

    Complaint of Assault Against Constable Brady at Pettigo.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a complaint was preferred against Constable Brady, stationed at Pettigo, for assaulting a young lady by pushing her rudely and deliberately off the footpath in the presence of two other ladies, who are prepared to corroborate her statement of the assault; whether in consequence of this complaint, Mr. Kingston, D. I. Inspector at Kesh, came to Pettigo, for the purpose of holding an inquiry, that he never, when at Pettigo, saw the young lady, the victim of the assault, or any of the witnesses to it who were in the town, and prepared to answer any inquiries he

    43
    might make, but left Pettigo after a visit to the constabulary barrack, the dispensary, and the hotel, and that subsequently a communication was received from the inspector general that the complaint, after a very careful inquiry, was regarded as frivolous; what, if any, explanation is there for Mr. Kingston's conduct in not making any inquiries with reference to an occurrence he was directed to investigate from the young lady who complained of the assault, or from the ladies who were prepared to corroborate her statement; and whether any, or, if so, what steps will be taken for the further investigation of this matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector General informs me that on 13th September 1905 a complaint to the effect mentioned was received. The complainant stated that his letter was written in strict confidence. The complainant did not give the names of the young ladies in question. The District Inspector was directed to inquire into the matter, but, in accordance with the complainant's request for confidence, no names were given to that officer. The District Inspector made all possible inquiries, and reported the result, which was that no grounds for action against the constable could be discovered. Subsequently the complainant and the lady herself renewed the complaint, but without any stipulation as to confidence, and the County Inspector was thereupon directed to investigate the complaint. This he did, and, in company with the District Inspector, interviewed the three young ladies referred to and other persons, and found that there was no ground for the complaint. The complainant was in the first instance informed by the Inspector General that the proper course would be for the person aggrieved to prosecute the constable, when the matter could be fully investigated on oath. It is not intended to further investigate the case.

    Alleged Drunkenness of Constable Brady at Pettigo.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on 5th April, an inquiry into a charge of drunkenness on the night of the declaration of the poll at the Fermanagh election against Constable Brady, stationed at
    44
    Pettigo, preferred by the Rev. Eugene Coyle, Catholic Curate of Pettigo, was held at the Pettigo Police Barracks by District Inspectors Wall and Wallace, while Mr. Kingston, District Inspector, undertook the prosecution, which resulted in the report of the inspectors holding the investigation that the charge was without foundation; whether he is aware, at the preliminary examination held on 21st February, that four witnesses, Messrs. Thomas Aikins, Alexander Aikins, Henry Aikins, J.P., and Samuel Hawkins, corroborated the charge of Father Coyle that Constable Brady was drunk, whereas at the second inquiry three of these witnesses deposed to his sobriety, while a fourth, Alexander Aikin, rushed out of court, before being sworn, declaring that Father Coyle was an informer and ought to be shot, and that District Inspector Kingston's questions to the sergeant at Pettigo as to whether he had but to reprimand Constable Brady for tippling was not allowed to be answered by the court, and no question was put or explanation required with reference to the contradictory statements of the witnesses in their evidence at the first and the second inquiries; and whether, having regard to the character of this investigation, a full and impartial inquiry will be directed into the whole matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector General informs me that a complaint to the effect mentioned was made by the Reverend Mr. Coyle that a constabulary court of inquiry on oath was hold in the matter, and that the constable was acquitted of the charge. I cannot enter into the further details of the Question, particularly as I understand that there is a possibility that the matter will form the subject of judicial proceedings at the instance of one of the parties.

    Artillery Practice in the Thames Estuary —Danger to Public.
    MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that George Gilson, of Leigh-on-Sea, whilst shrimping in the estuary of the Thames on 27th April 1905, was wounded by, and subsequently died from, a bullet discharged in the course of target practice by the Royal Garrison Artillery at Sheerness; and whether any, and

    45
    what, steps have been taken to prevent similar occurrences; if any new regulations have been issued since April 1905 for that purpose, what were the date and nature of the now regulations.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The circumstances attending the death of George Gilson were thoroughly inquired into at the time. As a result orders were at once issued directing increased precautions, and new and more stringent regulations for safety were promulgated by the Army Council on the 2nd August 1905. These were again revised this year and fresh instructions issued on the 15th May last.
    MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that earlier in the present month, and also on 14th May last, when heavy firing has been proceeding at Sheerness, shots have fallen in the Thames estuary, about two miles below the "Knock" buoy, in the track of sailing vessels and yachts; and whether he has taken or will immediately take steps to protect the public using the river from all risk whatever of this kind, and to ask what steps he has taken or proposes to take.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding in Chief, Eastern Command, has been requested to report on the matter in question.

    Water Supply for Buttevant Barracks.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Mallow Rural District Council made a proposal last year to provide an adequate supply of water to the military barracks at Buttevant; and that correspondence respecting the proposed scheme has been going on for many months between the military authorities in Ireland and the local council; and if he will inquire into the cause of delay in concluding the negotiations.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am aware that the proposals of the Mallow Rural District Council have been for some time under consideration. I am glad to say that within the last few days
    46
    almost all the matters under negotiation have been adjusted, and a definite agreement will be arrived at at a very early date.

    War Office Flag and Empire Day.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on Empire Day, 24th May last, the Union Jack was not hoisted on the War Office flagstaff; and will he give instructions to have it hoisted thereon on future Empire Days.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) May 24th is not one of the days on which a flag is ordered to be flown on the War Office building.

    The Letter Patent Appointing Judge Advocate General
    MR. PAUL: To ask the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to lay upon the Table a copy of the letters patent appointing Mr. Milvain Judge Advocate General for life.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A copy was laid on the Table on Friday last.

    Abandonment of the Duncannon Rifle Range.
    MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, and on what grounds, it has been decided to abandon the Duncannon rifle range in view of the importance attached, now more than ever, to increased facilities for rifle practice in the Army and Militia.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The lease for this range expired in January last, and as the range was only a makeshift and very little used in recent years, it was decided to spend the money provided for the rent on the improvement of more suitable ranges.

    Manufacture of Lee-Enfield Carbines.
    MR. BRANCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of Lee-Enfield cavalry and artillery carbines were manufactured by the trade for the years 1890 to 1903 inclusive, and the price per carbine for each respective year; also the numbers and prices of the same arms for

    47
    the above years made at Sparkbrook and Enfield respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No Lee-Enfield carbines have been

    1889–90 to 1891–2 None.

    Year.

    Number.

    Cost.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1892–93

    100

    5

    6

    6¼

    1893–94

    50

    4

    15

    6¼

    1894–95

    11,256

    3

    3

    11

    1895–96

    5,515

    3

    1

    2¼

    1896–97

    6,848

    2

    10

    7½

    1897–98

    1,504

    2

    6

    10¼

    1898–99

    5,450

    2

    6

    3¼

    1899–1900

    6,149

    2

    6

    1¾

    1900–01

    21,594

    2

    4

    5

    1901–02

    19

    2

    4

    5¼

    1902–03

    500

    2

    5

    10¼

    Fitted for pattern 1888 sword-bayonets:—

    Year.

    Number.

    Cost.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1901–02

    1,000

    2

    4

    11½

    1903–04

    500

    2

    9

    9

    This price includes the special expenditure for tools.

    British Japanese Trade in Manchuria.
    MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Japanese are actively doing business in Harbin, Moukden, and other towns in Manchuria, although merchants other than those of Japanese nationality are not permitted to go there for business purposes; and whether he will take prompt steps to secure to British traders equal rights with the Japanese.
    manufactured by the trade in the years mentioned or at any other time. No Lee-Enfield carbines have been made at Sparkbrook. The following Lee-Enfield carbines were made at Enfield:—
    (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Government were informed on inquiry at the close of last year that only Japanese commercial people, who were practically in the employ of the naval and military authorities, were allowed to travel on business in Manchuria, and that only in connection with the Army and Navy. The evacuation by the Japanese troops having made much progress, the Japanese Government announced some time ago that from the

    49
    1st of May this year, foreigners and foreign vessels should be free to enter Antung and Tatungkau, and that from the 1st of June Mukden and the whole of Manchuria in the occupation of Japan, outside the leased territory, was to be open to trade and residence to Japanese and foreigners alike, so far as military exigencies permitted. There is, therefore, no need of representations to the Japanese Government on the subject. We have no information as to the position of affairs at Harbin, which is still in Russian occupation.

    Increase of Likin Duty at Moukden.
    MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what authority the Likin Duty at Moukden upon goods has been increased from one to five per cent; and whether His Majesty's Government has assented to the increase?
    (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The hon. Member no doubt refers to the tax on the sale of cigarettes, amounting to about five per cent., which retail dealers in tobacco have to pay. It was imposed by the Chinese Administration at Mukden. Likin is an eternal tax to which the assent of His Majesty's Government is not required, and with regard to which they cannot intervene unless there is any discrimination against British goods.

    Exports from British Honduras.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what is the total value of the exports in 1904 and 1905 from Stann Creek and Punta Gorda, respectively, in British Honduras; and what is the value of the exports of bananas from these places, respectively, in the same years?
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Officer Administering the Government of British Honduras has been requested to furnish the information which the hon. Member desires.

    Closing of South African Gold Mines.
    MR. BELLOC: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the
    50
    Colonies whether his attention has been called to the threat of Mr. Albu of closing certain gold mines in the Transvaal as a means of coercing the Government; and whether, in case of such a threat being carried into effect, the Government proposes to exercise its right to take over the mines?
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have seen a newspaper report of a speech by Mr. Albu, in which he said that certain gold mines might have to be closed down if a large number of Chinamen applied for repatriation. With regard to the right of Government to take over the mines I do not think that Government has any such power for the following reasons:—Article 140 of the Gold Law, passed by the legislature of the late South African Republic with a view to war, and printed at page 58 of Cd. 43, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, has not been repealed. The power to compel a mineowner to work his mine could not be enforced, as I am advised, without further legislation, which is not contemplated. In any case the only mines which the Transvaal Government could in any circumstances work without a heavy loss, would be the richest mines and those which are fully developed. There seems to be very little likelihood of such mines becoming derelict at a period when the gold output is greater than has ever before been known.

    Bovine Tuberculosis.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Royal Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis, now making experiments at Stanstead, intend to investigate and report on Dr. Koch's dictum that bovine tuberculosis is not transmissible to the human species; and whether, pending this Report he will cause a modification of the criminal prosecutions now taken against meat traders, especially those who deal in ports in London?
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Professor Koch's dictum was, as I understand, the main reason for the appointment of the Royal Commission who are investigating the subject, and will no doubt report upon it. I have no authority to give

    51
    effect to the suggestion in the latter part of the Question.

    Damage to Crops by Dust from Motor Traffic.
    MR. SOARES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution adopted by the Barnstaple Rural District Council, at a meeting held on 18th May, 1906, to the effect that agricultural crops are being damaged by the dust caused by motor vehicles, and that the clouds of dust are making the use of the highways dangerous to ordinary traffic; and what steps he proposes to take with regard to the matter?
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has been drawn to this resolution, and I have communicated it, with others of a similar kind, to the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, who have under consideration the subject to which it relates.

    Irish Local Bodies and Patents for Fairs.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any petition from the urban council of Ballina, county Mayo, for the grant of a patent to enable the council to hold monthly fairs, has been presented to His Majesty; whether he is aware that such petitions, if from Ireland, are referred to the Irish Government and law officers; whether he will take steps, through the Local Government Board for Ireland or otherwise, to communicate to Irish local bodies the procedure to be followed in applying for patents for fairs, the nature of the evidence that should be adduced, and contents or form of the petitions; and will he say whether any rules or directions on the subject have ever been made.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The petition in Question has been received, and is under the consideration of the Lord-Lieutenant, who in practice deals with all applications to the Crown for the grant of patents for fairs or markets in Ireland. There does not appear to be
    52
    any necessity to communicate with Irish local bodies as suggested. If a local body or an individual owner desires to establish a fair or market, all needful information is given on application to the Under-Secretary, Dublin Castle. If an application is, prima facie, one that can be granted His Majesty's Writ of Ad Quod Damnum issues to the high sheriff of the county, who summons a jury to determine whether the granting of the fair or market would be of any damage to His Majesty or any of His subjects who hold fairs or markets near the place proposed for the grant. Beyond this no rules on the subject have been made.

    Education Bill—Position of School Inspectors at present in Wales.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the event of Part IV. of the Education (England and Wales) Bill becoming law, and a council for Wales being established, he will state the position of the present inspectors of His Majesty's schools in Wales; will they be transferred to the Welsh council or will the council on the passing of the Act be empowered to appoint their own inspectors and officials.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Under the clause as now in the Bill the Welsh council will certainly have power to appoint inspectors and officials of its own. I cannot undertake to discuss the details of the Bill in a reply to a Question. There will be an opportunity for discussing the point during the Committee stage of the Bill.

    Pay of Post Office—Adult Night Messengers.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General, if his attention has been called to the fact that the subordinate employees engaged in His Majesty's Customs, Board of Works, and several departments of the War Office have had their weekly rate of wages increased recently; and will he now state his decision as to the several points raised on behalf of the adult night messengers by the deputation which he received from the Trades Union

    53
    Congress on February 23rd last, especially with regard to the present weekly rate of wages, which only averages 18s.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that the increased rate of pay for adult night messengers, under the memorandum issued by Lord Stanley, was to apply to all messengers performing a full night's duty at offices from first to fourth class inclusive, and as Aberdeen and Dundee offices come under this ruling, will he issue instructions that the adult night messengers employed at these offices be paid as from 1st April, 1905, at the same rate as the adult night messengers at Glasgow and Edinburgh.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will answer the hon. Member's two Questions together. The duties of adult night messengers are merely those which are performed in the daytime by boy messengers. The memorandum, issued by Lord Stanley in the Post Office Circular of 28th March, 1905, stated that unestablished night telegraph messengers employed full time in provincial towns would be paid the minimum of the scale of pay for established postmen in those towns. At Aberdeen and Dundee town postmen are on a scale beginning at 1s. less than at Glasgow and Edinburgh, and consequently the night messengers are paid wages of 1s. less per week. The duties of the class of men in the Customs service to which the hon. Member refers are far more responsible than those of the night messengers. They are not established officers, and consequently do not earn a pension. But in any case I cannot deal with the question of the remuneration of these officers until the Select Committee on Post Office servants have made their Report, and I have had time to consider their recommendations.

    Post Office Servants Committee and Assistant Clerks.
    MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Postmaster-General why the 200 assistant clerks (new class) employed in the various departments of the Post Office are excluded
    54
    from the inquiry which is now being held in regard to Post Office servants' wages.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The class in question is one common to the whole Civil Service, and has been, I presume, on that ground excluded from the inquiry in regard to Post Office servants.

    Transfer of Post Office Engineering Department from Belfast to Dublin.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to abolish the Irish Northern Engineering District, having its present headquarters at Belfast, and to remove the superintending engineer at that city and his staff to Dublin; if so, whether he will state the reason for the change, and will the Belfast staff be compensated for such enforced removal and for the increased cost of living in Dublin; will he say whether the major portion of the telegraph and telephone work in Ireland is carried on in the northern district; and, if so, will he reconsider any decision to abolish the Belfast headquarters, especially in view of the increase of telephone business which will be thrown on that district when the National Telephone Company's undertaking is absorbed in 1911.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is proposed to transfer the superintending engineer and his headquarters staff from Belfast to Dublin with the object of improving the administration generally. The officers will receive the same rates of pay as other officers stationed in Dublin, and their removal expenses will be paid in accordance with the usual scale. Dublin is the most important centre in Ireland for both telegraph and telephone work.

    Irish Post Office Engineering Department.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he can state the expenditure on engineering works in the Irish northern, midland, and southern districts, respectively, during the twelve months ended 31st December last; and also the total salaries of the superintending

    55
    engineers' clerical staffs in each of these districts for the same period.

    Northern.

    Midland.

    Southern.

    £

    £

    £

    Expenditure

    22,860

    17,020

    18,570

    Salaries

    1,578

    1,787

    1,421

    Electricity Supply.
    MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will enlarge the terms of the order of reference on the London County Council (Bulk Electricity) Bill, now before a Select Committee, so as to admit evidence and report upon the question of the cheapest and best method of generating electricity in bulk so as to create a general demand for its use for lighting, heating, and power purposes, and also the practicability of establishing a central authority for large areas to deal with such supply on the lines of the Metropolitan Water Board.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Committee have been considering the Bill for twelve days, and it is too late now for me to suggest any alteration of the terms of the reference, even if I thought that these terms were not sufficiently wide. I have no reason for thinking that the Committee would be precluded from considering the points mentioned by the hon. Member.

    Judicial and Executive Powers of Indian Magistrates.
    SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to two recent cases in Eastern Bengal, viz., at Seragigunge and Burisal, in which complaints, filed in the ordinary course in the court of the deputy magistrate duly authorised to receive such complaints, preferring charges of assault against the local police, were refused by the deputy magistrate on the ground that he had been instructed to refer such complaints to the district magistrate, who is the official head of the local police, and, when so referred, were summarily dismissed by the district magistrate; and whether, having regard to the important principle raised in these cases, involving
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The figures are as follows:—
    the exercise of judicial and executive powers in the hands of the same officer, as well as interference in the independent administration of justice by subordinate magistrates, he will take these cases into his consideration in finally dealing with the long pending memorial of Lord Hob-house and others praying for the separation of judicial and executive functions in India.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not acquainted with the details of these cases, but I have no doubt that they and any similar cases will be communicated to me by the Government of India when they submit to me their conclusions on the memorial referred to.
    MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in dealing with a memorial, signed in 1899 by Lord Hobhouse, Sir W. Wedderburn, and others, praying for the separation of judicial and executive functions in India, he will take into account, not only the opinions of other authorities upon this subject, but also the extra cost which would be entailed by the creation of a magistracy engaged exclusively in magisterial functions, which cost would have to be borne by the masses of the taxpayers, of whose dissatisfaction with the existing and traditional Indian system of joint revenue and magisterial functions no proof exists.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The considerations mentioned by my hon. friend will undoubtedly receive due weight in any deliberations that may take place on the subject.

    Protection of Lough Neagh Fisheries.
    COLONEL MCCALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Fisheries Department of the Board of

    57
    Agriculture (Ireland) offered in March last £100 towards the protection of Lough Neagh fisheries on condition that before receiving the grant the conservators should say how they proposed to expend it; and, if so, will he explain why, after the Department had been furnished with a comprehensive and useful scheme, the grant was refused.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In the year 1904 a grant of £100 was made by the Department of Agriculture to the Coleraine Board of Conservators, and was expended on the protection of spawning fish during the winter of 1904–5. An application for a further grant was made in August, 1905; but, as certain objections with regard to the matter reached the Department, it was found desirable to make investigation into the financial position and administrative actions of the conservators. No decision could be reached until 3rd January, 1906, when the conservators were informed that the grant of £100 would be made on the same conditions as in the previous year. It was, however, thon too late to apply the grant to the protection of spawning fish, and consequently no payment has been made in respect of it. Should a further application be received in connection with protection during the next spawning season, it will receive consideration.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on their Original Holdings.
    MR. T. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government intend introducing a Bill for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants in Ireland on the holdings they formerly occupied, or else to provide holdings for them elsewhere.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Provision to the effect mentioned is made by the Irish Land Act, 1903; and, as I have already announced, a staff of inspectors has been appointed to inquire into the cases of evicted tenants who have applied for reinstatement.

    Police and the Hotel Munster, Thurles.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether District Inspector O'Brien Thurles has issued any
    58
    special instructions to the constables under his charge with regard to espionage and raids on the Hotel Munster, Thurles: was a licensing prosecution instituted at any time against the proprietor, Mr. P. M'Bride; and, if so, with what result.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that he has ascertained from District Inspector O'Brien that that officer has not issued any special instructions to the police under his charge in reference to the hotel mentioned. A prosecution for a breach of the licensing laws was instituted against the proprietor of the hotel by the district inspector on 21st October, 1905. That case was dismissed by the magistrates, but the chairman remarked that it was a very proper case for investigation.

    Police Duty at Cappawhite on 29th April, 1906.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what constabulary duty the Cappawhite transport car was engaged on 29th April, 1906; who was in charge of Cappawhite police barrack on that day; and was the transport car used by the head constable to attend a funeral.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that on the date referred to the transport car was employed by the head constable on the duty of supervising patrols. In the head constable's absence Cappawhite station was in charge of Sergeant Delinege. The car was not used by the head constable to attend a funeral.

    Sale of the Lamphiere Estate—Extra Police Employed.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in connection with the controversy over the sale of the Lamphiere estate he will say how many extra police are at present stationed at the Commons and Sallypark police barracks and the protection post at Martin Cormack's; are there any police employed protecting Mrs. Lamphiere; and, having regard to the unsettled condition of the district, will the Government consider the advisability of holding

    59
    a public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the sale of this estate.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that seven extra police are stationed at the barracks and protection post named for the purpose of affording protection to Martin Cormack and his brother, James Cormack. The necessity for this protection arises out of the fact that these men are unpopular: James Cormack because he bought an evicted farm on the Lamphiere estate and Martin Cormack because he acts as caretaker for his brother. Mrs. Lamphiere does not receive protection, but a patrol is sent along the road on Sundays to prevent any interference with this lady when she is driving to or from church. It is not considered necessary to hold an inquiry in the case.

    Application of T. Murphy for Untenanted Farm at Coolalta.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received particulars of the claim of the representative of Timothy Murphy, of Coolalta, Macroom, to an untenanted farm on the townlands of Cappanagroove and Carrigadrohid, near Macroom, on the Bowen-Colthurst estate; are negotiations proceeding at present for the sale of this estate; and what steps, if any, are being taken to include Timothy Murphy's claim in the purchase proceedings.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from the representatives of Timothy Murphy, and have referred it to an inspector for inquiry. An originating application has been lodged in respect of the sale of the estate of Georgina Bowen Colthurst, but the townlands mentioned are not included in the sale nor do they appear among the other lands which the vendor owns but does not desire to sell.

    Application of James Morris for Reinstatement.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Samuel Maxwell, Attanagh, Queen's
    60
    County, the representative of James Morris, who was evicted from a holding of eighty acres on the estate of Lord De Vesci in 1885; and whether he can say what steps, if any, have been taken to restore this tenant to the old holding, or provide him with another farm.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the application in question, and have referred it to one of their inspectors for inquiry.

    Purchase of Lord De Vesci Estate.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have approached Lord De Vesci, Abbeyleix, in connection with the sale to them of the 400 acres of untenanted land on his estate; and, if so, with what result.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have approached the owner in this case and that the matter is under consideration.

    Arrests of Young Girls for Minor Offences, Ireland.
    COLONEL MCCALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could give the number of young girls, other than Roman Catholics, between the ages of nine and fifteen years, who have been arrested for thieving and other minor offences and sent to prison or discharged under the First Offenders Act during the year 1905, in Ireland; and whether, in the event of a reformatory for such girls being set up by private enterprise, the Government would afford facilities and some pecuniary encouragement.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that only one such person was committed to prison in Ireland during the year 1905, and that the average number of such committals for some years past has been about two. The prison records do not show the number of such girls who, after being arrested, have been discharged under the First Offenders Act without being sent to prison. The Government have not been made aware that any necessity exists for establishing a reformatory school for Protestant girls

    61
    in Ireland. If, however, any proposals on the subject are made they will receive due consideration. I understand that one such school existed in Ireland up to ten years ago, when it was closed owing to the fewness of the inmates.

    QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      Naval Construction—Cost of "County" Class Cruisers.
      MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the cost to the country of building and completing for sea the ten cruisers of the "County" class, and the cost of the annual upkeep; also the nature of the contemplated change in their armament and the cost involved; and further, having regard to the recent reduction of the Navy Estimates by several millions sterling, how long the work of rendering these armoured cruisers efficient is likely to be delayed, on the ground of the cost involved.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The total cost of building and completing for sea the ten cruisers of the "Kent" class was £7,550,496. The cost of the annual upkeep is about £17,000 for each ship for coal and sea stores, while it is estimated that the average annual cost of repairs for ships of this class, for the first eight years, will be about £5,000 to £6,000. No change in the armament is in contemplation.

      Canadian Office in London.
      MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to charges made in connection with the Canadian Office, Victoria Street; whether Lord Strathcona, High Commissioner for Canada, is the intermediary between the Canadian Government and the Colonial Office for all matters between the two Governments; whether charges implicating Lord Strathcona have been made; and, if so, is it the attention of His Majesty's Government to make representations to the Canadian Government that it will be impossible to have any further dealings with the Canadian
      62
      Office, Victoria Street, until all charges have been cleared.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Mr. CHURCHILL): Charges made in connection with the Canadian Emigration Office are, I understand, being investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons in Canada. Lord Strathcona has informed the Secretary of State that the so-called charges do not implicate him in any way, either personally or as High Commissioner. The Secretary of State is not prepared to make any representations to the Canadian Government upon the matter.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILLinquired whether the position of High Commissioner of Canada was not strictly non-political in this country, and asked if Lord Strathcona had not been one of the principal speakers on tariff reform.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing whatever to do with the Question.

      Chinese Coolies in South Africa—Unexpired Import Licences.
      MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total number of unexpired licences for the importation of Chinese coolies into South Africa; and at what date all further importation will have ceased.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: The Secretary of State has telegraphed to Lord Selborne for the exact facts, but has not yet received a reply. I hope to be able to put the hon. Member and the House in possession of the information on Wednesday, if not before.

      Natal Gaols.
      MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, owing to the crowded state of the Natal gaols, which are filled with political prisoners, 250 long-sentence prisoners have been sent to Kimberley; and, if so, whether these prisoners are to be set to work in the De Beers mines.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: The Secretary of State has no information in regard to the matter, which is one for which the Government of Natal alone has responsibility.

      Flogging of Coolies in British Guiana.
      MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether coolies under indenture in British Guiana are flogged at the triangle with the cat-o'-nine-tails for plantain stealing; whether there are any instances of death having followed as a consequence; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to amend the Ordinance under which immigrants are flogged for predial larceny.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: The Earl of Elgin's Answer is: Indentured immigrants are subject to the same laws as other inhabitants of British Guiana in regard to the offence in question. Whipping or flogging may be inflicted on conviction before a court of law for predial larceny, if committed with aggravating circumstances or in proclaimed districts. The Secretary of State is not aware of any death resulting from flogging in the colony.

      Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state how many of the 600 Chinese coolies who left Durban on 24th May on return to China were repatriated under the terms of the Repatriation Notice; and what was the cost to the Treasury of their repatriation.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that any of these coolies can have been repatriated under the terms of the new Repatriation Notice.

      Australians and Irish Home Rule.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at a meeting of 3,000 citizens of Sydney, held in the Town Hall on 24th May, a resolution, moved by the leader of the Opposition in the Commonwealth Parliament, was carried, giving the support of the meeting to the petition which is being addressed to His Majesty expressing disapproval of the action of the House of Representatives
      64
      in passing a Motion in favour of Home Rule for Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that the Motion of the House of Representatives has been printed as a Parliamentary Paper, he will have this and other resolutions of repudiation issued officially.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: The Secretary of State cannot undertake to present to Parliament resolutions passed at public meetings in Australia, which are not forwarded to him by the Governor-General

      Bombay Garrison Church Parade.
      SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the rank and file of the regiment of Royal Scots, now forming part of the garrison at Colaba, in the city of Bombay, are moved on parade for Sabbath morning services according to the forms of the Church of Scotland into the shade of a barrack-room or the open air instead of the garrison church; whether the Bishop of Bombay or other ecclesiastical authority has refused the use of the garrison church for these religious services, and, if so, on what grounds; whether the circumstances have yet been brought to the knowledge of the Government in India, and with what result; whether the land on which the church is built was given by the Government of India; and whether any funds for building it were supplied out of the revenues of India and are yearly paid for repairs and caretakers.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I understand that the Bishop of Bombay at first refused the use of the consecrated church at Colaba for Presbyterian services on the ground that there is a Presbyterian Church available for troops in the Fort at Bombay; but I learn that an arrangement has now been arrived at by which parade services for Scottish troops are held, between May and October inclusive, in the Colaba Church. The Answers to the last three queries are in the affirmative.

      British Indian Natives' Incomes.
      MR. LUPTON: I beg 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

      65
      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.
      MR. MORLEY: I am afraid that it would be hopeless for me 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 taxation in India and large sums have recently been devoted to measures for agricultural improvement and instruction.
      *MR. LUPTONasked if the late Governor-General of India had not made a statement on this subject.
      MR. MORLEY: I cannot say.

      Chinese Government and the Anhui Mining Contract.
      SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to obtain from the Chinese Government the due fulfilment of the terms of the Anhui Mining Final Contract, signed by the Wai-wa-fu on 5th June, 1904, and thus to obviate the infringement of the provisions of the McKay Treaty of 1902; also is he able to make any communication in regard to the agitation respecting the administration of the Imperial maritime customs that has recently become apparent.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,, for Sir EDWARD GREY): His Majesty's Minister at Peking has made repeated representations to the Chinese Government urging that the concession should be recognised as still valid, and he telegraphed on April 23rd that he was pressing for an official reply in writing. A despatch which is now on the way from Peking is being awaited,
      66
      and may throw futher light on the present situation. As regards the Maritime Customs, I regret that I am unable as yet to add to the information I have already given to the House.

      Newfoundland Fishery Regulations.
      MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say when the regulations with respect to the Newfoundland fisheries, provided for in the Anglo-French Agreement of April 1904, will be drawn up; whether the French Naval Division, which usually leaves for the Newfoundland fisheries about the end of April, was delayed in consequence of such regulations not being drawn up; and will he say who is responsible for the delay, and how the matter now stands.
      MR. RUNCIMAN (For Sir EDWARD GREY): The draft regulations which have been prepared under Article 2 of the Anglo-French Convention are still under discussion with the French Government, and it is not possible to name the date on which the negotiations will be concluded. His Majesty's Government have received no information as to the French men-of-war to be employed in the patrol of the Newfoundland fisheries.

      China and Indian Opium.
      MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, if the Chinese were to give notice of the termination of the Cheefoo Convention in order to get rid of the obligation to admit Indian opium, they would still be prevented from excluding it by the Treaty of Tientsin.
      MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): Section 7 of the additional Article of the Chifu Agreement provides that in the event of the termination of the additional Article the arrangement with regard to opium under the regulations attached to the Treaty of Tien-tsin revives—namely, import duty, thirty taels per picul, with transit dues to be arranged as the Chinese Government shall see fit.

      The Judge Advocate-General.
      MR. PAUL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Judge Advocate-General, if

      67
      removed from his office for reasons of public policy, would be entitled to pecuniary compensation; if so, by what special claim, from what particular source, and to what precise amount.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): This is a question of law on which I am not competent to give an opinion, but I may say he would not, I think, have any legal claim to compensation.

      Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy will be issued; whether his attention has been directed to the fact that an order was made some years ago that, in consequence of the issue of these Reports being delayed until after Parliament had risen, they should in future be laid upon the Table earlier in the year; and whether such order has been disregarded.
      *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am informed that the Report for 1905 will be presented to the Lord Chancellor on or before June 30th, in accordance with the provisions of Section 162 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. There is no record of any order to the Commissioners on this subject. A Question was asked in 1885 and on that occasion the Commissioners said that they would do all in their power to hasten the preparation of the Report.

      Port of London Immigration Board.
      MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any intimation that the Members of the Immigration Board for the Port of London disapprove of the instructions issued by him to immigration boards and immigration officers that an immigrant producing £5 is (in the absence of any reason for supposing that the money is not his own) to be considered to have satisfied the condition of Section 1 (3) (a) of the Aliens Act, 1905, as to having in his possession the means of decently supporting himself;
      68
      and will he say under which section of the Aliens Act, 1905, he issued such an instruction.
      *MR. GLADSTONE: This was not an instruction, but merely an expression of my predecessor's opinion, adopted by myself, that the production by an immigrant of £5 is a convenient way of showing to the immigration officer his possession of means. It has never been suggested that it should be an absolute test. I received two months ago a communication from the London Immigration Board dissenting from the use of the so-called "£5 test," but this was founded, I think, on the erroneous idea that the money was to be accepted as conclusive proof without further consideration.

      The Channel Islands and the Workmen's Compensation Act.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what reply he has received from the Jersey States and the Guernsey Royal Court anent applying the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Channel Islands.
      *MR. GLADSTONE: The Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey informs me that the Royal Court do not consider that the Bill can be made to apply to that island for the want of adequate local machinery to enforce it: but that the members of the Court approve the principle of the Bill and would be prepared to recommend to the States legislation on somewhat similar lines, with machinery adapted to local requirements. As regards Jersey, the matter is still under the consideration of the States, but I understand from the Lieutenant-Governor that the objections which apply in Guernsey to the extension of the Bill apply with even greater force in Jersey.

      Royal Commission on Vivisection.
      MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in appointing the members of the Royal Commission on Vivisection he will make sure that both sides of the question are fairly and, as far as possible, equally represented, and that if any pronounced vivisectionist of the medical profession, who has practiced

      69
      vivisection, is appointed, an equally pronounced anti-vivisectionist member of the profession shall also be appointed, in order that the evidence to be laid before the Commission may be fairly sifted.
      *MR. GLADSTONE: In my recommendation to His Majesty I shall endeavour so to constitute the Royal Commission as to secure the fair and unprejudiced consideration of the whole question.

      The Watt Case.
      MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to inform the House whether the evidence submitted to him warrants a re-opening of the Watt case; if so, will steps be taken to ensure the presence of the two principal witnesses, Lightfoot and Shuttle.
      *MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Member somewhat misunderstands the position of the Home Office in this matter. I have no power to re-open the case in the sense of re-trying it, or ordering the evidence to be re-heard. All I can do is to consider whether any reason exists for advising the exercise of the Crown's Prerogative of Mercy; and I can only say that the representations which have up to now been made to me afford no sufficient ground for the grant of pardon or remission. I may add that it is not accurate to describe Lightfoot and Shuttle as the two principal witnesses.
      MR. O'GRADYasked whether as the confession of Lightfoot and the disappearance of Shuttle, two of the principal witnesses in the case, had created a fear in the public mind that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice, the best step would not be to re-open the case.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had already explained that he was unable to do that. It was not accurate to describe Lightfoot and Shuttle as the two principal witnesses.
      MR. O'GRADY: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any official information showing that James Shuttle, one of
      70
      the witnesses in the Watt case, has fled to Canada, and that he was assisted in leaving the country by an agent of the St. Giles' Christian Mission, who admitted to Mr. Hugh Watt's solicitor, that he had handed to James Shuttle a lump sum of money on his leaving the country; and, if so, whether ho proposes taking any action in the matter?
      *MR. GLADSTONE: I learn on inquiry that after the trial the Director of Public Prosecutions thought it right, as Shuttle was unable in consequence of the evidence he had given to obtain employment in London, and was moreover exposed to molestation, that he should, be given an opportunity of making a fresh start elsewhere. Temporary provision was therefore made for his maintenance, and, after an interval, his immigration was arranged through the St. Giles' Mission, an agency for assisting discharged prisoners, the superintendent of which has great experience in helping men of Shuttle's class. Shuttle did not receive a lump sum on leaving the country, but his passage was paid and, as is usual in such cases, a small sum was given him in two instalments after he reached his destination. Of course no condition as to remaining abroad was imposed upon him.
      MR. O'GRADY: Is the Home Secretary aware Shuttle's passage was booked in the name of Edwards, and that he is supposed to be in communication with a certain individual at Ealing, and was given a sum of money for that purpose?
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid ho knew nothing of what might have passed between Shuttle and anyone in Ealing.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYasked if the Home Secretary's attention had been called to a letter recently received from Shuttle, in which he stated that by the arrangements, under which he went willingly, he was bound to remain away at least two years.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had seen the communication, but there was no foundation for the statement that any such condition was made.
      MR. MACVEAGH: Can the Home Secretary tell us whore this money came from?
      *MR. GLADSTONE: It came from the special service fund.

      District Electric Railway.
      MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the District Electric Railway have shortened their trains running to East Ham by taking one carriage off many of the trains, and about sixty guards have been discharged during the last two months in consequence; and whether in view of the amount of overcrowding on these trains, he proposes to make any representation to the railway company in the matter.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have communicated with the Metropolitan District Railway Company on this subject, and they inform mo that their electric trains were at first formed of seven cars, but that it was found in general working that six cars were better adapted to their station platforms and requirements. The company state further that, in conjunction with the London Tilbury and Southend Railway Company they are carefully watching the traffic to East Ham with a view to putting on more trains where necessary, that additional trains have already been put into running, and that the existing service will be increased by seven more trains from the 1st June next. It is added that, although the reduction from seven cars to six temporarily dispensed with a number of men, any increase in the train service necessarily means the employment of more men, and that while 120 train-men were employed during the time steam traction prevailed, there are at present 440 train-men in the company's service.
      MR. THORNEsaid the shortening of the trains was the cause of overcrowding.

      Funds for the Unemployed
      MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Unemployed Workmen's Act of 1905 has made it necessary for the secretaries of the various distress committees to beg on behalf of the unemployed; and whether, seeing that the money received by this voluntary method is inadequate to meet the demands made upon the various dis-
      72
      tress committees by the thousands of men and women out of employment, the Government intend to bring in a Bill to deal with the unemployed problem, and get it passed before 1907.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): the Act contemplates that part of the expenses under it will be mot by means of money supplied by voluntary contributions, and I am aware that appeals for these contributions have been made the Government have already intimated their intentions with regard to the Bill referred to.

      Cost of Public Vaccination.
      MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the increase which has taken place in the cost of vaccination Since 1898, amounting in some unions to 500 per cent.; and whether he can take any steps to reduce it.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter, and I am giving careful consideration to it with a view to seeing whether a reduction in the cost can be effected.

      Work Regulations for the Unemployed.
      MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the desirability of revising the Regulations (Organisation for Unemployed), 1905, and especially Article V. of the se Regulations, which in terms affects to govern both the so cases in which the central body itself employs and controls the persons working, and also these cases in which it merely finds workpeople for borough councils and other bodies; and whether he will consider the advisability of framing separate regulations for each of the modes in which the unemployed are given work.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: Article V. of the regulations only applies to cases where the central body themselves provide temporary work or contribute towards the provision of such work. I am not at present aware that it would be desirable to frame separate regulations for these two classes of cases. The Article

      73
      would not apply at all where the central body merely find workpeople for other bodies without making any contribution towards the provision of the work.
      In reply to a further question Mr. BURNS said he would be pleased to receive any statement the hon. Member might forward, but he was bound to say he had not received a single complaint on this particular point.

      Troon Dock Post Office.
      MR. BEALE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the intended permanent closing of Troon Dock branch post-office, and to the probable effect of such closing in discouraging traffic to and from the port and harbour of Troon, and to the petition of the railway and other companies interested in such traffic against the withdrawal of these postal facilities; and whether he will direct further inquiry before this branch post office is permanently closed.
      THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): This question has been fully considered and it was found that there was not sufficient business to justify the continuance of a branch office at Troon Dock; but a sub-office will be opened not far off.

      Fees for Mail Bag Collections.
      MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether for the collection of mail bag by private messenger the charge is usually £1 1s. per annum; whether some people got special and better terms; and, if not, will he state what is the fixed practice of the Department in these matters, and amend the Post Office Guide, page 46, accordingly.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The charge for a private bag to be conveyed by a private messenger once a day is £1 1s. a year irrespective of weight. Special terms have been given in a few cases where the Department has received valuable concessions in return but not otherwise.

      Education Code.
      SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the education code for the present year will be presented, and when the same will be printed and circulated.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I hope that it may be available shortly after the Recess.

      School Attendance Officers and the Education Bill.
      MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it is his intention to deal with the position of school attendance officers, particularly the se who were constituted compulsory officers under the Education Act of 1870 and following amending Acts, and who have been subject to the control of different authorities; and can ho say under what authority they are to be placed, and their status as civil servants, when the Education Bill now before the House becomes operative.
      MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware that School Attendance Officers will be affected in any way by the new Bill.

      Evening Recreation Schools.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether Clause 35 (a) of the Education Bill empowers a local education authority to endow evening recreation during term time, or whether the word holidays refers only to the school vacations and does not include other than school hours during term time.
      MR. BIRRELL: The intention of the clause is as set out in the second paragraph of the Question.

      West Riding (Yorkshire) Education Committee.
      MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.E., Barkston Ash): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when he proposes to enforce the decision of the Board that the deductions made by the Education Committee of the West Riding of Yorkshire from teacher's salaries in

      75
      respect of the time devoted to definite religious teaching in the non-provided schools are illegal; and whether he will take steps to secure, under the Defaulting Authorities (Education) Act if necessary, that the sums deducted are refunded to such teachers at an early date.
      MR. BIRRELL: I understand the Attorney-General will move for a rule nisi to-morrow morning.
      MR. CLOUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that no legal decision has yet been given that a local education authority is liable to pay for definite religious teaching in non-provided schools; and is he aware that of all the non-provided school managers in the West Riding who insist upon teachers imparting denominational instruction the only board of managers which pays them for this service is the one of which the Marquess of Ripon is a member?
      MR. BIRRELL: The whole object of the mandamus is to test the legality of the action of the West Riding. The Attorney-General will, I understand, move for a rule nisi tomorrow, Tuesday, morning.
      MR. LANE-FOXinquired whether, in view of what had happened in the West Riding, the right hon. Gentleman could insert in the Education Bill an Amendment giving some appeal from the decision of local bodies, especially in connection with Clause 4.
      MR. BIRRELLsaid he would wait and see what was the result of the application to the Court.

      Education Bill Finance.
      LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education when he will lay upon the Table the statement showing the estimate on which the sum provided in Clause 12 of the Education Bill has been based, together with the contemplated basis of distribution.
      MR. BIRRELL: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

      Poor Belief in Scotland.
      MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland
      76
      what difficulties there are in the way of granting a Return of the number of persons in receipt of poor relief in Scotland, similar to the one made for England and Wales in March, 1904.
      THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I shall be glad to confer further with my hon. friend in regard to the Return which he proposes. The inspectors of poor have already been obliged this year to devote and are devoting much time to the preparation of a census of pauperism, as at March 31st, which has been called for by the Royal Commission on Poor Laws. That Return will contain a good deal of the information now desired. The whole subject will be very fully considered by the Commission, and I suggest that it would be premature and unnecessary to incur the additional trouble involved by the preparation of the Return now proposed by my hon. friend.

      Galway and the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill
      MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government have received copies of Resolutions adopted by local bodies in Galway, inviting attention to the necessity which exists for the passage into Law of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and asking the Government to give every facility for such a purpose; and will he say what action the Government propose taking in the matter.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): Copies of the Resolutions adopted by local bodies referred to in the Question have been received by the Government. As to the intentions of the Government, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to a Question addressed to him by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on Wednesday last.†

      Jury Challenges at Connaught Assizes.
      MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at the last Winter Assizes for Connaught, at Sligo, in the case of James Ward, of Castlebar,
      † See (4) Debates, clvii., 1265.

      77
      who stood charged with seditious libel, Mr. Garvey, Crown Solicitor for Mayo, ordered all Catholic jurors who answered to their names, to the number of sixteen, to stand by, and empannelled an exclusively Protestant jury; whether he has called upon Mr. Garvey to explain the grounds upon which ho excluded all Catholic jurors from the jury box in Ward's trial; and whether he is aware that Ward was convicted and is still in prison.
      MR. CHERRY: I am informed by the Crown Solicitor referred to that he was not aware of the religious convictions of any of the jurors ordered to stand by on the occasion in question, or of these of the jurors who tried the case. I was not Attorney-General at the time of the trial, and I am in no way responsible for what was done, and have made no inquiries except for the purpose of answering this Question. I do not know whether Ward is still in prison or not.

      Jury Challenges—Instructions to Crown Solicitors.
      MR. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of his instructions to Crown Solicitors in Ireland, with regard to the practice of directing jurors to stand by.
      MR. CHERRY: I have issued no now instructions to Crown Solicitors with regard to the practice of directing jurors to stand by, but prior to the last March Assizes I wrote a circular letter to each Crown Solicitor in Ireland calling his attention to the Rule issued on February 12th, 1894, by which Crown Solicitors are directed not to order any jurors to stand by on account of their religious or political opinions, and impressing upon these officials the importance of strict compliance with the Rule. I do not think that it would be in accordance with precedent to lay on the Table of the House copies of correspondence between the Attorney-General and the Crown Solicitors.
      MR. FLAVIN: If the instructions are followed, how is it that an exclusively Protestant jury was empanelled in Mr. Ward's case?
      MR. CHERRY: I have given the best Answer I can.

      Irish Royal Canal
      MR. GINNE.LL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the names of the present members of the Board of Control of the Royal Canal, and the dates of their appointment; do they receive any salary; how do they explain their having allowed the canal to be rendered unnavigable by the Midland Great Western Railway Company; are they or any of them shareholders in that company; under what authority do they allow that company to stop traffic on the canal and endanger the water supply of Mullingar; under what authority do they allow the company to erect gates across the towing path and derive revenue from grass growing on the canal banks; is he aware that Thomas Kelly, boatman, was summoned and fined at Mullingar petty sessions on the 12th instant for having allowed his horse to graze on the canal bank while discharging his boat, one of the magistrates being Captain Gloster, a near relative of Colonel Smythe, Midland Railway director, with whom he resides; and is it proposed to put the control of this canal in the hands of men interested in its restoration and preservation?
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Board of Control of the Royal Canal at present consists of the Commissioners of public works in Ireland, namely, Messrs. Holmes (Chairman), Stevenson, and Hanson, who were appointed in the years 1901, 1902, and 1903, respectively. These gentlemen do not receive salary as members of the Board of Control, and none of them is a shareholder in the railway company. The canal as a whole is not unnavigable, although the depth of water in places is less than it is assumed to have been when the canal was taken over by the railway company. Numerous works of maintenance and improvement have been carried out by the company, at the instance of the Board of Control, during the last ten years. The Board have persistently pressed the company to increase the depths. They have given no authority to the company to stop the traffic or to endanger the water

      79
      supply of Mullingar, and the Company deny that the water supply is, in fact, endangered. The Board were informed by the Company in 1895 that the gates and barriers on the towing paths had been removed. The Board's authority is not required to enable the Company to sell the grass on the canal banks. I am informed that Kelly was recently fined on two occasions for the trespass of his two horses on the canal banks, but the prosecution was not at the suit of the Railway Company but of the lessee of the owner, Lord Greville. I have already informed the hon. Member that the constitution and powers of the Board of Control are under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a further statement on the subject.

      Irish Language in Irish Schools.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now explain his promised scheme for promoting the teaching of Irish in Irish schools.
      MR. BRYCE: The scheme for promoting the teaching of Irish is in outline as follows:—A grant will be made for the teaching of Irish under what is called the "Bilingual Programme for Schools in Irish Speaking Districts," and this grant will be awarded either as a capitation allowance or as a fixed grant to each school taking the bilingual programme, this detail, however, has not yet been absolutely determined. Secondly, for schools not taking up the bilingual programme, whether in bilingual or English speaking districts, a capitation fee of 1s. for scholars in Standards II. and III. and of 2s. 6d. in the higher standards, will be payable for each scholar in average attendance who learns Irish according to the scheme known as the "Programme in Irish as an ordinary school subject." Conditions will be laid down to secure that the teaching is competent and effective, and regulations for the purpose are to be framed by the Commissioners. It is also proposed to make grants towards the maintenance of the summer courses of training in the Gaelic language which have been established at certain centres in Ireland. The grant of £5 is contemplated to be paid in respect of every teacher who has
      80
      completed a course of training at one of these centres, and has thereafter been reported as having taught Gaelic satisfactorily for one year in a recognised public school. These proposals are in addition to the se for which provision is made in this year's Estimates. The proposals which affect the current financial year are briefly as follows:—Prizes of £5 are to be given to a number, not exceeding thirty, of the best King's scholars who obtain certificates in Irish at the final examination for King's scholars. It is also proposed that the sum of £10 may be awarded to every teacher who has obtained such a prize, provided he is reported as showing high merit as a teacher of Irish for two consecutive years in a national school. The first prizes under this scheme will be awarded to contain King's scholars who will be leaving the training college at the end of the session now current. It is also proposed that there shall be a prize scheme for encouraging the study of Irish in the evening schools which shall not place on the Exchequer a greater annual burden than £500. This sum it is contemplated to expend in small book prizes, spread over a large number of evening schools. Both the scheme for the current year and the proposals which are intended to begin to take effect from July 1st next are to hold good for a period of three years, when the scheme for encouraging the study of the Irish language will come up for reconsideration in the light of the experience gained on its working. The sum which had previously been allotted to the Irish language teaching and which ceased July 1st was by a decision of the late Government transferred to the payment of assistant mistresses, so that the sums I have mentioned as now proposed to be spent will be an addition to the sum spent on primary education in Ireland. The Irish Government have given much thought to these proposals, which they believe will have the effect of securing much better results than were yielded by the system which it was decided almost a year ago to discontinue, the amount allotted to which was transferred to assistant mistresses.
      MR. JOHN REDMONDasked what would be the total amount spent annually in this way.
      MR. BRYCEsaid the total amount under the scheme next year might reach £5,700, and the grant for the present year was in addition to that.
      MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether he was to understand that as far as monetary provision was concerned, the new scheme would provide only about half what was provided under the scheme of fees which had been withdrawn by the Treasury.
      MR. BRYCEsaid the amount would be more than half, but he believed the result of the arrangements would be to make the new scheme a great deal more efficient than the former scheme. A great deal of the money spent formerly was spent with no good results.
      MR. LONSDALEasked whether the teaching of the Gaelic language was not intended to promote sedition.
      MR. BRYCEsaid ho was suprised that anybody who knew anything about the matter should put such a question.

      Distribution of Untenanted Lands.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government, having regard to the need for the distribution of untenanted land, and the small progress so far made under the voluntary system, propose to exhaust the possibilities of that system this year by getting the Estates Commissioners to communicate directly a uniform letter to all owners of such land as shown on the forthcoming Return, and subsequently submitting to Parliament a Report showing the number of years purchase of the valuation asked, the refusals to sell, and the refusals to reply, respectively.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that when the Return in question has been prepared they propose to inquire from the owners of untenanted land, which appears suitable for purchase, whether they would be willing to sell such land to the Commissioners. Progress under the present voluntary system is now being accelerated. It would at present be altogether premature to make any statement upon the point raised in the concluding part of the Question.

      Westmeath Evicted Tenants.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many evicted tenants in Westmeath have been reinstated under the Land Act of 1903; how many are still unprovided for; the reason why they have not been provided for in view of the amount of untenanted land in the county; and what steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners have taken to acquire untenanted land for the use of evicted tenants and other persons in need of land.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that six evicted tenants have been reinstated in Westmeath, and that they have received applications for reinstatement from sixty-one evicted tenants in addition. The Commissioners have acquired 229 acres of untenanted land in the county and divided it among small tenants. They were also in negotiation for the purchase of 568 acres in this county, but the owners declined to sell at the estimated price. In the case of another estate the owner has ledged an originating request in respect of the sale to the Commissioners of some 166 acres of untenanted land in this county, and a scheme for the distribution and allotment of this land will be prepared in due course.

      General Featherstone's Westmeath Estates.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the practice of the Estates Commissioners when a landlord of an estate comprising untenanted and non-residential land lodges with them purchase agreements in respect of the tenanted portions, omitting all reference to the untenanted; and, for example, how do they propose to deal with General Featherstone's estates of this kind in Westmeath, in view of the memorials lodged with them for distribution of the untenanted land by the people of Whitehall and by the Delvin District Council.
      MR. BRYCE: Rule 11 of the rules of October 23rd, 1903, prescribes that the map lodged with the originating application or request shall show, in distinctive colours, the boundaries of any other lands

      83
      in the neighbourhood, demesne or otherwise, which the vendor owns, but does not desire to sell. The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings in respect of the sale of the estate referred to in the Question have yet been instituted before them. The representations of the tenants and of the rural district council will be duly considered if the estate should come before the Commissioners to be dealt, with.

      Woodford Dog Licence Prosecution.
      MR. KEDDY: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at Woodford petty sessions on the 14th instant, when a man named James M'Mahon was summoned by the police for having a dog without a licence; whether he is aware that M'Mahon and his son both swore he had not a dog, and that the policeman admitted he did not see a dog but heard one bark, that he had a dog of his own with him which was barking, and that the policeman who gave evidence was accompanied by another policeman who was not examined because he did not see a dog or hear one bark except the dog they had with them; whether, seeing that the magistrates, White, E.M., and Lewis, J.P., fined M'Mahon, will he say whether payment of the fine will be insisted on; and whether, in view of the evidence given by Sergeant Sheridan and other policemen in recent years in Connaught which resulted in innocent men being convicted and sentenced to two years' hard labour, and the disbelief in police testimony in Ireland, a sworn inquiry will be held into the whole circumstances and conduct of the prosecution.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that James M'Mahon was summoned by the police for having had an unlicensed dog in his possession on a specific date, and was fined two shillings, which he has paid. The sufficiency of the evidence was a matter for the magistrates, and I cannot undertake to review their judicial decision by entering into the details of the case. The Inspector-General informs me that he is satisfied that the constable gave his evidence fairly. The case is not one in which a sworn inquiry can be ordered.

      Colonel Smythe's Estate at Collinstown.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what reply the Estates Commissioners received from Colonel Smythe, of Collins-town, or his agent, to their offer to purchase the evicted farms on his estate for their value plus a bonus; the date of that reply; what action, if any, the Commissioners have Since taken to provide for the families evicted from these farms; and how soon do the Commissioners expect to be able to provide for the se families.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estate Commissioners inform me that they communicated with Colonel Smythe with reference to two applicants as evicted tenants, but were informed by him that ho was not prepared to restore these applicants or sell the lands in question to the Commissioners. The Commissioners have not since been able to take further action in the matter.

      Irish Teachers' Salaries.
      MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of teachers whose salaries were withdrawn during the years 1897 to 1905, respectively; whether teachers of thirty years service have, since the change of rules, been declared inefficient and dismissed without compensation or pension; and whether steps will be taken to have the whole scheme of rules and programme and treatment of teachers of the national board the roughly inquired into.
      MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that during the nine years ended December 31st, 1905, salary was withdrawn from 260 teachers, because of long continued inefficiency or neglect of duty. In the case of any such teacher who had thirty years service, consideration was always given to that fact, and wherever it was possible with due regard to the educational interests of the pupils to suspend final action, teachers were permitted to continuo their service until they became eligible for pension under the Teachers' Pension Act. The powers of the Lord-Lieutenant in respect of the Commissioners' rules arise only in cases in which

      85
      the Commissioners seek to change any fundamental rule.

      Fermanagh and the Congested Districts Board.
      MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it would be possible for the Congested Districts Board for Ireland to schedule as congested districts the districts of Drumbad, Rosscar, Garrison, and Belleek, in the county of Fermanagh, as these districts, owing to bad land, small holdings, and defective communication, require the assistance of the Board quite as badly as many districts in the West of Ireland where the Board is spending large sums of money in improving the condition of the people.
      MR. BRYCE: The Congested Districts Board have no power to increase the area of the congested districts, except that when they have purchased lands outside the congested districts for the benefit of any congested districts county they may apply for an Order in Council to have such lands scheduled under the provisions of Section 3 of the Congested Districts Board Act, 1901. At present there are not any congested districts in county Fermanagh, and the Board have not purchased any land in that county.

      Newport (Tipperary) Evicted Tenant.
      MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Thomas Malony to be reinstated in his farm at Castlewaller, Newport, county Tipperary, at present held by a planter named Dwyer, on the eleven months system, from which Thomas Malony was evicted a few years ago; is ho aware that about thirteen other tenants purchased their farms some time previous to the eviction of Thomas Malony; and will he say whether he will recommend the Estates Commissioners to open negotiations with the landlord with a view to the restoration of his farm to Thomas Malony.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received the application referred to on the 10th instant, and will have it inquired into by one of their inspectors in due course.

      Secular Instruction in Irish Schools.
      MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether by the rules of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland the minimum time for secular instruction is four hours; and whether, as a matter of fact in all primary schools at least five hours instruction is given.
      MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that under their rules secular instruction must be given to senior pupils for at least four hours daily. This is inclusive of half an hour for recreation—so that under the rules the actual secular instruction ought to last for three and one half hours. In the case of infant schools am classes, the secular instruction need only be for three hours, including an interval of half an hour for recreation. In a considerable number of national schools the instruction, religious and secular, Lists for five hours, but it is by no means so in all national schools. I am afraid it does not follow that, because the rules provide for a certain minimum of hours of instruction, these hours are always given.

      Rent Arrear Proceedings in Ireland.
      MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a growing practice on the part of landlords in Ireland of threatening tenants with legal proceedings in the shape of issuing writs from the superior Courts for the recovery of all rents due, including the hanging gales (which in most cases accrued many years ago), with the object of putting pressure on tenants to enter into purchase agreements on the basis of exorbitant terms; and whether the Government will introduce legislation with a view to secure that such legal proceedings shall, where necessary, be instituted in the County Courts instead of in the superior Courts.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that, while they believe that such cases as are described have occurred, they have no evidence that the practice is increasing. If the Commissioners should have proof 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. O'Mahony's Cordal Estate.
      MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Mr. O'Mahony, situated at Cordal, near Castle island, county Kerry, has come before the Estates Commissioners in connection with a sale to the tenants; whether he is aware that Mr. Monserrat, the landlord's representative, forced certain tenants to sign agreements at a high price, by telling them that anyone who refused to purchase would be served with a writ for arrears of rent; and what steps the Estates Commissioners propose to take in connection with purchase agreements signed under such conditions.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate referred to has not come before them in any way, and they have no knowledge of the matters of fact alleged in the Question. I have already stated that the Commissioners will consider any evidence which comes before them of duress brought to bear on tenants to compel them to sign purchase agreements, and will take such action as they may consider just and within their legal powers.

      Irish Tenants' Rights.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain and state what is the statutory provision which the Estates Commissioners think limits their discretion in the matter of price to the gross security, and precludes them from taking cognisance of the fact that the tenant-right or occupation interest and unexhausted improvements, forming part of that gross security, are legally and equitably the tenant's property, and should not have to be bought by him with public money.
      MR. BRYCE: The Question raises points of law as to which it would be undesirable for me to state the views held by the Estates Commissioners, seeing that the Questions may at any time be the subject of judicial decisions which would govern their action.

      Collusive Purchase Agreements.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the Estates Commissioners do not exercise
      88
      in all cases for the protection of the tenant's occupation, interest, and improvements, the power which it was held they possessed and had rightly exercised in the Blake-Foster case, to disallow a price as excessive, notwithstanding the collusion of landlord and tenants in support of the agreements.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the decision in the Blake-Foster case did not turn on the question whether the tenant's occupation, interest, and improvements were included in the purchase money of the holdings, but on the question whether the property was fit to be declared an estate for the purposes of the Act, having regard to the character of the holdings and the price at which it was agreed that they were to be sold. The Estates Commissioners intend to exercise the discretion exercised in that case in all further cases of a similar character.

      Irish Land Purchase Procedure.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is it the policy of the present Government to allow the tenant-right or occupation interest, which the Land Act of 1881 secured to tenants and enabled them to sell, together with the tenant's unexhausted improvements, to be confiscated in purchase transactions under the Land Act of 1903, as in the case of King-Harman and Hayes and the numerous cases now ruled without trial by that decision; and how do the Commissioners reconcile their evidence in that case, and the decision to advance public money to a landlord for the whole property of which he owned only a part, with their subsequent assertion that no such thing is occurring.
      MR. BRYCE: It is not the policy of the present Government to allow tenant right or unexhausted improvements to be confiscated. The latter part of the Question raises matters of argument which cannot be dealt with in an Answer.

      Irish Railways.
      MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have in contemplation any scheme for the purchase by the State of the Irish railways.
      MR. BRYCE: The reply is in the negative.

      King-Harman v. Hayes.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the importance of the decision in King-Harman and Hayes, will His Majesty's Government withhold approval of the suggestion to have the same question tried again by the same Judicial Commissioner, and instead of that have it tried at an early date by a full Court of Appeal.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the Question that arose in the case of Hayes and King-Harman must be submitted for decision in the manner provided by the Irish Land Act, 1903, Section 23; that is, by stating a case for the decision of the Judicial Commissioner. Should it be desirable, an appeal can be taken from such decision in the usual way to the Court of Appeal.
      MR. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a proper Court is constituted to try this case, and that the Treasury is adequately represented?
      SIR E. CARSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power over these Commissioners at all?
      MR. BRYCE: I have repeatedly said that I have not.

      Mr. Delmege's Knocklong Estate.
      MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for sale and purchase are proceeding between the landlord, Mr. Delmege, and his tenants on the property of Garryspillan and other townlands around Knocklong, county Limerick; and will he take steps so that the Estates Commissioners shall purchase about 200 acres of untenanted land lying near Garryspillane for division among the poor farmers and labourers of the locality.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have come before them, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations for sale which may be
      90
      proceeding. If the estate should come before them they will consider the question of purchasing untenanted land in the locality.

      Knocklong Evicted Tenants.
      MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that, for several years past, Thomas Barry and John M'Graith, of Boheranore, Knocklong, county Limerick, have been evicted from their farms on the Cooper estate; and will he say if the Estates Commissioners have received any applications for their reinstatement in their holdings; and will he undertake that the Estates Commissioners will send an inspector to treat on the matter with the agents, Messrs. Robert and Charles Sanders, of Charleville, county Cork.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement from the persons named, and will have the cases inquired into by one of their inspectors. In the meantime they are not aware of the facts. The Commissioners have been informed that the owner is not prepared to sell the two holdings in question apart from the rest of the estate, but they will make further inquiries on the point.

      Trinity College, Dublin
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to announce the names of the Commissioners to be appointed to inquire into the affairs of Trinity College, and the terms of reference to the Commission.
      MR. BRYCE: I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject.

      Irish Uneconomic Holdings.
      MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that untenanted lands, which might be used for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings, are being disposed of by the Land Judge in Ireland without regard to the intentions of Parliament in passing the Land Act of 1903; that the orders of the Land Judge, being judicial acts, are beyond the control of the Irish Government; and will he state what

      91
      steps, if any, the Government has taken to give effect to the Resolution unanimously adopted by this House on April 13th, 1904, in reference to the winding up of the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland in the interest of all concerned.
      MR. BRYCE: I have referred this Question to the Land Judge, who informs me that his primary duty is to dispose of all lands for sale in his Court to the best advantage of the parties interested. It is, he states, not the ease that untenanted lands are being disposed of by him without regard to the intentions of Parliament as expressed in the Act of 1903. On the contrary, a considerable quantity of un-tenanted land has already been sold to the Estates Commissioners under Section 7 of that Act, and the Commissioners are considering the question of purchasing other estates comprising untenanted lands which are for sale in the Court. As to the concluding part of the Question, I beg to refer to my replies to similar Questions put by the hon. Member for North Westmeath on March 22nd,† when I made a full statement of the proceedings of the Land Judge in winding up the business of his Court.

      Irish Contempt of Court Prisoners.
      MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three men named Smith, Mulligan, and Fitzpatrick, of Cavan, recently committed to Dundalk Gaol by order of Judge Ross for an unlimited term of imprisonment on a charge of contempt of Court, have been released; and will he inform the House on whose order these men were released, and whether the order was conditional or unconditional.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the three men named were released on April 23rd, on the completion of one month's imprisonment, by an order of the Land Judge's Court. The order of release was unconditional.
      † See (4) Debates, cliv., 583.

      Kilmallock Evicted Tenant.
      MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that Edward Hartigan,
      †(4)debates, cliv.,583.
      92
      of Patrickswell, Holycross, Kilmallock, county Limerick, has applied to the Estates Commissioners for their aid and support in reinstating him in the farm of his father, the late Timothy Hartigan, from which he was evicted some twenty years ago, said farm being part of the lands of Bettyville, Croon, county Limerick, the landlord being Reverend J. N. Lee, Hardwick Rectory, Cambridge; agent, Mr. Browne, Southville, Limerick; and will he see that the Estates Commissioners will send an inspector to negotiate between the landlord and tenant for an arrangement.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received the application referred to, and approached the owner with a view to effecting a settlement, The owner, however, declined to part with the farm, stating that he himself had purchased the interest of Timothy Hartigan as tenant at a cost of over £800, and had expended a very large sum on improvements. The Commissioners have no power to compel the landlord to place Edward Hartigan in possession of the farm.

      Lord Belmores Tyrone Property.
      MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants who signed purchase agreements on Lord Belmore's Tyrone property were served with notices to pay interest on purchase money to the Land Commission ten weeks before the application of the landlord to the Estates Commission; can he state what official is accountable for sending out these notices; is it the practice of the Commissioners to divide, at the landlord's request, an estate for the purpose of sale under the Act of 1903, notwithstanding the protests of the bulk of the tenantry, who feel themselves unable to agree to terms they consider excessive; and will the Commissioners inform the secretary of the tenants' committee of the date on which the applications are to be considered, in order to give them an opportunity of stating their case, and submitting to the consideration of the Commissioners the reasonableness of their offer.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the tenants in Question were, in accordance

      93
      with the Act of 1896, served with notices to pay interest on the purchase money from the date of the purchase agreements. The date of the application to the Estates Commissioners is not the determining factor in the matter the notices were sent out by the Land Commission in the usual way. In cases in which protests are received against the exclusion of part of an estate from the proposed sale, it is the practice of the Commissioners in cases in which they have any doubt, to hold a public sitting, and to hear the parties concerned before coming to a decision. Should necessity arise, the Commissioners are prepared to take such action in the present case.

      Fitzwilliam Estate, Wicklow.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the 1,055 tenants, who have purchased their holdings on the Fitzwilliam estate, county Wicklow, purchased outside the zones; how many years' purchase did they pay on first and second term rents, respectively; and what was the total amount of their purchase money.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase prices were outside the zones in only seven eases out of the 1,055 cases of purchase on the Fitzwilliam estate. In four cases the price was above the zones, namely, one case of a first term rent in which the price was 27·2 years purchase, and three cases of second term rents in which the price was 27·8 years purchase. In the three remaining cases the price was below the zones, namely, one case of a first term rent in which the price was 15·9 years purchase, and two cases of second term rents in which the price was 20·5 years purchase. The total amount of the purchase money in these seven cases was £4,287.

      Fethard (Wicklow) Coastguard Station.
      MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been decided to close the coastguard station at Fethard, county Wexford; if so, whether he is aware that a large and important stretch of coast will be totally unprotected; and whether, if the site of the present station is un-
      94
      satisfactory in any respect, the Admiralty will erect a new station on the site which has been suggested for the purpose.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Fethard station has been closed owing to the houses being old and sanitarily defective. It is not proposed to erect a new station. The duties of watching the coast are performed by neighbouring stations.

      Killarney Telephone Service.
      MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the National Telephone Company were ready two years ago to open a telephone exchange in Killarney, but that, in consequence of the influence of the local postmaster, the urban council and the intending subscribers transferred their support to the Post Office on the understanding that the Post Office would at once provide the necessary accommodation; whether he is aware that the absence of such accommodation is much felt by the thousands of tourists who visit, as well as residents in, Killarney; and whether he can now make any statement on the subject.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The chief difficulty and cost in giving a telephone service to Killarney has been the necessity for the construction of a trunk line of about forty miles in length and not the establishment of a local telephone exchange. The proposals made by the National Telephone Company in 1904 related only to the establishment of a local exchange, and unfortunately their action prevented the acceptance of terms offered by the Post Office for the connection of Killarney with the trunk wire system as well as for a local service. I am glad to be able to say, however, that the construction of a trunk line to serve Killarney is in hand, and as my hon. friend is aware I have given special instructions that the work shall be pressed forward as rapidly as possible. Negotiations with the National Telephone Company are also in progress for the connection of Killarney with their exchange at Tralee, and I hope that a satisfactory arrangement will soon be come to in the matter.

      Ireland and the Canadian Mail Service.
      MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the statement of the chairman of the Allan Line that Moville as a port of despatch and reception of mails had been abandoned because a saving of time would be effected, he will say if he is aware that a greater economy in time and distance could be effected by making Galway instead of Liverpool the port of despatch and reception of Canadian mails; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
      I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the new arrangement that the steamers of the Canadian mail service shall no longer call at an Irish port, it is the intention of the Government to despatch all mail matter posted in Ireland and intended for Canada by way of Queenstown and New York; or whether such mails will be despatched from Liverpool by the Canadian mail steamers; and, if so, will he say when such mails will be made up in Dublin, naming the day of the week and will he say what day of the week they would be made up it the Canadian mail steamers visited as heretofore an Irish port.
      I beg further to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the mail steamers from Great Britain to Canada have always called at an Irish port for the purpose of landing or taking Irish mails, that it is now arranged in connection with this mail service that an Irish port shall no longer be visited, and that inconvenience and delay in the matter of the distribution of mail matter in Ireland will be caused by this arrangement, he will make representations and take such steps as will secure that an Irish port shall be visited as heretofore.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question of the call of the Canadian mail packets at Moville is still I understand under consideration. When the proposed change first came to my knowledge I informed the Canadian Government that I could not regard the abandonment of the call with favour, in view of the serious disadvantages to which it would give rise in this country and especially in Ireland; and I have entered a formal
      96
      protest against the proposed change. The direct Canadian mail service across the Atlantic is, however, performed under contract with the Dominion Government and not with the British Post Office. Until the service is settled I cannot say how mails will be despatched.
      In reply to a further question the right hon. Gentleman said he had no actual control over the matter.

      Irish Post Office Savings Bank Deposits.
      MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, what is the average annual amount for the last five years deposited in Ireland in the Post Office Savings Bank; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of transferring the business of that branch of the department from London to Dublin, having regard to the number of Irish officials employed, the convenience to them of living in Dublin, and the public benefit which would accrue from such transfer.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The average annual amount deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland during the last five years was £2,287,341, the average annual amount withdrawn being £1,994,674. As I informed the hon. Member for South Kerry on the 8th instant,† it is more convenient and economical to keep the Savings Bank accounts at one central institution, and greater facilities are thereby afforded for making or withdrawing deposits at any office in the United Kingdom than would be possible if the Irish accounts were kept in Dublin.

      False Immigration Representations.
      MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to introduce a Bill similar to the Act respecting false representations to induce or deter immigration (4 and 5 Edward VII., c. 16) passed by the Canadian Parliament last year, as recommended by the Deputy Minister of Labour for Canada in his Report in the results of an investigation made into the representations of a party of British printers in a memorial addressed in January last to the British Prime Minister.
      † See (4) Debates, clvi., 1171.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I have nothing to add to the reply given on behalf of my hon. friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies last Wednesday in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny.†

      Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders.
      MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say whether, in view of the fact that at an earlier period of the session the Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders was expected to be issued before Whitsuntide ‡ immediate publication may now be expected.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend does not quote the Answer I gave quite accurately. I informed him on February 22nd ‡ that Lord St. Aldwyn, the chairman of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, hoped that Report would be completed by Whitsuntide. There is a little shade of difference—a substantial shade—between "hope'' and "expect." Lord St. Aldwyn now informs me that since that time the Commissioners have sat regularly two days a week, being very anxious to complete their work as soon as possible. The Report and recommendations are only awaiting final revision, and he anticipates that this will be completed, if not by Whitsuntide, at any rate in the week after Whitsuntide. The Commissioners have felt from an early period of the inquiry that the Report and evidence should be published together; and with this view, while the Report was being considered, the printing of the evidence and appendices, and preparation of the index have been pushed forward so that this work might be finished as nearly as possible simultaneously with the Report.
      MR. SLOAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that will be I in July?
      MR. MACVEAGH: About the 12th?
      † See (4) Debates, clvii., 1250.
      ‡ See (4) Debates, clii., 519.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No. I have given a straightforward account of what the Commissioners have done, and I think from what we know that Lord St. Aldwyn, who is an energetic person, is likely to carry though anything he undertakes.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister what Supply will be taken on the Friday after the House resumes after Whitsuntide, and whether it is still the intention of the Government to put down on the Thursday the Volunteer Vote. I have reason to believe that there is a desire that that Vote should be deferred.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said he had been informed that there was a desire to discuss the Volunteer Vote later, and the Government were quite willing to meet the convenience of the House. He proposed to put down the Vote for his own salary on the first Thursday after Whitsuntide, and another opportunity of discussing the Volunteer Vote would be found later, probably in July.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the Supply on the Thursday would be the Army Estimates—Votes 6 to 12, transport, remounts, ordnance department, armaments, works and buildings; Votes 14, 15, and 16, which were non-effective and Vote 13 (salaries), to be withdrawn after discussion. Then the Home Office Vote would be taken. On the Friday the Civil Service Estimates would be taken, including Class 2, Vote 4, the Colonial Office, Class 2, Vote 2, Colonial Service, and the Vote for the Board of Agriculture.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any idea as to the date on which he proposes to discuss the next instalment of the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was anxious to take the discussion as soon as possible; but the Report had not vet been circulated,

    99
    and, therefore, he thought he had better not say anything on the subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR,referring to the notice of motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for the purposes of the Education Bill, which stood on the Paper in the name of the Prime Minister, next asked to what limit of time the right hon. Gentleman proposed the House should sit. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that, while the re had been a very interesting debate going on for two days with regard to one alternative scheme to the Government's plan which came from below the gangway on the Government side of the House, the alternative scheme of the Opposition had not been discussed. There wore two Amendments on the Paper, one in the name of his right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University and the other in the name of his hon. friend the Member for North Birmingham, which created immense interest outside the House, and he hoped the Government would enable the House to discuss them at a convenient time.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought the right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate when he said the Amendment now before the House came entirely from below the gangway. There was an Amendment to the Amendment which came from very close to the right hon. Gentleman. The proposal before the House did not come from any one part of the House, but had given rise to a general discussion on a matter of infinite importance. He would have thought that matter had been so the roughly discussed that the Committee might come to a decision on the two Amendments before it before what used to be the dinner hour. The Amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman referred could then be discussed afterwards.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was, of course, aware that his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham had moved an Amendment, but he wished respectfully to press especially that the scheme for facilities had not been, and could not have been, discussed on the Amendments before the House. He would have hoped that the Opposition
    100
    were not less worthy of consideration, than Gentlemen below the gangway.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsuggested that the Amendments referred, to were quite as germane, if not more so, to Clause 2 as to Clause 1. They would, he thought, be better discussed on that clause. It was very desirable that they should dispose of Clause 1 that night in order to close that chapter before the recess began. He trusted there would be no difficulty in doing so.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would, of course, be improper for him to debate the point, but the right hon. Gentleman must not assume that ho agreed with him that the Amendment could be as well discussed on subsequent clauses. If they were to discuss general principles the sooner they get at them the better. There could, however, be no question as to the importance of the debate which must take place on the clause as a whole, and he hoped that that would not be taken at an unreasonable hour.
    Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Cannot some arrangement be made by which Questions to the Secretary for War can be reached before the expiration of the time allotted to Questions?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on; Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Sir George Fardell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Fletcher.
    SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing) Shipping and Manufactures: Mr. Lane Fox; and has appointed in substitution: Mr. Haddock.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to regulate the sale of certain.

    101
    poisonous substances, and to amend the Pharmacy Acts. [Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [Lords.]

    NEW BILLS.
      PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS BILL.
      "To amend the law relating to the qualification and Tenure of Office of Medical Officers of Health and Inspectors; and for other purposes," presented by Sir Francis Powell; supported by Sir Walter Foster and Sir John Tuke; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th June, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]
    SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
    "To enable Provisional Orders to be made for regulating Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries," presented by Sir Edward Strachey; supported by Sir Edward Grey; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 7th June, and to be printed. [Bill 235.]
    MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
    "To amend the law relating to Musical Copyright," presented by Air. T. P. O'Connor; supported by Mr. Balfour, Mr. John Redmond, Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Crombie, and Mr. Sloan; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 7th June, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]
    TIED HOUSES (ABOLITION) BILL.
    "To provide for the abolition of Tied Houses, and to secure freedom for holders of licences for the sale of beer, ale, or spirituous liquors," presented by Mr. Ernest Lamb; supported by SIR George Kekewich, Mr. Alden, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Arthur' Henderson, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Jenkins, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Morton and Dr. Rutherford; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 7th June, and to be printed. [Bill 237.]
    JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To provide for the abolition of two Judgeships of the High Court in Ireland, and to reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland," presented by Mr. Bryce; supported by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th June, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on Clause 1 (England and Wales) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman.)
    The House divided: — Ayes, 330; Noes, 148. (Division List No. 97.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Buxton,Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Agnew, George William

    Bell, Richard

    Byles, William Pollard

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Cairns, Thomas

    Alden, Percy

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch

    Benn, John Williams(Devnp'rt

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

    Bennet, E. N.

    Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bertram, Julius

    Cawley, Frederick

    Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

    Bethell, J. H.(Essex,Romford

    Chance, Frederick William

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Billson, Alfred

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

    Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Brace, William

    Clough, W.

    Barker, John

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

    Branch, James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Brigg, John

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Cooper, G. J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Bryce,Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen

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

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Beale, W. P.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Cory, Clifford John

    Beauchamp, E.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Pearce, Robert. (Staffs. Leek)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Jackson, R. S.

    Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembr'ke

    Crombie, John William

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Crooks, William

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Dalmeny, Lord

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

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

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Price,RobertJohn (Norfolk.E.)

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

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

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jowett, F. W

    Radford, G. H.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rainy, A, Rolland

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

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Kelley, George D.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rees, J. D.

    Dodd, W. H.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

    Dunne, Major E. W. (Walsall)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester

    Richardson, A.

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Lambert, George

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lamont, Norman

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Elibank, Master of

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Erskine, David C.

    Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

    Robertson, Rt, Hn. E.(Dundee)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd

    Evans, Samnel, T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Everett, R. Lacey.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Robinson, S.

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Levy, Maurice

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lough, Thomas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lupton, Arnold

    Rogers, F. E. Newman W

    Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rose Charles Day

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rowlands, J.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

    Runciman, Walter

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Russell, T. W.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford,S.

    M'Arthur, William

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Crae, George

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

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

    Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

    Gooch, George Peabody.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Sears, J. E.

    Grant, Corrie

    Maddison, Frederick

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Seddon, J.

    Grove, Archibald

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Seely, Major, J. B.

    Gulland, John W.

    Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Marnham, F. J.

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

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Massie, J.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Hall, Frederick

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Menzies, Walter

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Snowden, P.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Montgomery, H. H.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Spicer, Albert

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Stanger. H. Y.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morrell, Philip.

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morse, L. L.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Hedges, A. Paget.

    Murray, James

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Myer, Horatio

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen,W.

    Napier, T. B.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Nicholls, George

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Grady, J.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

    Thompson, J.W.H.(Somers't E.

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, William

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Paul, Herbert

    Torrance, A. M.

    104

    105

    Toulmin, George

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Ure, Alexander

    Whitbread, Howard

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

    Verney, F. W.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Vivian, Henry

    White, Luke (York, E.R.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Winfrey, R.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

    Wilkie, Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

    Wardle, Georg e J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmanan)

    Williams, Osmond (Merionethf

    Wason.John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Williamson,A.(Elgin andNairn

    NOES.

    Abraham William (Cork N.E.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

    Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

    Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hn.Sir H.

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Balfour,Rt.H'n.A.J.(CityLond.)

    Ginnell, L.

    O'Dowd, John

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Banner, John S. Harmood.

    Halpin, J.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon.N

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry.N.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    O'Malley, William

    Beach, Hn.MichaelHughHicks

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    O'Mara, James

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Parker, Sir Glbert (Gravesend)

    Blake, Edward

    Hazleton, Richard

    Paulton, James Meller

    Boland, John

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Percy, Earl

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff sh.

    Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hills, J. W.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hogan, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hunt, Rowland,

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Cave, George

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cavendish,Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverhool)

    Chamberlain.Rt.Hn.J.A. (Wor.

    Lee,Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E

    Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Starkey, John R.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lundon, W.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

    Craig.Captain James(Down,E.)

    MacVeagh,Charles(Donegal, E.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.Howard

    Delany, William

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

    M'Killop, W.

    White, Patrick (Meath,North

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

    Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Young, Samuel

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Middlemore,John Throgmort'n

    Younger, George

    Du Cros, Harvey

    Mooney, J. J.

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Muntz, Sir Philip A

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Fell, Arthur

    Murnaghan, George

    Viscount Valentia.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Murphy, John

    Question put, and agreed to.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,said the Bill which, he asked leave to introduce endeavoured to deal in a final and complete manner with a question which had long been agitated in Ireland, and which had given rise to discontent there. As far back as 1883 Parliament endeavoured to provide better houses for the labouring class in Ireland, but neither that Act nor several Acts which followed, attained more than a very imperfect success. Since 1883, a period of twenty-three years, less than one-half of the number of cottages which were estimated to be necessary had in fact been built, and the building had been very unequal in different parts of the country; particularly in some northern counties very few had been erected. The causes of this want of success had been three. First, the costly and tardy procedure which had hitherto been taken under the Acts; secondly, the failure of a certain number of rural district councils to build the cottages; and, thirdly, the want of funds, the heavy charge which the building of cottages had imposed upon the rates, and the consequent disinclination of some rural district councils to incur the necessary expenditure. The present Bill proposed to remedy the defects and to provide a better method by three principal changes. In the first place the Bill made a number of provisions for reducing the cost of procedure under the Acts. There had hitherto been an appeal to the Privy Council which had given rise to great delay and had been a very costly procedure. It was proposed to put an end to the appeal to the Privy Council and instead to enable the Inspector of the Local Government Board to make an order and to give an appeal to the Local Government Board, if necessary, in cases where land was compulsorily taken. Precedents might be found for this proposal in the Alkali Acts, and also in the way the Local Government Board dealt with the question of surcharges made by their auditors. By this means and other improvements in the procedure it was expected that a very great reduction of cost in the process by which cottages and land were obtained would be secured.
    108
    It was also intended to reduce the periods during which notices had to be given where land was not taken compulsorily, and it was proposed to cheapen and to simplify the transference of land and the proceedings for obtaining title. He might add that the Local Government Board proposed to make matters still simpler by issuing uniform forms which the county and district councils could use, and also to issue model plans of cottages, under which architects' charges might be greatly reduced. The second way in which it was proposed to remedy the existing defects was to provide against the omission of district councils in many cases to prepare schemes for the creation of cottages, and it was proposed, where the rural district council was admittedly in default, that the Local Government Board should itself have the power of appointing an officer to perform the office which otherwise would devolve upon the district council, and in that way to improve the methods of procedure prescribed by the Act of 1891. Some changes were also to be made in the provisions of the Land Purchase Act so far as they contemplated labourers. It was proposed to strengthen the hands of the Estates Commissioners where the estate was sold, and they proposed to make provision for labourers' cottages by amending Section 96 of the Land Purchase Act. They also proposed to amend Section 4 of the Act by enabling the Land Commissioners to make advances under the Labourers Acts in a more workable and practicable form than at present existed under that section. He might note in this connection that he had introduced a clause containing a provision for enabling the labourers to pay punctually the rents they owed to the district councils, and to acquire holdings under the Land Act, and in that way to become themselves the owners of land. The most important part, however, of the remedial measures were those which had a financial character. He proposed to explain shortly the system by which they proposed to find the money to enable the Acts to work efficiently. There would be a very great cheapening in the initial cost of providing cottages by the economies he had described, but beyond that better terms for obtaining money would be needed, and

    109
    they proposed three principal changes. In the first place it was proposed to allow loans up to the amount of £4,250,000 to be made to the district councils, for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages and providing them with plots of land. The land charges terms meant the repayment in sixty-eight and a half years by an annuity of 3¼ per cent., covering interest and sinking fund.
    SIR E. CARSONwas understood to ask where the money would come from.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that it would be assimilated out of the Land Purchase Fund. In the second place it was proposed to reduce the cost of the loans and to bear a part of the cost of the annuities of which interest and sinking fund would be secured by two sources of income—first, those sources called certain Irish Funds, and savings, viz., to take out of the Petty Sessions' Clerks Fund, which now stood at a sum of about £180,000, a capital sum of £150,000 and to invest it, and to apply the annual interest thereof to reducing the cost of the annuities. Secondly, it was proposed to take out of the Irish Development Grant a capital sum, after January 1st next, of £70,000. Under existing arrangements the sum of £50,000 would be paid up to March 31st next to form a fund for the flotation working balance of the land purchase system. It was proposed after that to draw upon the Irish Development Fund until a sum of £70,000 had been raised, which would be in the course of a little more than a year, and constitute this also a capital sum to be applied to the reduction of the annuities. In the third place, it was proposed to effect certain savings on the judicial establishment in Ireland and to apply the sum of £3,500 which belonged to a judgeship now suspended to suspend or extinguish another judgeship, which would also give £3,500, and to reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland from £8,000 to £6,000. These three savings would give him a further sum of £9,000 a year. And lastly, it was proposed to take out of the Exchequer contribution which was paid to the county councils in Ireland for the purpose of labourers' cottages a sum
    110
    of £6,000 a year, leaving a sum of £31,000 to help relieve the rural district councils of the charge which they were now under. In that way they arrived at a sum from these Irish sources of £22,300 a year, and that completed his second head of resources. That money would not be enough to enable what was necessary to be done, and he had had to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable the machine to work. He had come forward in what he might venture to say was a very liberal and large minded spirit, and had undertaken to provide a grant for the purpose, a spirit which he appreciated, and which he trusted would be appreciated by hon. Members from Ireland. The grant was to be taken in this form. There was to be an Exchequer grant not to exceed £28,000 a year, which was to be paid into the Ireland Development Grant as necessity arose, and sums were to be taken out of the Ireland Development Grant to that amount, so that that which came out of the Development Grant would be replenished from these Exchequer grants. In that way these Exchequer grants would pay one-fifth of the total amount of the annuity, and these funds would amount altogether to £50,000. They had calculated the sum required under the improved provisions of the Bill at £130 for each cottage, and in addition a sum of £40 for the plot up to an acre of land which it was intended to give. He calculated, therefore, the land and cottage together at an average sum of £170. The loan of £4,250,000 would provide, upon the terms he had mentioned, 25,000 cottages. He believed that with reasonable economy on the part of councils and careful supervision of finance by the Local Government Board, it would be possible to provide many more than 25,000, and he hoped it would be possible to provide 30,000 cottages if necessary, and the annuities upon these terms on £4,250,000 would amount to the sum of £138,000 a year. Taking the rent at an average of 1s. a week—in many places they would no doubt be much higher, especially considering the increase to an acre of land—the rents were computed to amount to about £65,000 per year. Therefore when they added those two sums together it would

    111
    give them a sum of £115,000 per year to reduce the annuities, leaving only £23,000 a year besides the cost of repairs and administration to be borne by the rates. Under the old plan much less than 20,000 cottages had been built. The total up to the end of 1904 was 17,400, the annuities upon which amounted to £131,000, and the rents to £37,000. The Exchequer contribution was £34,000 a year at that time, and the balance which fell upon the rates under the old system was no less than £60,000 a year. Yet under that system only 17,400 cottages had been built. They now proposed to provide 25,000 cottages at a charge to the rates, not of £60,000, but of only £23,000 a year. To put the matter in a somewhat different way, the charge under the old system on each loan of £200 for a cottage had been £5 12s. 6d., but under the plan proposed in the Bill it would be only £1 6s. 8d. Such were, put in the briefest way, the outlines of the scheme of the Bill. It had, no doubt, certain exceptional features, but he would venture to remind the House that there were circumstances in this case which justified very exceptional measures. In the first place, successive Governments had made promises to the labourers that their needs would be met, and it was undeniable that up to now those needs had not been met. In the second place, after so much had been done for the Irish tenants, and the enormous liability which had been incurred in order to enable them to become owners of their tenancies, it was very natural there should be discontent among the labourers. He thought it might reasonably be said, that when so much had been done for the tenants, they would be greatly failing in their duty to the people of Ireland if they did not give treatment in the same liberal spirit to the labourers. In the third place the condition of the dwellings of those poor labourers was deplorably bad. He did not think if would be possible to overstate the wretchedness and misery in which the labouring population of Ireland lived, and the necessity for removing the evil they suffered from. He would add that what had roused him most to the gravity of the case, and the need for strong and immediate measures, was the sanitary
    112
    condition of the labourers' dwellings, the spread of disease, especially of tubercular disease, and the alarming increase of lunacy. He thought these facts, which he might have enlarged upon had time permitted, must be viewed by Parliament with sincere sympathy and deep concern. It was in the belief that the House would deem the exceptional provisions of the Bill justified by the urgency of the case, and in the earnest hope that those provisions would arrest the physical decline of the population, and give the labourers, rescued from their present despair, a new hope, and a better capacity for bettering their condition, and of bringing back prosperity to their country, he asked leave to bring in this Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Labourers in Ireland, and to make provision with respect to the application of portion of the Ireland Development Grant."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    MR. JOHN REDMONDthought everyone concerned in this matter had reason to congratulate himself upon the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover abandoned his Labourers' Bill in 1904. If that Bill had been pressed forward and passed, as it would have been with the majority the right hon. Gentleman had behind him, they would not have seen this Bill, which was, at all events, a remarkable contrast to the Bill of 1904; in fact, a greater contrast between two measures he had never known in all his experience. When the Chief Secretary came into office, and proceeded to consider this question, the Irish Party pressed upon him three main points, and he had dealt in his speech with each of them. The first that they pressed as essential was that money for the purpose would be given at land purchase terms. Secondly, that there should be something, at any rate, in the nature of a bonus, or free grant; and thirdly, that there should be a cheapening, or shortening of the procedure, and simplification of the title which would render the work of the Act more expeditious. At present it was sixty-eight and a half years at an annuity

    113
    of £3 5s. per cent., covering interest and sinking fund. The present rate for building cottages was £4 17s. 6d. per cent. Now this threw an enormous and unjust burden upon the rates, and stopped the working of the Act all over Ireland. It left a charge so great that it caused the work of cottage building in many districts to be practically suspended. It was not an exaggeration to say that in many districts it caused an annual charge on the rates of at least £6 a year. That was a very prohibitive charge, and when they asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover to cheapen the terms, at least, he not only refused to do so, but in a speech declared that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever dream of giving them land purchase terms. They urged on the Chief Secretary and the Treasury that there was no reason to refuse land purchase terms to labourers for building when those terms were given to landlord and tenant, and he was happy to think that as the result of their action the Chief Secretary had been able to do this, and to provide the money for building houses, and for the purchase of the land necessary for this Act at 3¼ per cent. interest and sinking fund. That in itself, if there was nothing else, was an enormous gain. The Chief Secretary had explained that in addition to this cheap money, Parliament proposed that a free grant of £50,000 a year was to be given in relief of rates. It came from two sources, £22,000 from the interest on certain Irish funds, and £28,000 in the shape of a free grant from the Treasury. So far as these Irish funds were concerned, he thought they had some reason to complain that they were touched at all; he thought it would have been more equitable if the whole £50,000 a year were provided as a free grant from the Treasury. They had certainly reason to complain of this constant draining of the funds of the Development Grant, which was intended for education, and so far as the sum from the Petty Sessions Clerk Fund Was concerned, he must reserve his judgment. If his information was correct, this arrangement covered at least £4,000 or £5,000 a year which the local bodies at present got from that fund, and to that extent the allocation of this money would go in diminution of the £28,000 a year
    114
    granted from the Treasury. Although he felt bound to say this, he had not the heart to make any very vigorous protest against this allocation if it was the only way of providing funds. If these Irish funds should ever have to be used for purely Irish purposes, then there could be no more deserving Irish purpose than that for which they were now being allocated. As far as the £28,000 free grant was concerned, he did not understand, and he did not like, the arrangement by which it was to be paid in and out of the Development fund. He thought unless they were very careful in the agreement with the Treasury, and with regard to the drafting of the clause, that the Development Grant might suffer, and find itself suddenly £28,000 less than it ought to be unless grants from the Treasury were given to it simultaneously with the other grants. The main point of the Bill which he desired to emphasise was the financial proposal of the Chief Secretary to provide £4,250,000 at land purchase terms and to make a free grant of £50,000. That was calculated on the basis of 25,000 cottages at £170. But he spoke of it to-day as a final and complete settlement of the question, and he must take exception, to that. He thought the 25,000 cottages ought to be built in the course of five or six years.
    MR. BRYCE: It is an approximate estimate, but I think it would be possible to provide a good deal more than 25,000 cottages.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDagreed that the estimate of cost was too high, but he did not think the whole of this question could be settled with £4,500,000. He presumed that was only a calculation, and that in the Bill itself there would be no limit, and that when that was exhausted it would be still possible to go on drawing money on land purchase terms. The Chief Secretary had given some figures which he did not take down, but, as he understood the finance of this measure, it was as follows:—The present annual charge on the rates for one cottage built at a cost of £170, including the price of land at £4 17s. 6d., amounted to £8 5s. 9d. The future charge was to be at the rate of 3¼ per cent. for money; that was to say, the charge would be

    115
    £5 10s. 6d. In addition, there was to be a free grant of £50,000 in respect of 25,000 cottages. That would reduce the charge on each cottage to £3 10s. 6d., as against £8 5s. 9d., or a saving of £4 15s. 3d. He had left out the rent altogether; if the rent was brought in, then the £3 10s. 6d. would be reduced by 1s. per week which would make the annual charge on the rates something under £1. If that was so, no one could deny that it was a substantial and honest effort of the Government to grapple with the question. On the procedure clauses he could not speak, because he had not time under the ten minutes rule, but he was quite sure, from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and from what he knew his intentions were, that the cost in respect to procedure and simplification of title would be reduced in the Bill by half or more, so that the reduction in respect to the cottage would go on in that part of the Bill also. He was glad to hear him say also that the provision in the Land Act which provided for certain classes of people, evicted tenants, and the sons of evicted tenants, who were endeavouring to obtain untenanted land and rise to the position of farmers, was to be amended so as to include labourers in future, and he was glad also that the clause which enabled trustees to be appointed to take up land for the purposes of the labourers and had been in operation under the Act of 1903 was to apply. He understood also that the limited rate was in certain cases, where it was found necessary, to be raised beyond a shilling in the £1. There were some other provisions with which he should have liked to deal, but manifestly he could not at present. He, of course, knew that it was not through any fault of the Chief Secretary that the Bill had not been introduced earlier in the session. He knew the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman had to face, and the long and tedious negotiations which had resulted in his being able to do as much as he had done. But as the Bill was introduced late in the session he would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the earliest possible date for the Second Reading. He trusted that after that stage the Bill would be examined by a, Committee at the earliest possible
    116
    moment so that there would be no excuse for hanging over the consideration of its clauses in Committee. He would therefore conclude by saying that he believed this was a comprehensive and honest measure of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not believe, however, that it was sufficient to settle this question completely, but nobody could have any doubt whatever that it would enormously mitigate the evils of the present system and facilitate the rapid building of houses all over Ireland in the next few years.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bryce and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to Labourers in Ireland, and to make provision with respect to the application of portion of the Ireland Development Grant," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, June 13th, and to be printed. [Bill 239.]

    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
    Clause 1:—
    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. SAMUEL EVANSsaid they had been told

    117
    again and again that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not in this matter represent the views of what was called the regular Opposition, and that the Committee had to deal with yet another Amendment before they came to the end of the various proposals from different parts of the Committee dealing with the thorny subject involved in Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had tried to get support for his Amendment from all quarters of the Committee. He tried first of all to get the support of the hon. Member for Burnley; he afterwards tried, and to some extent succeeded, in getting the support of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway represented by the hon. Member for Leicester; he also made a strong appeal to the Roman Catholics represented chiefly by hon. Members from Ireland who were, it was said, going to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Evans) would endeavour to navigate his way between these rocks and state what in his judgment was proper and fitting in regard to this thorny question. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham incorporated a view which was strongly held on the Ministerial side of the House—the principle that the State ought not to interfere at all as such in any matters pertaining to religion. Obviously that was not a principle which would appeal strongly to those with whom the right hon. Gentleman was now associated, because it was the very root principle of the disestablishment of the State Church. The essence of the Amendment was that facilities were to be given all round, or, putting it in other words, that there ought to be complete right of entry for all denominations in school hours to teach whatever denominational views they had upon subjects relating to religion. What was claimed as common ground by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not exist in fact. The hon. Member for Leicester desired that the elementary education of the country should be built as a superstructure upon a completely secular basis. That was not the case with regard to the Amend-
    118
    ment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The State would interfere according to that Amendment. What did the State do? The State compelled the attendance of children at school, and bore the expense of making attendance compulsory. The children would have to be arranged in classes according to the various denominations for religious instruction. As this teaching was to take place in school hours, the carrying on of the school, the maintenance of the school, and the payment of teachers, whether they taught religious subjects or not, would all have to be done at the expense of the State. So what was claimed to be common ground between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the hon. Member for Leicester did not in reality exist. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to do away entirely with Cowper-Temple teaching. At one blow the arrangements under which religious teaching of a denominational or sectarian character was at present given, would be at once swept away. That was a proposal which did not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. They had had from the right hon. Gentleman rather late in the day what they were entitled to have long ago, an acknowledgment of the valuable and admirable teaching which had been given under Section 14 of the Act of 1870. It must be so, or else the right hon. Gentleman stood condemned. What did he do in 1902? The result of the legislation of that year was that half of the children of the country were taught what religion the teachers gave to them under the Cowper-Temple clause. Would the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham deal with the difficulties of the situation? Who was to arrange the time when instruction was to be given, the number of denominations to come in, the order in which they were to come in, what the ordinary teachers were to do in the meantime, and on what scale, if these teachers did undertake to instruct in religious subjects, they were to be paid? Suppose there was candidature for teaching religion by

    119
    two members of the same denomination, as, for instance, between a high churchman and a low churchman, it would have to be decided which should prevail. The right hon. Gentleman's plan would not work. He imagined that his Amendment was proposed rather in a hurry and without due consideration of the difficulties of the case. Would Roman Catholics like Protestants of all denominations to go into their schools and teach children belonging to other denominations? That was the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. If that were done, what would become of what was called the atmosphere of the school? These difficulties might be pointed out ad nauseam. He was very much surprised at a statement made by the hon. Member for Leicester in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member said that—
    "Although he might have serious objections to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, nevertheless if it came before the Committee with the weight and authority behind it, a good many of them might be very willing seriously to consider whether they ought not to waive those objections, in order to give an earnest to the opposition to the religious organisations who were opposing the Bill that they were anxious to meet them on common ground."
    He did not understand what the common ground was. The very essence of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was that in school hours there should be denominational teaching at the expense of the various denominations, and that, he thought, was a matter which was not agreed to by the hon. Member for Leicester and the Labour Party. [Cheers from LABOUR Members.] He was glad he was interpreting the views of the Labour Party aright. With regard to the Irish Party this Amendment not only swept away religious teaching under the Cowper-Temple clause but it did away entirely with Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member was entirely mistaken. He had taken pains to explain that his Amendment had nothing to do with the 3rd and 4th Clauses.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he failed to understand how the right hon.
    120
    Gentleman's plan could work if they retained Clauses 3 and 4. The proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley was one for secular education. He desired to point out to him that this Bill was one which provided secular education in the schools all over the country. Nothing was possible under this Bill but secular education except under Clauses 3 and 4 unless by the consent of the local authorities. But if it was right to provide secular education at all as the basis of the Bill, it was proper to give the local authority the right to say whether simple Bible teaching was to be given to the children in their schools. That was a principle in favour of which he went most strongly. He did not know whether the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education bound the Government. At any rate it did not represent his views. The proposed system was one which had been tried and not found wanting. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite had examined the various syllabuses which had been prepared by the different County Council Education Committees in the country. Attacks had been made upon the action taken by some school authorities in the Principality. He did not think that any one would say that they desired that the children should not be brought up in some principles of religion which were held in common by the people of this country. He entirely dissented from the hon. Member for Leicester when he said that many Members of this House took no interest in the elementary education of the country. He always understood that this House represented all classes of the community; and it was entirely erroneous to suggest that those in any class who did; not usually send their children to the; elementary schools were, therefore not to interfere in this matter. He wanted to read the syllabus of the Glamorgan County Council. In every one of the standards some portion of scriptures was to be read and committed to memory. Would anyone say that he had any objection to a child being taught to read a psalm in a common-sense way but not in a sectarian way, which would be the badge of the teaching if the Amendment of the right hon.

    121
    Gentleman were carried? He wished to call attention to what was done in the way of moral teaching, based upon Bible reading, by a reference to the following subjects:—Forgiveness, forbearance, the Ten Commandments, fidelity to duty, Sabbath observance, truthfulness, patience, humility,obedience to parents, early piety, benevolence, gratitude, honesty, and love. But if any part of the country could safely be left to purely secular instruction, he thought that Wales could. For, whereas the number of children in the day schools there was 420,000 the number of scholars in the Sunday Schools was no less than 673,720. The more he studied the Bill of the Government the better he found it. And even the various Amendments they had been discussing only tended further to persuade him of the excellence of the Government plan. He would like to lead a passage from a book, "Grammar of Assent," by a man whose voice would be listened to by every Member of the Committee, and especially by the Irish Members. The late Cardinal Newman, after he became a convert to the Roman Catholic Church speaking of Sects said—
    "There are only denominations, parties, schools, compared with the national religion of England in its length and breadth. 'Bible religion' is both the recognised title and the best description of English religion. It consists not in rites, or creeds, but mainly in having the Bible read in the Church, in the family and in private. Now, I am far indeed from undervaluing that mere knowledge of scripture, which is imparted to the population thus promiscuously. At least in England it has to a certain point made up for great and grievous losses in its Christianity. The reiseration again and again in fixed courses, in the public service, of the words of inspired teachers under both covenants, and that in grave, majestic English, has, in matter of fact, been to our people a vast benefit. It has attuned their minds to religious thoughts; it has given them a high moral standard; it has served them in associating religion with compositions, which, even humanly considered, are among the most sublime and beautiful ever written. Especially it has impressed upon them the series of Divine providences in behalf of man from his creation to his end; and above all, the words, deeds, and sacred sufferings of Him in whom all the providences of God centre. It has been comparatively careless of creed and catechism, and has, in consequence, shown little sense of the need of consistency. What Scripture especially illustrates, from its first page to its last, is God's providence, and that is nearly the only doctrine held with a real assent by the mass of religious Englishmen. Hence the Bible is so great a
    122
    solace and refuge to them in trouble. I repeat' I am not speaking of particular schools and parties in England, whether of the High Church or the Low, but of the mass of piously minded people living in all ranks of the community."
    He thought it right to call the attention particularly of his hon. friends from Ireland to the value which Cardinal Newman attached to Bible teaching.
    MR. MADDISONwished to know whether the words the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted applied to Bible teaching in schdools.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid they applied to Bible teaching generally. He had read the words in which Cardinal Newman dealt with the subject of Bible reading in the Church, in the family and in private life—he himself added that he desired to see it in schools—as showing the value of Bible teaching. In regard to the person who was.to give the teaching, he could not see why there was any serious objection to the ordinary school teacher imparting this class of instruction under Clause 14 of the Act of 1870. He would rather trust to the common sense of the mass of the teachers than to any other source of instruction. The instruction would be better done in that way than if they trusted to ministers. It was a dreadful thing to think that these little children should be treated as the corpus vile upon which to experiment or the casus belli over which a religious battle should be fought. Rather than that they should be squabbled over in this way he would trust to the common sense of the ordinary teacher throughout the land. He felt convinced that they would deal more fairly with the children than those who endeavoured to impart any particular creed. He preferred to leave this education to the teachers rather than to the clerics, and in saying this he was not referring to any particular class of clerics. When the phrase, "the great enemy is clericalism "was made use of it did not refer to the Church of England at all but to all clerics. For instance, take the bishops. Dr. Gore, the Bishop of Birmingham, had said that no one could make a child realise the meaning of the clause in the Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil"

    123
    without reference to the evil one. He said—
    "No one can make a child realise the meaning of the clause 'Deliver us from the evil one' (granted the right translation as given in the revised version) without teaching that there was an evil spirit, called the Devil, who tempts children and all men (including politicians)."
    Could anyone believe that that was the pronouncement of a leading ecclesiastic, and was it not apparent that it ought to be preceded by a preamble to the effect that the politicians referred to belonged to a different party from that to which the Bishop belonged? He contended that the Amendment ought not to have the support of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, and ought not to have the support of hon. Members from Ireland. He believed that the Bill of the Government was the best solution of the question and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the hon. Member for Leicester expressed some curiosity as to the mode in which he should vote upon this Amendment. He would therefore explain that he proposed to vote in the first instance for the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. If that proposal was adopted, he proposed to vote for the Amendment as amended. If it was not adopted, he should vote against the Amendment. It might be suggested that in voting for the Amendment, even if it were amended by the Amendment of his right hon, friend, he was taking a step in the direction of secularism, but that was not his view, nor was it his desire to see the State withdrawn from all responsibility for religious teaching in our public elementary schools. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that this Bill was one for the promotion of secular education, but although he did not think very well of that Bill, he did not think so badly of it as all that, neither did he fear that this would be the result of removing all State or rate aid from any form of religious education in our schools. But what he asked was, why should one special form of religious teaching be made the subject of a demand upon the ratepayers or the
    124
    State, while others were excluded? If they were laying a foundation of religious teaching on which all could agree as the basis of a system of national education, there might be some reason for calling upon all to contribute to religious teaching, which was common to all, but was that the case in regard to Cowper-Temple teaching? They had heard members of the Roman Catholic religion say that they regarded Cowper-Temple teaching as not only not desirable, but as hostile to the religious teaching of their Church, and he understood the hon. Member for Leicester to say that, as religious teaching, it was nearly, if not altogether, useless, because it did not afford that moral and religious discipline which was desired. Then they had a very large section of the Anglican Church who regarded this teaching not so much as being bad in itself, but as being insufficient, inasmuch as it did not teach the child that it was a member of a society which had a particular belief, and did not form the foundation for the religious teaching which was to be given by the special teachers of particular denominations. What was described as Cowper-Temple teaching or as fundamental Christianity was not satisfactory to many branches of the Christian Church, and did not embody any particular form of religious teaching. They had heard many forms of syllabus from Hampshire and other places which did no doubt provide useful instruction in the meaning of selected passages from Scripture; but then Dr. Clifford contended that the Bible should be read without comment except as to its historical and literary merits, and then again, there were local authorities like Carmarthenshire in which religious teaching would have been excluded altogether, under the by-laws of the county council submitted to the Board of Education. Cowper-Temple teaching was unsatisfactory to the great mass of the community from the religious point of view, its character was indeterminate; its very existence was uncertain; and he did not see why this particular form of religious teaching should be paid for out of the rates. It appeared to him that the Amendment as it was proposed to be amended would do much to clear

    125
    the ground upon which they might build a solid superstructure which would be satisfactory to the various denominations, and also to those who did not desire denominational teaching. He desired that religious instruction should be given in school hours, and that the by-laws respecting school hours should be so framed as to give to all the children whose parents desired it religious instruction, while children whose parents did not desire it should be exempt, and should receive secular instruction instead. It could not be said that if they withdrew all rate and State aid from religious teaching they committed themselves to secular instruction so long as they secured religious teaching of any sort which the parents desired in the hours of compulsory attendance. He did not see how the Amendment touched Clause 4 if, as they had been assured by the Minister for Education, under that clause the voluntary schools, where practically all the childern belonged to one denomination were to go on as before. Then the clause amended so as to ensure this result, would be not merely necessary and desirable but excellent. As to the teacher, the Parliamentary Secretary dwelt the other day in language which he admired on the great importance to the child of receiving his religious instruction from the teacher whom he regarded as his guide, philosopher and friend. He could see no reason why a teacher, if he were willing to do so, should not teach in any branch of religious teaching he was capable of teaching. There had been a great deal of talk in the course of the debate on the subject of tests, and attempts had been made to show that it was inconsistent to say that the teachers should be immune from tests, and, at the same time to say that a teacher might be asked whether he could conscientiously give the particular religious teaching which he was being engaged to teach. He contended that the two things were perfectly consistent. The Bill provided against a requirement as to subscription which had never existed, but the Bill did not touch the requirement of considerable numbers of trust deeds that the head teacher should be a member of the Church of England. These were tests, and for a his part he would
    126
    be perfectly willing to see every test of that character swept away; but to tell any sane man that when they were engaging a teacher they were not to ask him whether he could give the teaching that they were to provide and which he was employed by them to teach, was, to use an expression with which the Committee was familiar, something approaching to raving lunacy. Such a view was not held with regard to any other class of employment. He did not see why a teacher should be immune from any inquiry as to whether he was competent to teach the subject which he was being engaged and being paid to teach. If they could have religious teaching in compulsory school hours, if they had Clause 4 improved in the direction in which they were assured it would be improved, if they were able to use teachers for religious teaching which they were capable and desirous of giving, then, he thought, it only remained that that procedure should be applicable to all schools. If all schools were provided schools and no aid of any sort from rates or taxes was given to religious teaching then he could not understand any ground for any further distinction between the schools which had once been voluntary schools and the schools which had always been provided schools. They were told that, if the Amendment amended as suggested were carried, Cowper-Temple teaching would die out. After all the laudations they had heard of Cowper-Templeism was it conceivable that directly rate aid was withdrawn it would die out or that the small sum necessary to provide it would not be forthcoming? He could not suppose that hon. Members seriously thought that Cowper-Temple teaching would be in any danger if rate aid was withdrawn. He did not believe that a system of purely secular education would be acceptable to this country. He had had some opportunity while at the Board of Education of informing himself as to the feeling of the working classes with regard to religious instruction, and he formed the strongest opinion that in all parts of the country they were extremely anxious that their children should have some religious education. He for one was prepared to put all forms of religious teaching on an equality; but they must

    127
    insist that religious teaching should be available for those who wanted it and of the sort that they wanted, and if they did that they would have made some steps towards a settlement of the difficulty.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,)said the Committee had been debating this important subject—the two debates on the Amendment and on the Amendment to the Amendment having been welded into one—for some seven and a half hours; and, without seeking in any way to hint that the moment for the conclusion of the debate had arrived, he still thought it would be desirable that it should be brought to a conclusion as early as possible, in order that ample time might be allowed to consider the important Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. Religion was often said, only too truly, to be a source of division; but he thought that in this debate it had been proved to be capable of being in some respects a source of union; for all the speeches, with hardly an exception, had breathed the spirit of the recognition of the difference between them, and had shown a strong desire to come, if possible, to some settlement which might prove to be lasting, and leave no living sense of injustice behind it. He was also particularly glad that throughout these debates they had had no references, or, at all events, very few, to foreign countries, or even to the United States, or even to our own Colonies, proud as we were of them. We had our own ecclesiastical history, painful in some respects as it had been, and he felt quite sure that any settlement that would ever be arrived at on this subject would be an English settlement, and in accordance with the wishes and disposition of the great body of the English people. Any idea of expurgated school editions of Shakespeare or Milton, or even Longfellow or Mrs. Hemans, to be used in our schools, so that children might not be offended by references to Divine Providence, would be received with yells of derision, and with disgust from one end of the country to the other,
    128
    and no Government, by however great a majority it was supported could survive such an absurd, fantastical, and babyish proposal for a single hour. Any solution at which they might arrive would be based on sounder and more sensible principles than that. The Government had made it clear by the first clause that they proposed to adhere to that system of national instruction which was permitted by the clause in the famous Act of 1870, to which the name of a blameless and still honoured Member of Parliament had been given. The Leader of the Opposition had made his position in that matter perfectly clear. He had made it quite clear that he greatly disliked as a system of religious teaching the kind of instruction permitted in the Cowper-Temple clause. He did not like it because in his opinion it hampered and restricted religious teaching; because it arrested the full and proper development of religious teaching, and, therefore, to that extent endangered the variety of religious teaching. Therefore, he expressed, as he often had done, his dislike of the instruction authorised and permitted by that provision; but he also proceeded to tell the Committee that if he was driven to make his choice between the kind of religious instruction permitted under Clause 14 of the Act of 1870 and education on a frankly and avowedly secular basis, he would prefer even the Cowper-Temple teaching. In adhering to this kind of instruction and to some extent doing what they could, at all events, to make it the normal state of things throughout the schools of the country, save those which came in under the special facilities given under Clause 4—in doing that they had done it because, after full consideration and having taken into account the experience of the last thirty-six years, they believed that for Protestant children between five and fourteen in our public elementary schools the system of religious instruction which bears the name of Cowper-Temple was the sound and sensible system of religious instruction that was required. That might be criticised, but nevertheless they believed it to be a sound and, he would go so far as to say, a definite system of religious teaching. He had never used the word "undogmatic" in connection with a system of

    129
    religious teaching which involved the existence of God and the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and a life beyond the grave. How could any one by any possibility speak of such a system as that as being undogmatic? These were the most stupendous dogmas, and they were to be found forming the fundamental system of every school of Christian theology. There they were, and there they were taught and could be taught throughout the schools. But if we were told that to Protestant children the teaching was injurious in the sense that it rendered any subsequent instruction difficult and perhaps impossible, why then, indeed, that would be a grievous objection to Cowper-Temple teaching. Although he had received thousands of communications from the clergy—he wished he had had time to reply to them, but he had given them careful consideration—he did not think he had received a single letter from any clergyman stating that when he came to prepare pupils for confirmation classes, he found those children who had been subjected to this religious instruction were in any state of mental ferment on the subject of Church principles and teaching, or in any sense unprepared to receive its definite instruction. He did not think in the case of Protestant children it could honestly be said that this religious teaching, from the syllabuses of the council schools was in any way hostile to fuller treatment of Christian theology at the hands of the clergy of the Church of England. It was not hostile in any sense to the subsequent treatment of religion by any Protestant body; and, being wholly persuaded that it was in full accordance with the desires of the people of this country and with past experience the Government proposed to adhere to it.
    They had now the Amendment that was before them proposed by the hon. Member for Burnley. He was bound to look at this from an eminently practical point of view. Let them consider what the proposal involved in the school life of any school in the country. According to the Amendment of the Member for Burnley, the life of the school would not begin until the appearance of the teacher—say, at 9.45 in the morning. School instruction would then begin;
    130
    there would be no prayer; there would be no hymn; there would be no devotional Bible reading or anything of that kind. School would begin at 9.45 with strictly secular subjects, and so it would continue until the hour of dismissal arrived at 12 o'clock, and then there would be the same thing over again in the afternoon. That would be the life of the school—a purely secular life—although it did not interfere with the use which the local educational authorities or the owners of the school might choose to put their buildings to between 9 and 9.45. Such a proposal would, in his opinion, deal a heavy blow at the religious instruction, of the child, and would in itself, therefore, to his thinking, be bad. He did not wish to underrate the importance of teaching children the elements of morality; he attached considerable importance to such teaching, and if he remained much longer responsible for the Education Department, he hoped in the Code to give some encouragement to such instruction. For he was persuaded that, rationally conducted, it could be made a very live and a very real thing. He did not think for a moment that morality could only be taught upon a theological basis. He was quite sure that it could be taught, with spirit and with force, apart from such basis. He supposed the most stringent code in the whole world was the code of honour, which was obeyed with marvellous punctiliousness by people who called themselves men of the world, and yet the injunction of the code of honour, "Thou shalt not cheat at cards," for example, could not be said to be a Christian maxim. He did not think they would find it in Thomas à Kempis, or in Baxter's Saint's Rest, or even in that very favourite treatise of the eighteenth century, far too tinctured with Arminianism to be pleasant to him, The Whole Duty of Man. It had its origin and source in quite a different atmosphere, and yet they knew how strong was the social sanction underlying it. There were other sanctions besides the religious sanction; the social sanction was one of them and the moral sanction was another. He was quite willing that the children should be taught the elements of morality, as opportunities offered, but neither morality for children nor

    131
    philosophy for children of a larger growth was any substitute for religion; and therefore the Government could not give any sort of support or assistance to the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Burnley. Then there was the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, whose experience, and the attention he had given to these subjects, entitled him to full consideration. Any proposal that he made must be considered very carefully. With him, school life would begin at 9 o'clock, instead of at 9.45, and the head teacher and staff would make their appearance at 9. Let him ask how was the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment going to work in a common case. Let them take a country schools with 120 children in average attendance. It might be a school belonging either to the council or to trustees and carried on subject to the trust. Let them suppose that seventy children had been baptised in their parish church, and that their parents attended the services of the Church of England; also that there were thirty Primitive Methodists—no unusual proportion—ten Baptists, five Roman Catholics, and five children whose parents withdrew them altogether from any kind of religious instruction. The clock struck 9 and these 120 children made their appearance. The teacher had to provide for them; he was the paid official of the local education authority; his duty was to give secular education, and secular education alone, in respect of the salary he received from the local education authorities. His duty would be to give secular instruction to the five whose parents had withdrawn them from religious instruction altogether. They might be augmented to ten if the Roman Catholic children claimed the same privilege of withdrawal. If the head teacher chose to say, "My duty to the local education authority binds me to give instruction to these children," no exception could be taken to his course of action. The children would have to be provided with some separate room or place of accommodation. Not even the Member for North Louth could do a rule of three sum if a hymn were being sung in his immediate vicinity. The section of those children who were
    132
    receiving their secular instruction in the three-quarters of an hour otherwise to be devoted to religious instruction would have to be educated in some separate room. The head teacher, however, might assign the task of teaching these children to one of his assistants. The question arose, what about the other? Here were seventy Church children; let them suppose the head teacher happened to be a member of the Church of England. They knew that no test was to be applied. He did not understand whether any question was to be asked as to whether he was prepared to give any kind of religious teaching. It might very likely happen that the head teacher was a member of the Church of England himself; he would, therefore, be very pleased to give, either for love or reward, religious instruction to these seventy children. He did not hesitate to say himself that the result of his doing so would be that all the Primitive Methodist children, or almost all of them, would attend the class to receive teaching at his hands, just as they did now in the schools they were obliged to attend—the Church of England schools. They would follow his teaching, and he would be able to teach them the doctrine of the Church of England so far as he thought fit to impart it to them. There could be no complaint against him. It was a fact that children would prefer to be taught by the head teacher, and he would prefer to teach them. In order that he might exercise proper control over the children, and gain that access to their hearts and affections which he desired, he would do all he could to induce as many as possible to attend his ministrations. What would the Primitive Methodists do? They were poor people; they had no clergyman; they were for the most part served by poor men who had to earn their own living during the days of the week; nor were ninety-nine out of 100 qualified by education to take a class. Consequently, the poor Primitive Methodists would, as a matter of hard fact, be left either without religious instruction at all, or would find their way, as he had no doubt a great majority of them would, into the class of the head teacher. But, on the other hand, suppose that that teacher

    133
    was, as he might turn out to be, himself a Methodist—there were a great many Methodists in the ranks of elementary teachers, not so many as there were members of the Church of England, but still, a great number—then in the same way as with the teacher of the Church of England, if he or she elected to give Methodist teaching, a great majority of the school, unless the clergyman of the parish was very alert indeed, would find their way into the class taught by the Methodist head teacher. And let it be observed that now the teacher would be under no kind of restriction. If he chose—he did not say he would be wise to do so; on the contrary, he thought he would be very unwise—but if he chose to take this class of Methodists with a large influx of Church of England children, he could instruct them why some of them were Methodists, why they were bound to be Methodists, why their parents were right in going to a Methodist chapel, and why they would be wrong if they went to the Church of England. That kind of teaching, under the proposed scheme, would be available without any kind of restriction of any sort. Downright definite denominational teaching would thus be given to these children. He was bound to confess he did not think that would work. He did not see how it could work. It was put forward in the interests of equality all round, so that no injustice of any sort or kind should be done to any denomination. But he said injustice would be done because the influence of the teacher of the school would predominate over denominational differences, and so, whether he was a Baptist, a Methodist, a Congregationalist, or a member of the Church of England, his influence would undoubtedly prevail over the denominational differences, and absolutely prevent that ideal system of justice which this Amendment sought to carry out. Therefore, as at present advised, it seemed to him the scheme must break down. He did not deny that it had an attraction about it. It certainly attracted a good many behind him, until they were assured by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford that this clause, when amended, would in no
    134
    way affect Clause 4. The general view of the lobbies, and his hon. friends behind him, was that they were going to get rid of Clause 4 if they could only induce the Government to adopt this Amendment. Clause 4 was not a popular clause. He was perfectly well aware of that, and yet, in his judgment, it, or something like it, was an absolutely essential clause if the Government idea was carried out and Clause 1 remained. He did not see how anyone could claim to be considered a tolerant man who, having insisted on the kind of religious teaching he had already indicated being made a general rule throughout the kingdom, did not at risk of any unpopularity, or in the face of any opposition, do the best he could to secure to those whose conscience would be offended by it the kind of provision contemplated to be established, and maintained in Clause 4. But if they swept away Clause 1, if they abolished Cowper-Temple instruction, if they said secular instruction should be provided by the State with facilities all round, so that anybody might come in between 9 and 9.45, that Roman Catholic priests and nuns might teach Roman Catholicism to the children, that the Church of England minister, the Baptist, the Independent, and all the lot of them might come in, and have their classes from 9 to 9.45, then all go out, and that the secular atmosphere of the school should prevail for the rest of the school hours—that was what was understood as being meant by people inside the House and outside, and they attached value to it, on the ground that in this way they got rid of religious difficulties; and all the outcry of Roman Catholics, of High Church, Low Church, and Nonconformists would be swept away by this admission of all from 9 to 9.45, when they would go out and the rest of the time be devoted to secular instruction. That, in his opinion, was a scheme that would ultimately lead to the entire secularisation of education, and for that reason they objected to it and could not support it. They believed that in adhering to their system of broad fundamental Christian teaching they wore doing what was right. The hon. Member for Glamorgan had quoted Dr. Newman, and he might quote another passage which occurred at the

    135
    close of his famous Grammar of Assent. After speaking of a system of Catholic theology, he nevertheless said—
    "Christianity is addressed to men and women whose normal belief was in God and a judgment to come."
    Well, their system of religious educacation was as good as they could make it. It was not compulsory; if with advantage it could be made so he should he in favour of it, but he had no great faith in exercising compulsion on local authorities in matters of detail, because they might easily produce a syllabus they might think insufficient, and they could not contemplate proceeding by mandamus to compel the introduction of a Christian doctrine or thesis into that syllabus. Those were the difficulties in the way. They rejoiced in believing that the county councils gave facilities. Where they had not given them it was not because they were irreligious, it was because they had a belief—a mistaken belief perhaps—that the Sunday schools were sufficient to give the religious education for the district. They did not proceed on irreligious grounds, and he believed the result of discussion had been and would be to induce them to proceed to adopt a syllabus that would secure to the children of the district that mode of education which, as Dr. Newman said, prepared the soil for Christian teaching. He believed the Government were doing what he could show from Hansard had been the view of more distinguished men than himself on both sides of the House in adhering to this simple fundamental system of religious education; they did their best to make it general, they believed it was in accordance with the wishes of the great body of the people, and therefore he hoped the Committee would by a large majority reject both the Amendment and the Amendment thereto of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there were portions of the right hon. Gentlemen's speech he did not propose to refer to, they were hardly relevant, and he did not think it would be possible now to discuss details that did not fit into the scheme put forward more than once by his right hon. friend the Member for West Bir-
    136
    mingham. They would have to be dealt with before the Committee stage came to an end; but he did not see how it was possible to deal with them now, when the question was the Amendment to the Amendment. He did not rise to say a word on the claims or rights of parents or denominations for fuller religious education than could be given under the Cowper-Temple clause, for that would be more relevant to a future Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford. He rose for a very few minutes to deal with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, for he thought that was of great importance if they were really to understand the course the Government wished to steer in their zealous attempt to deal with religious difficulties. It was clear from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, the Government set themselves to work to discover what kind of religious teaching was most desired in England, and then to endow that in some special manner. ["No."] His speech was capable of no other interpretation, nor would he deny it. It was an amazing principle to come from any part of the House, and certainly from that side of the House. When was it a function of the Radical Party to consider the religion they thought best for their countrymen and then to throw obstacles in the way of every other religion and give a special endowment out of the public funds for the propagation of this new scheme of theirs? He believed the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that no syllabus could come up to the views of the vast number of British parents; but were they really to understand that by some kind of intuition the Government had discovered what was the view of the ordinary parent, and intended to say henceforth "this is the religion to be taught in our schools, and this is the religion we will endow out of the rates"? It seemed to him that that was an extraordinary novelty in their political theories. He had always understood that nothing could be more hostile to traditional Radical opinion than a scheme of the kind; it seemed in deliberate contradiction to doctrines they had closely held. Let them assume that this extraordinary novelty was to become the

    137
    guiding principle, then he asked what provision was there in the Bill to carry it out logically, consistently, and effectively? The right hon. Gentleman had said he would like to enforce some syllabus on the local authorities; would he like to go over each syllabus, add to and amend here and there, and gradually produce something the Government thought should be endowed as the ideal system of religious education, and enforce it by law on al local authorities? That was what he would like, but he shrank from it. He thought that local authorities would probably like to manage their own affairs in their own way, and that was the view of some hon. Gentlemen behind him; they thought it was an inalienable right of local authorities to settle the religious education to be given in their schools. Then why did they eliminate the right to give denominational teaching? By what process could they justify themselves by saying local authorities might range over the whole scale between reading without explanation a fragment of Scripture taken at random—["No!"] Might that not be done? Of course it might. There was liberty to range between the teaching of no religion at all, or the teaching he had described, reading without explanation a passage from Scripture taken at random, to the other end of the scale—the dogmatic teaching of the Free Church catechism. A vast field was open, but going beyond that catechism was prohibited. It was a very strange scheme; but it was not its strangeness or want of logic that he now wanted to press upon the Committee. If the Government were in earnest—as he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was—in what he said about the need for religious education, the need for making it a genuine thing in every school, then he was certain that it was the primary duty of the Government and the Committee to see that Cowper-Templeism was eliminated, and the lower end of the scale cut off. It was their plain duty, but they endowed a certain denomination.
    DR. MACNAMARA: You did it in 1902.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was quite; ready to defend the Bill of 1902, but he was anxious to press on the Government this particular point; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not interrupt him. The Government came forward with this earnest expression of a desire that they should have full Cowper-Templeism taught, and nothing else, in all our elementary schools. Surely the least they could do if that was their theory was to try and carry it into effect. In 1902, as the hon. Gentleman had forced him to speak of that, they kept all the anomalies inevitably incident to the Cowper-Temple system and to the single school area and the denominational system. They kept them side by side, because they found them there, and it was impossible at that time to deal with both. All he could do was to relieve the Nonconformists from a great many of the disabilities under which they were then labouring, and no Nonconformist who had ever read the Bill of 1902 had ever dared to contradict that statement. Now the Government were going to get rid of denominationalism and to substitute universal Cowper-Templeism, on the ground that they believed that Cowper-Temple religion was the religion which the country desired, and which, therefore, ought to be endowed out of the rates. Well, let them make Cowper-Templeism a reality and make it secure. That was the least they could ask of the Government. Let them make it obligatory on the local authorities to teach religion, and, above all, make it obligatory on the local authorities to select their teachers so that they would be able to carry out what the Minister for Education now told them, and he was sure he meant it, was one of the most fundamental and necessary parts of religion. Was there a word in this Bill which suggested a preference on the part of the Government for Cowper-Temple teaching? They might have such teaching as was given in the Free Church Catechism. Was there a word in the Bill which suggested their desire to see that kind of religion given in our schools, or a word that suggested that the teachers who had got to teach it, and who had to be paid out of the rates for teaching it, were to be competent? There was not a word;

    139
    and until he saw some conformity between the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward and the speech which he had just delivered, he would be forced to the conclusion that, while the right hon. Gentleman was really most earnestly desirous to see full religious instruction given in our schools, he was so bound by the pressure of certain sections of Nonconformist opinion behind him, he felt himself so hampered by pledges, misunderstood, given at the election, that he was literally asking the Committee to pass a Bill for the purpose of seeing that the children of this country got the sort of religious teaching which he, at all events, desired, and yet did not put a single security in the Bill either that the religion taught should be of the kind he desired or that those who taught it should be able to teach it. He would vote without misgiving against the secular proposal so ably supported by the hon. Member for Leicester a few days ago; but if he was asked whether the alternative proposed by the Government was a satisfactory alternative, he said it was not, for two reasons. In the first place, it was grossly unjust to those who did not accept Cowper-Templeism; and, in the second place, it was a gross, though unintentional, fraud on those who did accept it, but thought this Bill gave some security, either in the character of the teaching given under it or of the teachers who had to give it, that the rising generation of the country should really learn that fundamental Christianity of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken so eloquently. His speech gave him a very high idea of his aspirations. It also gave him a very painful sense of the discordance, the, as he thought, irremediable discordance, which existed between the ideals he had laid before the Committee and the Bill in which he had attempted to embody them.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the speech of the President of the Board of Education must have been a disappointing one to many supporters of the Government. Only recently the Prime Minister had declared that in his opinion 90 per cent, of the Liberal Party were in favour of secular education in the schools, and, if that were so, surely it was but reasonable to expect
    140
    that the Government would have allowed its followers a free hand in regard to this most important matter. Two sets of people had announced their intention of voting against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley—firstly the Churchmen, who believed in the State endowment of religion; and secondly, the Nonconformists, who on the political platform denounced a State Church, but in Parliament declared for the endowment of religion in the schools. If it was an injustice to endow a Church for teaching religion to grown-up people, it must be more of an injustice, and much more dangerous to the freedom of conscience, to endow schools for the teaching of dogmas to children. It was not thus that the old Nonconformists fought their battles. The leaders of the Nonconformist party would have considerable difficuty in convincing the public of their sincerity when they claimed disestablishment, if they walked into the lobbies to support the establishment of religion in schools. In the past few years they had heard a great deal about the injustice perpetrated by one section of the Christian Church or another in regard to religious instruction. It was to him a matter of surprise that supporters of the Government could not recognise the fact that the whole of the religious difficulty had its root in simple Bible teaching in the schools. So long as it was claimed that Bible instruction should be given in schools they were bound under every principle of equality to make provision for every sect which desired to put its own interpretation upon what was being taught. Those were the two logical positions—either a secular system of instruction or an all-round system of religious instruction. Between those two there was no halting place. There were two main arguments against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley. The first was that the parents wanted religious instruction given to the children, and the second was that if that instruction was not given in the schools the children would not receive it at all. How did any Member of the Committee know that the parents wanted religious instruction given in the schools? By what authority did they speak? It was said that for thirty years it had been the

    141
    school board system. The school boards had power to abolish religious instruction, but the parents of the children did not take the trouble to abolish it. The indifferentism in regard to religious matters was such that people did not trouble one way or the other. Much of that indifferentism was to be traced to the slipshod manner in which religious instruction was given in the schools. But they had one means of ascertaining working-class opinion on this matter. The Trades Union Congress represented 2,000,000 organised workers. Year after year that assembly had declared for a secular system. The men and women who went there were of all creeds and of no creed, but they believed supremely in education and they desired this bone of contention to be taken away so that education might be given for its own sake, and to improve and strengthen it. He held in his hand a copy of the present issue of Christian World which contained a report of an interview with Dr. Rintoul, who was in this country on a visit from Australia, and who occupied a high position in the religious life of the colony of Victoria. Dr. Rintoul told them that since 1873 they had had in that colony a system of free, compulsory, and secular education; and the advocates of the denominational system had charged that system with being Godless, Christless, pagan, and all the rest of it. A conference was called of religious teachers to devise some form of religious instruction to be given in the schools, and the Baptists, Wesleyans, and Anglicans agreed to an emasculated form of the Catechism in order to obtain some common finality. The matter was referred to a referendum of the parents, but after a quarter of a century's experience of free, compulsory, and secular education, the vast majority of the parents preferred to remain under that system. He ventured to say that could a referendum be taken in this country as it was in Australia, it would show an overwhelming majority in favour of the secular solution. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No!"] Did any of those hon. Gentlemen who said "No" inform their constituents at the last election that when the Education Act was being amended they were going to support Bible
    142
    teaching in one set of schools, and dogmatic teaching in another set of schools? He could understand a few hon. Gentlemen taking exception to that statement; and he used the remark as a tribute to the conscientious way in which they held their religious beliefs; but the demand generally was for public control of the schools, and few of the electors who voted on the education question thought that by so doing they were voting for a compromise of this kind. If it were true that the parents of the children were not fit to give religious instruction to their children, let it not be forgotten that for the past three generations these parents had had the benefit of the old religious instruction and that in the olden days parents were fitted to give that religious instruction. If they were less fitted now, it was partly because of the conditions under which they lived, and partly because of the secularising of religion, which was going on in our public schools and elsewhere. They had better be honest and not continue the pretence of indoctrinating our children with a system of religious dogma, whether called by the name of unsectarianism, or by any other name, which produced such poor results in after-life. The child should be trained according to its intellectual development, taught the simple duties of kindness, love of truth, honour, justice and righteousness. Those things should be taught for their own sake, but no one should ask for them to be enforced by bringing in some extraneous authority which the children could not understand. The training of our children should be on a foundation on which in after years a solid spiritual structure could be raised if the children felt so minded. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had pointed out that the Education Bill of 1870, because it was a compromise, had perpetuated the religious difficulty, and that it had rendered the solution of that difficulty still more difficult. Who would say that the present Bill was not following in the same course? If hon. Gentlemen placed such value on religious instruction, why leave it to be the sport of Party politics at municipal elections? Let Clause 4 be made mandatory and

    143
    not optional, and then the question would be settled and Party strife avoided. But the Minister for Education said "No." The right hon. Gentleman dared not come to this Committee and make a proposal of that kind. He respectfully submitted that it was not courageous to transfer from this House to the local authorities a task which they themselves dared not face. When education was administered in the large towns by an ad hoc authority, the religious difficulty could be left to the school boards; but now at every municipal election the issues of sanitation, drainage, and good local government generally would be subordinated to the question of who was to rule the schools. He hoped that if this Amendment were accepted some means would be adopted whereby our municipal life would not be poisoned by having religious strifes brought into it which formerly had no existence. He would say nothing on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He did not think it was practicable. He did not think it was desirable to divide the children in the schools into pens for instruction. They should be taught about God and the brotherhood of the race, and that could only be exemplified by meeting in the same room and with the same forms of instruction. Otherwise more harm than good would be done to religion. On the other hand, he should vote for the hon. Gentleman opposite. The time would come, however, if this Amendment were rejected, when this House would again be faced by the difficulty with which it was now faced. If this question had been grappled with in 1870 our educational system would have been at a different point today from what it was. Let them not leave the same legacy to their successors, but let them act courageously and do their duty according to their consciences.
    MR. BLAKEsaid that the final principle of the Bill was to be
    found in Clause 4, and if the Irish Members only knew the final position in which Clause 4 would stand they would be in a better position as to how they should vote on these competing Amendments on Clause 1. The Irish Members looked on this Amendment according to principles. The view they represented was the general principle in favour of religious instruction being given right through the school hours as being the most important part of the education provided for the children. They found that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley was, according to their view, objectionable, and therefore should be voted against by the Irish Party. On the other hand, the Amendment of the right hon. the Member for West Birmingham was objectionable because it provided that while religious instruction should be given during school hours it should not be given at the expense of the State. So long as the general principle of giving religious instruction during school hours was being challenged as it was being challenged by the Amendment, and they were left in doubt as to its fate and fortune under Clause 4, they should not vote for any Amendment which would fetter the freedom which they claimed. As announced previously, the National Party would vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because it affirmed the principle of giving all religious instruction in school hours, but they had an equally firm intention of voting against the main Amendment.
    Mr. BIRRELLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 366; Noes, 179. (Division List No. 98.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Alden, Percy

    Astbury, John Meir

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

    Agnew, George William

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Barker, John

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dickson-Poyndor, Sir John P.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Jenkins, J.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Beale, W. P.

    Dodd, W. H.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Kelley, George D.

    Benn,W.(T'w'r H'ml'tsS.Geo.

    Elibank, Master of

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Bennett, E. N.

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    King Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Erskine, David C.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Bertram, Julius

    Essex, R. W.

    Laid law, Robert

    Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Lamb Edmund G. (Leominster

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lamb Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Billson, Alfred

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lambert, George

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Lamont, Norman

    Black, Alexander Wm (Banff

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Black, Arthur W.(Bdfordshire

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St Pancran,E)

    Boulton, A.C.F. (Ramsey)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Brace, William

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Branch, James.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lever,W., H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

    Brigg, John

    Gardner.Col. Alan (Hereford,S,

    Levy, Maurice

    Brodie, H. C.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brooke, Stopford

    Gill, A. H.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Bryce.Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Lough, Thomas

    Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lupton, Arnold

    Buchanan, Thoma Ryburn

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Grant, Corrie

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Macdonald, J.R.(Leicester)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Grove, Archibald

    Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

    Buxton. Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

    Gulland, John W.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Maclean, Donald

    Cairns, Thomas

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Cameron, Robert

    Hall, Frederick

    M'Arthur, William

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    M'Callum, John M.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

    M'Crae, George

    Causton, Rt.Hn. Richard Knight

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hart-Davies, T.

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

    Chance, Frederick William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

    Clough, W.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Marnham, F. J.

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

    Massie, J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Menzies, Walter

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

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Cooper, G. J.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Corbett.C. H (Sussex, EGrinst'd

    Higham, John Sharp

    Montagu, E. S.

    Cory, Clifford John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Montgomery, H. H.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hodge, John

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Golden, E. Hopkinson

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hooper, A. G.

    Morrell, Philip

    Crombie, John William

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

    Morse, L. L.

    Crooks, William

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Murray, James

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Myer, Horatio

    Crossley, William J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Napier, T. B.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

    Davies, Davd (Montgomery Co.

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Nicholls, George

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

    146

    147

    Norman, Henry

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland)

    Wallace, Robert

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Nuttall, Harry

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Walters, John Tudor

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

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

    O'Grady, J.

    Scott,A..H.(AshtonunderLyne)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Paul, Herbert

    Sears, J. E.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Ward, W. D. (Southampton)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Seddon, J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Pearee, William (Limehouse)

    Shackleton, David James

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Perks, Robert William

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

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Weir, James Galloway

    Pollard, Dr.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Whitbread, Howard

    Price, C. E.(Edinburgh,Central

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    White, Georgo (Norfolk)

    Price, Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Snowden, P.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Spicer, Albert

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Stanley.Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rees, J. D.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mptn

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

    Richardson, A.

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Rickett J. Compton

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

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

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Winfrey, R.

    Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk.Mid.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Wood, T, M'Kinnon

    Robinson, S.

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

    Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Thorne, William

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Tomkinson, James

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Torrance, A. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Toulmin, George

    Rowlands, J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Runciman, Walter

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Russell, T. W.

    Vivian, Henry

    NOES

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Delany, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

    Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Arnold-Forster.Rt.Hn. HughO.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Ashley, W. W.

    Cave, George

    Du Cros, Harvey

    Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHn. Sir H.

    Cavendish, Rt. HonVictorC.W.

    Duncan, Robert(Lanark Guvan)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Faber, George Denison (York)

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornscy)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Fell, Arthur

    Baring, Hon. Guy(Winchester)

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (City London)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)

    Coates.E. Feetham(Lewisham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHieks

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

    Finch, Rt, Hon. George H.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Blake, Edward

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Boland, John

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Forster, Henry William

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Craig,Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Craig, Captain James (Down.E

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Ginnell, L.

    148

    149

    Halpin, J.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    M'Killop, W.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Reddy, M.

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Harwood, George

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Hazleton, Richard

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Mooney, J. J.

    Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.

    Murnaghan, George

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Hogan, Michael

    Murphy, John

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

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

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Nield, Herbert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

    Starkey, John R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.ColW.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Keswick, William

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

    Talbot,Rt.HnJ.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

    King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Limbton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.(Howard

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Walker.Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    O'Dowd, John

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

    O'Hare, Patrick

    White,Patrick (Meath, North)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon N.)

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

    Liddell, Henry

    O'Malley, William

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

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

    O'Mara, James

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wyadham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

    Young, Samuel

    Lundon, W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Younger, George

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Percy, Earl

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 367; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 99.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Burns, Rt. Hon, John.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

    Benn, John Williams(Devonp't)

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

    Agnew, George William

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bennett, E. N.

    Cairns, Thomas

    Alden, Percy

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cameron, Robert

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Bertram, Julius

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bethell, J.H (Essex, Romford)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Causton.Rt.Hn.RichardKnignt

    Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

    Billson, Alfred

    Cawley, Frederick

    Astbury, John Meir

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Chance, Frederick William

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Brace, William

    Cleland, J. W.

    Barker, John

    Bramsdon, T. A

    Clough, W.

    Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset)

    Branch, James

    Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Brigg, John

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Barnard, E. B.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Brooke, Stopford

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

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Bryce,Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen

    Cooper, G. J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

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

    Beauchamp, E.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Beaumont,Hubert(Eastbour'e)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Cory, Clifford John

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hodge, John

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hooper, A. G.

    Morrell, Philip

    Crombie, John William

    Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

    Morse, L. L.

    Crooks, William

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Murray, James

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Myer, Horatio

    Crossley, William J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Napier, T. B.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Nicholls, George

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Norman, Henry

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh

    Jackson, R. S.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Dodd, W. H.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Paul, Herbert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Perks, Robert William

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Philipps, J.Wynford (Pembroke

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Elibank, Master of

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Erskine, David C.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Pollard, Dr.

    Essex, R. W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

    Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lamb, Ernest B. (Rochester)

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lambert, George

    Radford, G. H.

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Fenwick, Charles

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rees, J.D.

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Levy, Maurice

    Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

    Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Richardson, A.

    Gill, A. H.

    Lough, Thomas

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Grant, Corrie

    Lynch, H. B.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Greenwood, O. (Peterborough)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

    Grey, R. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Bradf'rd

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Grove Archibald

    Maclean, Donald

    Robinson, S.

    Gulland, John W.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    M Arthur, William

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Hall, Frederick

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    M'Crae, George

    Rose, Charles Day

    Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Rowlands, J.

    Hardy George A. (Suffolk)

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

    Runciman, Walter

    Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Russell, T. W.

    Harwood, George

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mansfield, Harry (Northants)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Haworth Arthur A

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Hazel, D. A. E.

    Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston

    Schwann. Chas.E. (Manchester)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Marnham, F. J.

    Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Sears, J. E.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Massie, J.

    Seaverns, J. H.

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

    Menzies, Walter

    Shackleton, David James

    Henry, Charles S.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford.)

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wyeonibe)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Montagu, E. S.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Montgomery, H. H.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    152

    153

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Thorne, William

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Smeaton, DonaldM ackenzie

    Tomkinson, James

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Snowden, P.

    Torrance, A. M.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Toulmin, George

    Wiles, Thomas

    Spicer, Albert

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Verney, F. W.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Vivian, Henry

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wallace, Robert

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'

    Winfrey, R.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Wardle, George J.

    Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk,Mid)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Taylor, Theodore. C. (Radcliffe)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Woodhouse.Sir JT.(Huddersf'd

    Tenant, E. P. (Salisbury)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Weir, James Galloway

    TELLERS FOR TUB AYES—

    Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Whitbread, Howard

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Kilbride, Denis

    Ambrose, Robert

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lamont, Norman

    Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. HughO.

    Du Cros, Harvey

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Ashley, W W.

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Leegge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Baldwin, Alfred

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

    Liddell, Henry

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

    Fardell, Sir T. George

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

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Fell, Arthur

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesh'm

    Banner, John S, Harmood-

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lundon, W.

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fletcher, J. S.

    MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.)

    Blake, Edward

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Boland, John

    Gardner. Ernest (Berks. East)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gibbs. G. A. (Bristol, West)

    M'Killop, W.

    Bridgeman, W, Clive

    Ginnell, L.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Bull, Sir William James

    Halpin, J.

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Meagher, Michael

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Give, George

    Hazleton, Richard

    Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

    Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor G.W.

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Mooney, J. J.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Helton, John Henniker

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm

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

    Murnaghan, George

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

    Murphy, John

    Clarke,Sir Edward(CityLondon

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

    Hogan, Michael

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Potersfield)

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

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Nield, Herbert

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hunt, Rowland

    O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Delany, William

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

    Keswick, William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    154

    155

    O'Dowd, John

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

    O'Malley, William

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    O'Mara, James

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Smith, Abel H. Hertford, East)

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Smith, F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

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

    Young, Samuel

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Younger, George

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

    Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Starkey, John R.

    TELLERS FOB THE NOES—

    Reddy, M.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Talbot.Rt.Hn. J.G.(OxfdUniv

    Mr. BIEEELL claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
    Main Question put accordingly, ''That the words 'And unless provision is made that religious instruction shall not be
    given therein during school hours, nor at the public expense 'be there added."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes, 63; Noes, 477. (Division List No. 100.)

    AYES.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

    Barnard, E. B.

    Jenkins, J.

    Shackleton, David James

    Barnes, G. N.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Snowden, P.

    Beaumont,Hubert(Eastbourne

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Summerbell, T.

    Brace, William

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Lamont, Norman

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E

    Thorne, William

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Levy, Maurice

    Wardle, George J.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Cremer, William Randal

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    M'Callum, John M.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

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

    Hart-Davies, T.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Mr. Maddison and Mr. Arthur Henderson.

    Hodge, John

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Hudson, Walter

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Asquith,Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

    Beauchamp, E.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R:

    Agnew, George William

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

    Benn, John Williams(Devonprt

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

    Alden, Percy

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Bennett, E. N.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Baring, Godfrey (Ise of Wight)

    Berridge, T. H. D

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

    Bertram, Julius

    Ambrose, Robert

    Barker, John

    Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Billson, Alfred

    Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Ashley, W. W.

    Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

    Black, Alexander Wrm. (Banff)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Beale,W. P.

    Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)

    Blake, Edward

    Dodd, W. H.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Boland, John

    Dolan Charles Joseph

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Henderson,J.M. (Aberd'n, W.)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Doughty, Sir George

    Henry, Charles S.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Du Cros, Harvey

    Hervey,F.W.F.(Bury,SEdm'ds

    Branch, James

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Gvn.

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

    Brigg, John

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Brooke, Stopford

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Hogan, Michael

    Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Elibank, Master of

    Hooper, A. G.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Erskine, David C.

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Essex, R. W.

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Hunt, Rowland

    Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Chas

    Faber George Denison, (York)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Cairns, Thomas

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Cameron, Robert

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Jackson, R. S.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

    Fell, Arthur

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea

    Causton, Rt.Hn. Richard Knigh

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Cave, George

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W

    Findlay, Alexander

    Joyce, Michael

    Cawley, Frederick

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter-

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W

    Chance, Frederick William

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Keswick, William

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Killbride, Denis

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Kincaid, Smith, Captain

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    King, Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Bibb, James (Harrow)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Cleland, J. W.

    Ginnell, L.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Clough, W.

    Gladstone,Rt Hn Herbert John

    Lambert, George

    Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

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

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

    Grant, Corrie

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Farem

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Leese,SirJoseph F (Accrington

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Grove, Archibald

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Corbett,CH (Sussex,E. Grinst'd

    Gulland, John W.

    Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Haddock, George R.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cory, Clifford John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Liddell, Henry

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hall, Frederick

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Cowan, W. H.

    Halpin, J.

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Lough, Thomas

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Crombie, John William

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Lundon, W.

    Crooks, William

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'd

    Lupton, Arnold

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Crossley, William J.

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Davies, D. (Montgomery Co.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

    Davies, Timothy(Fulham)

    Harwood, George

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Maclean, Donald

    Delany, William

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S;

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    M'Arthur, William

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Sedges, A. Paget

    M'Crae, George

    158

    159

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

    M'Kenna, Regniald

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    M'Killop, W.

    Pollard, Dr.

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Sullivan, Donal

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.)

    Talbot, Rt. HnJG(Oxf'dUniv.

    Mallet, Charles E.

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

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Radford, G. H.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

    Marks, H. H. (Kint)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Massie, J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

    Thompson, JWH (Somerset, E

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Menzies, Walter

    Reddy, M.

    Tillett, Louis John

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Tomkinson, James

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Torrance, A. M.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rees, J. D.

    Toulmin, George

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Montagu, E. S.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Valentia, Viscount

    Montgomery, H. H.

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Verney, F. W.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Richardson, A.

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Vivian Henry

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wallace, Robert

    Morse, L. L.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Murnaghan, George

    Robertson,Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Murphy, John

    Robertson,SirGScott(Bradford

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

    Murray, James

    Robinson, S.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Myer, Horatio

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Napier, T. B.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Nichols, George

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Weir, James Galloway

    Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

    Rowlands, J.

    Whitbread, Howard

    Nield, Herbert

    Runciman, Walter

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Russell, T. W.

    White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Norman, Henry

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Norton, Capt, Cecil William

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Nuttall, Harry

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Whitley. J. H. (Halifax)

    O'Brien.Kendal (Tipperary, Md

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Schwann, Chas. E(Manchester)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Sears, J. E.

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

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wilson, John (Durham. Mid)

    O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    O'Dowd, John

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Winfrey, R.

    O' Kelly,James(Roscommon, N.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Wodehouse. Lord(Norfolk, Mid

    O'Malley, William

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    O'Mara, James

    Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

    Woodhouse,Sir JT (Hnddersf'd

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

    Paul, Herbert

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Young, Samuel

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Spicer, Albert

    Younger, George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Pearson, Sir W.D (Colchester)

    Starkey, John R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

    Steadman, W. C.

    Percy, Earl

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Perks, Robert William

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Philipps, J Wynford (Pembr'ke

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    MR. LUTTRELL MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock) moved an Amendment to the effect that a school recognised as a public elementary school, should be carried on in premises owned by the local authority. He took it that it was only fair that the public should have the complete ownership of the public elementary schools. If the local authority had not complete ownership they would not have a free hand, for they would have to go to the owners cap in hand and ask for certain conditions. In many cases the conditions would be of a humiliating character, and even injurious to the conscience of the parents. If they did not own the schools they would have to make arrangements of a temporary nature, and the making of temporary arrangements was simply temporising with a great subject. They would put the local education authority in the position of paying guests; they would he there on condition that they behaved themselves. If they did not own they must hire the schools. What would be thought of a proposal to hire barracks for oar soldiers, or a temporary lodging for our King? Was the owning of the schools objected to on the ground that it would be confiscation? It was not proposed to confiscate property. It was proposed that the schools should be purchased where that could be done. A fair price would be offered, and if the local authority could not buy the present schools, they should build new schools. The only other objection he could imagine was that of cost. If the proposal were carried out, might it not be possible to purchase or build schools at a price not much greater than they would have to pay for the use of other people's property? The objection of cost was not a very great one, and ought not to be considered by this wealthy country. This country ought not to plead poverty on this question of education. From the seeds sown in our schools we were to-day reaping a rich harvest in the improvement of temperance, in the diminution of crime, and in the standard of morality and general prosperity. He hoped that ultimately the country would be able to say that its public schools were national or semi-national property.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 10, at end to add the words 'and carried on in premises owned by that authority.'"—(Mr. Luttrell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words he there added."
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,)said the alternative suggested by his hon. friend was a very attractive one. It would be an exceedingly nice thing that the State should own all the schools in which the great work of education was carried on. But when they considered that there were 14,000 schools and that the circumstances under which they existed varied, he thought everyone would be disposed to agree with him that the greater freedom left under the Bill as it stood was much more desirable than the alternative suggested by his hon. friend. There were many objections to the course suggested. First of all the objection in regard to cost was a serious one. His hon. friend swept that somewhat lightly aside. The hon. Member asked what would be thought if we were to hire barracks for our soldiers. His answer to that was—Why not? Sometimes the Government hired houses. There was another point which the hon. Member did not seem to have considered, namely, that many schools were handed over free, or almost free, to the local authority. It would be impossible to accept such gifts if they were to adopt such a stringent proposal as this. It was desirable to give the local authorities the greater freedom which they would have under the clause as it stood to make the best arrangements they could. He hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.
    MR. GEORGE WHITEsupported the Amendment. He thought it would in the long run be cheaper to build new schools than to take over old schools. He had had some experience of taking over voluntary schools, and as a rule large sums of money had to be spent in putting them into a satisfactory condition. It would not be difficult to show that building would be cheaper and

    163
    much more efficient. There were many cases where the owners were willing to sell, and where, therefore, there would be no need to build. In other cases, say in the rural districts, not more than £10 per head need be spent in providing the school accommodation necessary. A school for a 100 children would only cost £1,000, and the annual charge to pay interest and also to pay off the loan in a period of sixty years would be about £35 or £40. Considering the condition of some of the present schools, it could easily be seen that rent and repairs would amount to more than the sum required to pay the interest and principal on a new building. He thought that the £1,000,000 to be placed in the hands of the Board of Education by this Bill would be amply sufficient to pay principal and interest on new schools in all our parishes. If that step were taken they would have the children properly housed.
    MR. LUTTRELLsaid that after the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education he would not put the Committee to the trouble of going to a division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Amendment standing in his name was intended to raise the question as to an assurance that some provision should be made for the religious instruction of children during school hours and, as far as possible, in accordance with the wishes of the parents. He thought that any one who had read the Bill must be struck with the meagreness of the provision made for all classes of religious teaching except that under Clause 4 and the particular kind of religion known as Cowper-Temple teaching. He wanted to be sure that a school should not be recognised unless, either by the by-laws of the local authority or in compliance with provisions of the Code, provision was made for religious instruction of some sort, or if possible of a variety of sorts. If the Amendment was carried the Board of Education would not approve of by-laws which did not make the provision required, or would insert requirements in the Code. He desired that one way or the other
    164
    the meagre provisions made should be supplemented by something of the sort embodied in the Amendment. The provisions for religious teaching other than Cowper-Temple teaching depended entirely, apart from Clause 4, on the arrangements made by the local authority with the managers. The managers did not contract with the local authority on equal terms. It was only in certain schools, in the transferred voluntary schools, and at certain times and under certain very distinct conditions, that special religious teaching was admitted at all. He asked that in all cases this should be admissible, and, beyond that, that in all cases the wishes of the parents, so far as was possible and reasonable, should be considered. Further, he asked that this religious instruction should be assured in the hours of compulsory attendance, in order that that close connection or pracctial identity of religion with education which he thought the Government, as interpreted by the Parliamentary Secretary the other night, certainly by all on his side of the House, and, as he believed, by the great majority in the country, had at heart might be secured. If religion and education were to be brought together as part of one general scheme then the scope of religious teaching should be enlarged. They were told that that was practically impossible, but he doubted whether that was so. They had had from the hon. Member for East Mayo an account of the system in New South Wales, by which there was a general admission of all forms of religious instruction in the schools without any inconvenience. The President of the Board of Education had I given an extreme instance of a rural school in which there were a certain number of Church of England children, of Baptists, of Wesleyans, of Roman Catholics, and some whose parents did not want religious instruction at all, and had pointed out the difficulties that might arise if all these children wanted their religious teaching at the same time and in the same place. Of course, it was always possible to reduce these things to an absurdity. The difficulties were not so great as the right hon. Gentleman supposed. Some of the children might perfectly well get their religious instruction during

    165
    school hours outside the school under new by-laws, if parents specially requested that their children should be allowed to be absent from school for religious instruction to be given elsewhere. From personal knowledge he knew of a country school in a single school area with an average attendance of 80 to 100, among whom were ten or twelve Roman Catholics. But these latter, during the religious teaching, went to their priest at the commencement of the school day and came to school in time for secular instruction. He believed that sort of arrangement would be made in many cases. These arrangements were matters of convenience. They had to meet the difficulty of different denominations wanting different sorts of religious teaching; but the right hon. Gentleman had given up in despair the attempt to accommodate himself to the various needs, and said they must all have one thing—Cowper-Temple teaching, or nothing at all. That was a counsel of despair. It was only in a limited number of single school areas that the difficulty arose in a serious form. In these cases the difficulty might be met; and if it was not met by the method he suggested of endeavouring to accommodate, as far as possible, the teaching to the requirements of the parents, it certainly would not be met by the scheme of the Government, which reduced everybody to one common level and offered only one sort of teaching, which was distasteful to many and even repugnant to some.
    And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.
    But the said Private Business having been deferred till to-morrow, the proceedings on the Education (England and Wales) Bill were resumed.
    [Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.]
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON,continuing Ms speech, submitted that the wishes of the parents in the matter of religious instruction should be consulted. The
    166
    Act of 1902 made some effort to meet the wishes of the parent, and he thought that those efforts might be carried further, and that in all cases and in all schools the parents' wishes should be respected. He denied that the parents were indifferent. On the contrary, they cared a great deal about it, and desired in nearly all cases that religious instruction should be provided of one sort or another, whether undenominational or denominational, and, if the latter, then they desired that it should be of a particular character. Now in the Bill there was no security, for the Government were not prepared to insist that the local authority should furnish any security that any religious teaching should be given. They had neither security nor freedom, for the Government denied them the power of introducing the sort of religious teaching which the parent might want. Therefore it was he proposed the present Amendment, which would give to the parent throughout the country not only security that some religious instruction should be given, but the freedom of asking and obtaining the sort of religious teaching which they believed was essential to their children's welfare in this world and the next.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 10, at the end, to add the words 'and unless provision is made by by law or otherwise for the religious instruction during school hours of the children attending the school in accordance, so far as possible, with the wishes of their parents, whether such instruction be or be not permitted under Section 14 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'" —(Sir William Anson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, in moving his Amendment, alluded to some remarks which his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education had let fall at an earlier period in the afternoon. That showed the difficulty of saying anything new upon this subject, as they had gone over the same ground half a dozen times. In the very next sentence the hon. Gentleman alluded to a reply which his right hon. friend had already given on the subject of the present Amendment. The idea of consulting the parents

    167
    was very attractive, but it was also very difficult to give effect to. There were no means of taking the opinion of the parents in a regular and organised way, and it was no part of our present electoral system. So far from being meagre, he contended that the Bill was full of provision for religious instruction. In the first place, it provided for the system known as Cowper-Temple instruction. That system was going on in 9,000 of the largest schools in the country, and was being taught to 3,000,000 of children, or more than half of the children attending the elementary schools of the country. The system was giving the greatest satisfaction. No complaint was ever made in regard to it. The more the syllabuses were discussed the more they could understand the great satisfaction with, which the system was viewed in all parts of the country. What would the Amendment do? It would open up the religious difficulty in all the 9,000 schools in which no religious difficulty existed at present. Why not let well alone? Why disturb the condition of things in those 9,000 schools in which a majority of the children were being taught? He thought that to do so would rather increase their difficulty. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to a compulsory by-law for which he himself was partly responsible, which allowed children to be withdrawn from the schools, whose parents desired to give them special religious instruction. He did not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he thought that he quoted it as an example of the system which he desired to set up by his Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did not do that, but he alluded to the by-law as one way out of the difficulty suggested by the President of the Board of Education, when he took the case of a school, in which there were children belonging to four or five denominations, each one of whom might want to be instructed in religion in the same room at the same time. He said that the by-law had given to them the means by which they might get their instruction elsewhere.
    MR. LOUGHsaid it seemed to him rather striking that that illustration
    168
    should be drawn. In the case put before the Committee it was suggested that in a school there might be twelve or fourteen Roman Catholic children and those children could get at another place the religious instruction they desired to have. That regulation already existed. The more they considered the difficulty of carrying out proposals of this kind the more they were satisfied that they would be utterly impracticable and would cause a great breach in the educational system at present proposed. What were the facilities given under the Bill? He had already alluded to the 9,000 schools which contained more than half the children in which that religious instruction was given to compete satisfaction. Then there were the facilities given under Clause 3, by which religious instruction of a special character could be given on two days a week in the transferred schools, and then there were the facilities given under Clause 4 to minorities which desired them. He thought any hon. Gentleman with an independent mind upon this matter would see from those provisions that the Government had approached this difficult question in a spirit of the greatest conciliation, and that an attempt had been made to arrive at a uniform system which would meet the requirements of different localities.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid it was admitted by many that the syllabuses mentioned by the hon. Gentleman could be used, and so far as they were known, many of them were, for the most part, admired. What he desired to know was how far they were carried out and how far, for example, the syllabuses adopted by the authority were not practically abolished by the same authority after the next election and so allowed to fall into desuetude and to become no longer a living factor in the religious instruction in the schools. Another question he desired to put was this. A Return had been prepared in another place at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. When the Return proposed by him was first moved for, there was a question in which the authority was asked how far the syllabuses were carried out. That portion of the Return applied for by the right rev. Prelate was not conceded, and that which he (Sir F. Powell) and

    169
    many of his friends believed to be the most important part of the case remained in its original and primeval obscurity. It would be a matter of considerable satisfaction to the Committee to learn that these syllabuses were carried out. He thought an Amendment on the lines now suggested was really desirable in order to secure religious instruction during school hours. The best that could be said of the Bill at present was that it did not altogether forbid religious instruction, and he greatly desired that it should be supported by more emphatic sanction. His right hon. friend the late Secretary to the Board of Education had introduced a new by-law. He had done so with some hesitation and with some misgiving, and had said that that by-law would be most carefully watched in its operation, and he had rather indicated that if it did not work as he intended it should, in favour of religious education in accordance with liberty, he was determined that it should be withdrawn. The object of his hon. friend was to secure that during school hours there should be some religious instruction, and that was the purport of his present Amendment. With that view he most heartily agreed. He was sure that the argument of his hon. friend was one of very great force and he hoped it would sooner or later have the approbation of Parliament. The Amendment introduced the parents. If it were wise for the Government to introduce the parents in Clause 4 it could not be an error to introduce them in this clause. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education that they should not look too much to foreign countries. That was a very wise observation. But still they sometimes learnt from what was going on abroad. At the present time a most important statute was passing through the Parliament of Prussia upon this very subject, and if the report in The Times was at all correct it would be found that even in that somewhat autocratic country some attention was sometimes paid to parents. This Amendment enshrined some most important principles, which he hoped in some form or other would be adopted in our legislation.
    MR. EVELYN CECILsaid the Amendment embodied his own remedy. He fought in 1897 a London school board election on a similar question. He believed this was the most practical remedy that could be proposed for the religious difficulty. It was put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Oxford University as a constructive policy. It was met very airily by the Secretary to the Board of Education, who brushed it aside as perfectly impracticable and quite out of the question. The hon. Gentleman in his speech certainly did not bring any real argument to shew why it was impracticable and impossible. Its merits, among others, were that it embraced all schools, treated everybody equally fairly, and gave freedom of religious teaching to all denominations. He was unable to see why they should not in the first place ask the parents whether they desired both undenominational and denominational teaching for their children; in the second, whether they preferred denominational teaching only; in the third, whether they preferred undenominational teaching only; and in the fourth whether they would rather have no religious teaching at all. It enabled parents to have all those alternatives. What would actually occur in practice would probably be that there would be special teaching for Roman Catholic children, special teaching for a good many Anglican children, probably undenominational teaching for a number of other children all classed together, because the Nonconformists would all accept the Cowper-Temple Clause, and in the last place there would be a certain number of children withdrawn altogether because their parents preferred them to have secular instruction instead. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had ever studied the industrial schools of the country. If he had not and if he would look at the Act of 1866, he would see that the system now advocated was practically the same as that at present in use in the industrial schools. He had never heard that there was any difficulty in carrying it out there. It had worked very well for the last forty years, and he could not see why it should not continue to work satisfactorily. He would like

    171
    to examine, too, more fully, what went on in our military and naval schools. He was given to understand that there also in the case of Roman Catholic children the priests came in specially to give religious teaching and the system worked without difficulty. If they turned away from home, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had just pointed out, in Prussia the same system also obtained under the Prussian law—
    "Special provision for religious instruction must be made if there is a minority of at least twelve pupils. The expense falls primarily on the commune, but in cases of necessity State aid is given."
    He had never heard, and he had tried to make inquiry, that the system worked badly in Prussia. Again he found in the law of Belgium—
    "The religious instruction given is that of the denomination to which the majority of the pupils belong. If the number of the minority reaches twenty in schools with one master, or forty in schools with two or more masters, religious instruction will be given at the school; if the numbers fall below these limits, the religious instruction cannot be given at the school, but the children must have every opportunity of receiving instruction in a place chosen by their minister."
    He failed, therefore, to understand why the Government should airily brush aside this suggestion, found so practicable abroad, as absolutely impracticable here. New South Wales had been mentioned. The New South Wales Act was more specific than the cases to which he referred. Section 7 of the New South Wales Public Instruction Act, 1880, said—
    "In all schools under this Act the teaching shall be strictly nonsectarian, but the words 'secular instruction' shall be held to include general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatical or polemical theology."
    Section 17 stated—
    "In every public school four hours during each school day shall be devoted to secular instruction exclusively,"
    which by Section 7 includes general religious teaching—
    "And a portion of each day, not more than one hour, shall be set apart when the children of any one religious persuasion may be instructed by the clergyman or other religious teacher of each persuasion, but in all cases the pupils receiving such religious instruction shall be separated from the other pupils of the schools."
    There, again, was a remedy in actual practice. It was perfectly clear that in
    172
    New South Wales the children could have secular instruction, which included general religious teaching, and those parents who desired something more special for their children were able to have at the hands of the minister or other teacher of their particular persuasion the special religious teaching which they wished. If the Government were to accept his hon. friend's Amendment they would not be making a new experiment at all, because it had been tried in England in industrial schools and to some extent in the Army and Navy schools, and on the Continent and in our Colonies. He wished the Government would not set themselves so deliberately against this proposal. They had before their eyes cases where it had succeeded, and if they would only give it a trial they would at any rate be able to see if it could not succeed in the present instance. For the moment he would not plead for more than that. If it were a miserable failure, a different law could be enacted. But he believed the chances were that if those who were chiefly concerned with the management and discipline of the schools set themselves to establish a system of this character, in nearly every locality it would work. It would be found that in some localities the Anglicans would require special religious teaching, but some would not, and the Roman Catholics would require special religious teaching; whereas very likely the Wesleyans, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, and the Baptists would all agree upon the Cowper-Temple teaching, but if these denominations desired more specific teaching they would all agree upon the same teacher or minister to give it. He did not speak merely from hypothesis. This arrangement really went on in Western Australia. There these four different denominations agreed upon the same delegate to enter the school and teach the special teaching that was required, and the system worked perfectly well in that Colony. He thought all these definite instances were sufficient to show that there was a good case for the constructive remedy which the Opposition were now putting forward, and he entreated the Government to consider his hon. friend's Amendment most carefully and without summarily prejudging the issue.
    MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he was struck with two arguments put put forward by the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Board of Education. The first was as to the impracticability of ascertaining the wishes of the parents in regard to the religious instruction of their children. He thought the hon. Gentleman did the Government a wrong in attributing to them such sterile mindedness and such impotence. He thought he could suggest to the hon. Gentleman a way of ascertaining the wishes of the parents right away. The way was simple: it was to ask them. He thought that in the course of three days he could himself ascertain the wishes of every parent in any school in the country by sending a circular round. The other point he was struck with in the hon. Gentleman's speech was when he spoke of the great satisfaction with which the Cowper-Temple clause and its working was regarded throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman would have been more correct if he had said that from half, or somewhat less than half, the country, some very noisy complaints had arisen, and he might have added that from the other half, or somewhat more than half, no complaints whatever had arisen, or, at any rate, they had not come to his ears. He was very glad that this Amendment had been introduced thus early in the first clause. If it could be accepted it would very much alter his attitude to the Bill. It would altogether mitigate his opposition to it. It would do so because it saved religious education. He thought the fact that the Government had introduced Clause 6 showed that their heart was with the secularists. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper which he liked better than that of his hon. friend, but he supported his hon. friend's Amendment with all his heart. It was very admirable so far as it went. There was in it a plea for freedom for parents, for teachers, and for denominations. It was very much needed to remove a great blot, a great injustice, a great scandal from the pages of the Bill. It would also help to clear the consciences of many Dissenters who—as he knew from conversations with them—were very much perplexed and deeply troubled. There must be religious teaching, and
    174
    they had got to unite religious teaching or reconcile universal religious teaching with universal religious equality and religious freedom. That, he took it, was the problem. They could not get this along the lines of the Bill. They could not get it by giving a paramount position to any one religion. They could not get it by securing to the Roman Catholics or the Jews all their schools, and by abolishing 80 per cent, of the Church of England schools. They could only get it by treating all alike. The Amendment recognised the denominational structure of English society. It recognised the religious divisions of the community. It recognised, as a Roman Catholic might say, that they were living a in condition of conscientious schism. It founded itself on the right of the parent which this Bill, except in Clause 4, almost completely ignored. He was sorry to hear hints that poor parents did not care much for religious teaching or about its kind or quality. His own experience, which was a practical one extending over thirty years, was that they cared every bit as much about it as the rich and the well-informed. One reason why he liked this Amendment so much was that by respecting the wishes of the parents it would inevitably tend to aggregate the children of the same persuasion in the same school, so that in it there should be one faith, one atmosphere, one teacher, and that was the ideal school. He earnestly desired an end to these religious squabbles, and there would be an approach to that end if in educational matters the religious opinions of parents were consulted. It was on this ground that he asked for support of the Amendment.
    MR. CARLILEsaid that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education stated that Cowper-Temple instruction was now practically universally given, and was giving universal satisfaction. He wished to point out that under seventy-one school boards in three counties he found there were six in which Bible teaching was given, in thirteen the Bible was read with a few comments, in thirty the Bible was read without any note or comment, and in twenty-two the Bible was not even read at all

    175
    Under none of those seventy school boards was a single test of religious knowledge instituted.
    MR. BIRRELL: What are the names of the counties?
    MR. CARLILE: Anglesey, Carnarvonshire, and Merionethshire.
    DR. MACNAMARA: What is the date?
    MR. CARLILEreplied that the date was 1895. In those three counties there were 126 schools, and ten of them had Bible teaching, twenty-six Bible reading with a few comments, sixty gave Bible reading without any note or comment, and in thirty schools no Bible was admitted. And so it would be seen that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, when he stated that Cowper-Temple instruction was universally taught, failed to convey the actual facts of the case. He supported the Amendment because it embodied those four principles which they had constantly advocated, and should continue to struggle for until they had secured them in perpetuity for their children. Under a number of school boards no religious instruction was given, and they were thus placing in the minds of the children a power and a weapon which it was very wrong to place within their control without giving them the power of guiding and using that power, which alone could prevent them becoming a source of danger to themselves and the community in which they lived. They claimed that religious instruction should be given, and that any education worthy of the name must appeal to the three-fold nature of the child. There was the physical, the mental, and the spiritual nature of the child, and any education which failed to appeal alike to all those spheres was deficient. Any education which did not appeal to the highest principles in the child lacked the qualification that education ought to have. He utterly failed to see how, by the moral instruction to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had referred, he was going to bring about the state of things which he had described.
    176
    A certain book of "Moral Maxims" was one of the books used as a substitute for religious instruction out of the Bible in one of our large boroughs. The hon. Member for North Camber well knew the book, because he had been an assistant master under a board where this book was used, and where it was still used. No religious instruction was given in that borough. When this book of moral maxims was handed to the teacher, three lines of a note which the author had inserted on the first page were ruled out. The lines crossed out were—
    "In using this manual, teachers are recommended as far as possible to enforce and illustrate the lessons by suitable references to Holy Scripture."
    When that volume of moral maxims was handed to the teacher, the one instruction of any value was lined through in ink, and the teachers were not allowed to illustrate in any sense any of the moral maxims in the book by a reference to Holy Scripture, and there were 8,000 children in the schools in that borough. The book opened with a chapter upon honesty, and contained the statement that "Honesty was the best policy." So it is, but the man who acts only on that principle is a rogue. That was the kind of teaching which was used in some council schools as a substitute for Divine truth. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what power there was behind those so-called moral maxims to enable the child to carry them out? Behind the Holy Scripture there was the power of the Holy Spirit of God to enable the child to carry out in its daily life the principles taught it in the school, but what power of this kind was there behind these moral maxims? This Amendment also laid down that the religious instruction should be given during school hours, and they considered that was an essential thing in the 14,000 voluntary schools in this country. They did not like religious instruction divorced from secular instruction. They desired the children not only to receive religious instruction but to be religiously instructed right through school hours; they wanted them to associate this teaching with the same mistress or master who imparted.

    177
    both their religious and secular instruction. They wanted a religious atmosphere surrounding the children, and he did not see how that was possible if religious instruction was to be divorced from secular instruction. To do that would be placing religion in an inferior position in the child's mind. The President of the Board of Trade had told them—
    "He wanted the councils to take the school time-table into their own hands. Do not let the managers draft it, but let the council themselves so draft it as to permit a short interval to elapse before the school proceeded to the religious instruction. Let all the children go out for a few minutes. Then let those who prefer Catechism to play return for the religious instruction, while their fellows would be free to continue their play. He contended that the children should be given perfect freedom, subject to their parents' consent, to choose which they preferred, learning the Apostles' Creed and the parsons' Catechism or their own play. He had no doubt that the children would have such regard for apostolic succession as would draw them back to the school while the wicked went their way bird-nesting."
    That gave them a good idea of what the President of the Board of Trade had in his mind in regard to this question, and it also gave them a good idea of what it was hoped might be brought about by some members of His Majesty's present advisers. So far as he was concerned he would not trust a man like that with the religious instruction of children. He would not trust him with the moral instruction of children or even with the moral training of a litter of puppies, for they would bite and snarl, and steal. For those reasons he disapproved of religious instruction being divorced from secular instruction. Churchmen asked for definite religious instruction, and Nonconformists seemed to be incapable of understanding them on that subject. He was sure, however, they were genuinely willing to try to understand them. No syllabus could, in their view, take the place of definite Church teaching in the schools. They felt that no Nonconformist teaching should take the place of it. The Nonconformists seemed to recognise the fact that they themselves were entitled to have strong conscientious feeling against the teaching which Churchmen desired, but they failed to recognise the fact that Churchmen had equally strong conscientious objection to having their children insufficiently
    178
    taught the Divine truths which appertained to their eternal welfare. They believed the welfare of the children was bound up in the kind of teaching they got in these schools and the atmosphere in which that teaching was given.
    *DR. MACNAMARAsaid he concurred entirely in the statement of the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division, that the Ministerialists had the greatest difficulty in meeting him because they did not understand his mind. He had listened to the hon. Gentleman's views with extreme interest, but with an entire lack of understanding, What was he to understand by the hon. Member's statement that he would not trust the President of the Board of Trade with the moral training of a litter of puppies? Was he to take that literally or not?
    MR. CARLILErose and was understood to say that he regretted that he could not remain in the House to listen to the hon. Member as he had had no food.
    *DR. MACNAMARAsaid he thought it possible that they might manage, even in the absence of the hon. Gentleman who had just gone out, to discuss the important Amendment proposed by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. The Amendment said that no school should be recognised as a public elementary school
    "unless provision is made by bye-law or other wise for the religious instruction during school hours of the children attending the school in accordance, so far as possible, with the wishes of their parents, whether such instruction be or be not permitted under Section 14 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870."
    The Amendment raised a very vital problem, and he wished to point out to the Committee at once that, if accepted, it would destroy Clause 6 of the Bill. The Amendment provided for the paying of public money for compelling children to go to school and to receive religious instruction, while Clause 6 provided that attendance during the time for religious instruction was not to be required. When the Committtee came to Clause 6 they would have to consider seriously the question whether they should or should not compel children

    179
    to be in attendance at religious instruction. He had an open mind in regard to the policy laid down in Clause 6. There was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question. It did seem a little illiberal to compel a parent to send his child to school at a time when religious instruction was being given of a kind which he did not wish the child to receive. The hon. Gentleman who had just gone out had talked of school boards not giving religious instruction at all. They were an infinitesimally small number and confined to one part of the country where peculiar local difficulties, and the intolerance of the church, had as much to do with the decision as anything else. This Bill carried them no further than the Cowper-temple system itself. The Cowper-Temple system left it to the school board to say that there should or should not be religious instruction given in the schools. When he heard of this being out of touch with the feelings of the people, he asked why did the electors in the infinitesimally small number of places where religious instruction was not given in the schools not insist on religious instruction being restored to the school curriculum? The hon. Member for St. Albans Division had referred to a book of morals which was used in the schools of Huddersfield. He himself was an assistant teacher in that borough; in 1882–1883, but the book of morals referred to was not in use there then, and he never had anything to do with it.
    LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.): This book was published in 1884.
    *DR. MACNAMARAsaid the more serious part of the Amendment was that it provided that, in all the schools, not only should the children come under compulsion, but that, so far as possible, there should be religious teaching given in accordance with the wishes of the parents. That was State provision of denominational teaching all round. That was the proposal of Clause 27 of the Bill of 1896 and the phraseology of the Amendment was to the same effect as that of that clause. The proposal was considered impracticable in 1896, and he considered it absolutely
    180
    impracticable now. It was pan-denominationalism, which he had ventured to call pandemonium. He recognised it was perfectly just, fair, and logical that, if they were to do anything at all, they should endeavour to make provision all round for all denominations. What would happen in such a case? The local authority would have to make provision in the appointment of its teachers for the exigencies of religious teaching, and the conduct of the schools in secular subjects would have to be subordinate to the necessities of the case in this respect. Such a proposal was absurd. In a school of 120 children instanced by the President of the Board of Education there would he a head teacher and two assistants. Seventy Church children would demand the services of two teachers, and there would be only one teacher to teach the remainder of the children, of whom thirty might be Methodists, ten Baptists, five Roman Catholics, and five not associated with any particular church. He was not prepared to incur the enormous expense of appointing a teacher specially to meet the needs of the five Roman Catholic children; and yet, under a system of pandenominationalism the needs of five Roman Catholic children would be just as important as the needs of seventy Church children. In the Bill of 1902 there was a similar provision for pan-denominationalism, but there was also a proviso that "due regard should be had to the economy of the rates." This was a grotesque and impracticable proposal, and he should vote against it.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman with some disappointment. The hon. Gentleman had talked about the practical difficulties of carrying on a school under certain conditions, but he had simply dismissed an Amendment containing an important principle by merely saying the proposal was absurd. He appealed to the Committee that they could not proceed for Clause 1 as it stood now until they had considered it in a very different spirit from the claims put forward by the hon. Gentleman. He did not think the hon. Member could have read the Amendment.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I have, with great care.
    Mr. WYNDHAMsaid that the hon. Gentleman found fault with the Amendment because it provided that all the children should attend religious instruction.
    DR. MACNAMARA: No; to attend school during religious instruction.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes; but the hon. Gentleman said that the time to consider this matter was on Clause 6. But that clause was solely connected with the parent's right to cause his child to attend at the school house only during secular instruction. Taking the matter as it now stood, the hon. Member held that the children should attend for religious instruction if the parents so desired it specifically, but if otherwise they should not. He compared that with the speech of the right hon. the Minister for Education who proposed with great earnestness that religious instruction should be given everywhere; that it should embrace all the fundamental truths of Christianity. But could that be carried out if the matter was left where the hon. Member for North Camberwell left it? As the question was left by the hon. Member the children need not attend, and the teacher need not give instruction. That carried with it the result that such religious instruction as would be given under the Bill was to be given at the cost of the teacher. That was not a generous recognition of the desire of the Minister for Education that religious instruction should be given everywhere, and that it should embrace the fundamental truths of Christianity. But if the Committee were in earnest in desiring that religious education should be given to the children, they could not leave the matter as it now stood. If numbers in the lobby meant anything, the Committee desired that the children should get religious instruction in the schools. It should not be left to chance, it should not be given at the cost of the teacher, it should not be in the power of parents who wanted the help of their children in their home life to deprive them of religious instruction. This Amendment provided that during the hours in which
    182
    the children were attending school, religious instruction should be given, and in so far as it was possible the religious instruction should be that which the parents desired. That was a claim upon which they would have to insist. Given that religious instruction was required, and that it was desirable also to violate no man's conscience, it was for the Government, and not the Opposition, to devise a plan that would fulfill those two conditions. They declared that the Bill in its present shape did nothing of the kind. The Government were ready to face the situation that arose where four-fifths of the parents of the children desired some kind of denominational teaching; in such a case they were to have it, and to have it taught by teachers who believed in it. But if the Government were ready to concede that, how could they adduce the argument as to the practical difficulty against this Amendment, which embodied a proposal of a far less drastic character? The argument the Government now advanced would militate agains their own proposals in Clause 4. By that clause the Government had recognised that there must be some, even a great, concession to the wishes of parents. But they also recognised that if that concession was made there were other minorities who might sometimes suffer. It was not a sufficient argument to say that the practical difficulty was not capable of solution. Why should not some regard be paid to the conscientious convictions of parents who lived in a locality where opinion was divided equally? The Minister for Education that afternoon, in referring to Clause 4, felt; this difficulty of leaving Clause 1 as it stood; but he said that to leave it apart from the other provisions of the Bill would lay the Government open to the charge of intolerance. Then why did they not have some regard for the deep convictions of the parents who did not live in a locality where there were four-fifths of the same denomination? The hardship was alt the same. If it was intolerant in one case it was intolerant in the other. There was no answer to that. The Minister for Education had said that he sought an English settlement. That phrase would not be forgotten. If there

    183
    was to be an English settlement, was it extravagant for Churchmen to claim that the historic Church of England should have fair play with other denominations? In the main the Government were bargaining with that Church—if the word "bargain" could be used in this connection—which had done more for secular as well as religious education than other bodies, and which had built more schools. The fabrics were there, they represented sacrifices and sincerity of purpose. Ought not the State to see that that Church received fair play? If they did not, it would not be an English settlement, and such was the inherent love of justice in the country that their efforts would fail. Complaint was made by many supporters of the Government that under the Act of 1902 hardship and injustice still remained in the village schools in the single school areas. But that Act was supported as zealously by the hon. Member for North Camberwell as it was by any hon. Member who supported the Government of the day. Would that hon. Member deny that he had stated that the children in Church schools ought not to have worse paid teachers than other schools and worse equipment because they were in Church schools.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid that what he had stated in regard to the Bill of 1902 was that it was a great reform to get rid of the idea of charity and to keep up the voluntary schools out of public funds, but he had said that such a measure should be accompanied by full popular control.
    MR. WYNDHAMobserved that the hon. Member had stated that these schools should not be bad schools, that the children should have the same cubic feet of accommodation and that the teachers should be as well paid as in other schools. Did the hon. Member say that because these schools had to be made good schools therefore the right of the Churchman to have fair play from the State lapsed? Such, a contention was a complete non sequitur and admitting the hon. Member's idea to the full that every school should be a good school, and conducted in the way in which good schools were, to make them good schools would not affect the claim to justice put forward
    184
    by any other persons in this country who came and said they were suffering hardship and injustice in the village schools in the single school areas. He was quite willing that injustice should be cured, but it should be cured without inflicting hardship upon others. There was no reason why greater hardship and injustice should be inflicted on a larger number of persons. Such a state of things was intolerable, but this was the settlement that the Government were putting forward in this measure. He believed that the Government would be driven eventually to make a fair compromise as between all denominations and to set up a denominational system that would do justice to the desires of all denominations. There was no escape from such a remedy. The objection of Churchmen to the Free Church Catechism was far less than their objection to the editing of the Bible. On what principles were Biblical passages to be selected? In the syllabuses mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury the other evening the Gospel of St. Matthew was quoted. Why not the Gospel of St. Luke? Why should a selection of the Scriptures be made at all, and if they had to be made, why should not the work be undertaken by the Church to which the parents of the children belonged? This after all was surely an affair of the parents and not of the county council. He quoted from a speech of the Education Minister made before, the general election in which the right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of making Cowper-Temple instruction a reality, and that wherever possible the parents should be given the right to have definite religious instruction of a special character if they so desired it. The passing of the first clause would entail the making of some general provision to meet the claims of justice, and then the provision must be made mandatory throughout the country. The Minister for Education had also written, among his other works, a book on trusts, and he hoped that every trustee would read it, for therein it was declared that a trustee as a man of honour could not surrender his school until the Government propounded some fair basis of general compromise throughout of the country.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he desired to speak upon this Amendment because for the first time the question had arisen as to whether a solution of the religious difficulty was to be arrived at on the lines of the Bill or upon the lines that the parents should settle what religious instruction their children were to have. The lines of the Bill were what was called the Cowper-Temple Clause, and he had not yet heard from any part of the Committee any kind of defence of the Cowper-Temple Clause. The nearest approach to a defence to it was reached by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who said he defended it on the ground that it was wholly illogical.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I said it could be defended on the ground that it had thirty-five years success behind it.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he was coming to that in a moment. The hon. Member said it could not be defended on any logical ground. It was a most remarkable state of things when the Committee was asked to confirm a solution come to in 1870 because it was illogical. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had referred to the success of the last thirty-five years. What did the success consist of? Were we more religious to-day than we were thirty-five years ago? He wondered whether any hon. Member opposite had read Mr. Booth's hook on religious work in London. Did he sanction the view at all that the churches had a greater hold, or that religion had a greater hold on the population of the Metropolis to-day than it had thirty-five years ago? They had the evidence of the hon. Member for Leicester, who told them that the religious instruction given under the Cowper-Temple Clause was in his opinion from a spiritual point of view absolutely useless. When they had it quoted as a success for thirty-five years they were entitled to inquire what was the evidence of that success. So far as he was concerned he had not heard in the course of this debate any evidence whatever of it. It was one of those phrases which by continuous repetition had come to be regarded as proof. If they left that aspect alone,
    186
    they were next told that any one who objected to undenominationalism was opposed to the simple teaching of the Bible. Several gentlemen who had addressed the Committee had had the courage to suggest that the Church of England was opposed to the simple teaching of the Bible. He regarded it as in the highest degree—the phrase was that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—in the highest degree arrogant for anybody to state that any Christian denomination did not value the teaching of the Bible. He was quite sure that none of the hon. Members representing Ireland would suggest that their Church undervalued the simple teachings of the Bible. Such an assertion could only be excused by the extreme ignorance of those who made it. If any Church valued the teachings of the Bible that Church was the Church of England. The teaching of the Bible was laid down in its formulae and in the Prayer Book, and it formed the basis of its faith. If it could not be proud of anything else, the English Church could pride itself on the fact that it was based and based only on the teachings of the Bible. What they said was that undenominationalism could not teach the Bible in its fulness. It was a great claim and was put forward at the time of the Reformation that the Bible was not taught in its fulness. If it was to be taught in its fulness it must be so, taught denominationally. Hon. Members opposite had really not considered it. He was reluctant to quote passages from the Bible in this Committee, but he would ask how was it possible to teach the Epistle to the Romans, the general Epistle of St. James, the first chapter of St. John, or the Epistle to the Ephesians except denominationally? They all teemed with passages, the discussion of which had divided Europe. How was it possible to teach those great principles and dogmas of Christianity undenominationally without ignoring the discussions altogether? That was one form of denominationalism.
    MR. HAY MORGAN: We do not want to teach those passages.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he took up the hon. I Member's interruption.

    187
    That was the exact solution of the Bill— instead of teaching the Bible in its fulness, it proposed to teach selections from the Bible—selections made not by the great historic Churches, with the assistance of the Church councils and the divines, but by the county councils. Not the most audacious Gentleman opposite would dare to construct a schedule to this Bill setting out the passages of the Bible that might be read, and those that might not be read. Yet that duty was to be entrusted to the county councils. The great objection he had to undenominationalism, even at its best, was its vagueness.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Would the noble Lord tell the Committee to what denomination St. Paul belonged.
    LORD R. CECILsaid that St. Paul, at any rate, was not in favour of making any selections from the Bible. He was in favour of teaching the Bible as a whole. [An HON. MEMBER: How do you know?] Because St. Paul said so.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This question is hardly in order on this Amendment.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he was only trying to demonstrate that the alternative to the religion which was selected by parents was the religion selected by the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I meant the interjection about St. Paul.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he desired to leave the plane to which he was led unwillingly by the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to return to the seriousness with which this discussion ought to be carried on. He was about to urge that the great objection he had to undenominationalism, even at its best, was its vagueness. Assuming that undenominationalism meant—and there was no guarantee whatever that it did—the teaching of what was called fundamental Christianity, there remained the great difficulty that even amongst those who were best instructed there were various conceptions of what fundamental
    188
    Christianity really was. From the Treasury Bench and the one behind it had come three separate descriptions, each one of which was of a religion which would have been quite acceptable to a Mohammedan and was emphatically not Christianity. If the Minister for Education and his colleagues gave descriptions of fundamental Christianity which many Members of the Committee could not possibly accept, how could they expect that the fundamental Christianity arrived at by the county councils of the country without any guidance from Parliament or anybody else would be in any way adequate to the description it pretended to bear? If it were true, as he ventured to say it was, that undenominationalism, even at its best, was highly unsatisfactory, what were the alternatives? Supporters of the Government sometimes said, "If you reject this proposal your only alternative is the secular basis." He doubted whether they would hear so much about that after the division this evening; but so far as he was concerned he desired in all seriousness to press upon: those hon. Members who were members of Nonconformist bodies that the secular system would be a serious blow to Christianity, and most serious to the Nonconformist communities. It would mean that, while the rich, vigorous, well-organised bodies would have an opportunity of teaching their children their respective beliefs, the poorer, less numerous, and less organised bodies would be at a very serious disadvantage. The Church of England had probably less to fear than the smaller bodies from such a settlement. There was another, and the only possible alternative, and to his mind it was the only fair settlement—namely, to accept this Amendment' and bring up the children in the beliefs of the various denominations to which their parents belonged. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had suggested a number of practical difficulties. He himself had come across a variety of difficulties raised in every private Bill that came before a Committee upstairs. They were raised by Gentlemen who thoroughly understood the questions of which they spoke, but somehow or other Committees of this House did not always regard those difficulties, and

    189
    when the Bill became law they somehow or other disappeared. The difficulties of administration, the difficulties suggested by the school of 120 children, five of whom were of one denomination, five of another, and so on, looked all very pretty on paper, but when the Bill became law there would be very little difficulty at all in arriving at a practical solution. He had no doubt himself that a solution based on the lines of this Amendment would work well. He was very little moved in dealing with a subject of this kind by the question whether there might be a certain, amount of confusion in the school, for the real question at issue was of far more importance in his view. He agreed that there was nothing so troublesome to the ordinary man as the person who had religious convictions. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He regarded it as being of the utmost importance that children should be brought up in the religion of their parents. It was the duty of this Committee and the Government to find a way out of this difficulty and secure that supreme result. The scheme put forward by the Government was illogical and indefensible, and failed altogether in its object, and this clause was one which the Committee ought not to accept.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid he had not listened to the noble Lord without finding it very difficult to make out exactly what he meant. He could not entirely make out whether the noble Lord desired to teach the Protestant children of this country some kind of religious teaching to which he attached enormous importance or whether he was really desirous that they should receive in the public elementary schools of the country the kind of religious teaching their parents wanted. He wished every religious body would be careful to publish syllabuses giving an exact notion of what should be taught, so that parents might know precisely what doctrines would be taught to their children. His own belief was that the syllabus to which reference had been made, now in use in most of the counties, honestly interpreted the wishes of the great majority of the parents. In addi-
    190
    tion there was the third clause, which was intended to secure that the Church, Catechism, the Prayer-Book, and what were called Church principles, so far as they were generally understood, should be taught twice a week in all the old Church schools. He accordingly believed that very little difference would be made by this Bill in the kind of religious teaching that was given. The noble Lord had asked whether we were distinctly a more religious people now than we were thirty-six years ago. That was a question no one could answer. The forces of irreligion and the forces of materialism in all classes of society and all quarters of the globe were so strong that it was very hard to say what would have been the condition of things, had any other course been pursued. But of one thing he was certain, that according to the common testimony of parents and teachers alike, and even by the admission of prelates of the Church, the teaching which had been given in our board schools had had some influence and some effect. In the Church schools religious teaching was too often a lifeless and formal thing. The Member for Leicester had got into a little trouble for making some criticism on religious teaching in both board schools and voluntary schools. Everybody who knew anything about the matter knew that very often this teaching was very defective and lifeless. He had received a letter that morning from a clergyman, who enclosed a pamphlet lie had published in which he said that going into a Church school he found a Church teacher apostrophising a small urchin—
    "Stand out in the middle of the class, you good-for-nothing little ragamuffin, and tell me what Jesus says about peacemakers."
    That was not the way to teach the Beatitudes. To call attention to the fact that religious teaching' both in Church schools and Board schools might often be lifeless was a criticism of method and was different from saying that all religious teaching was lifeless.
    LORD R. CECILsaid his argument was directed to this. It was constantly said that board school teaching had been a great success. He asked on what evidence that assertion was based
    MR. BIRRELLsaid the only evidence that could be produced was the very general testimony of teachers themselves that great benefit had resulted from board school teaching, and that view had received the warrant of persons of greater authority than the noble Lord. It had been contended that it was the duty of the Government to surmount the practical difficulties in the way of a pan-denominational system. He did not know how they could be got over. The noble Lord had said this was a matter of such vital importance that the discipline of the school was to be totally disregarded. The £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 which this country devoted to giving secular instruction to our children was apparently so insignificant that it was not to be regarded as compared with the importance of giving definite and dogmatic teaching to little children between the ages of five and fourteen years. He did not think the Government could quite take that view. He thought they were entitled to say it was a very difficult matter to know how to arrange for all the denominations to come in between the hours of 9 and 9.45 and give instruction to the different classes of children attending a school. The example he had taken of 120 children was, he could assure the noble Lord, by no means imaginary. It was a very real example. He had spoken of seventy children belonging to the Church of England and thirty children belonging to the Primitive Methodists. He knew many schools in East Anglia where the proportions were the other way—seventy Primitive Methodists and thirty children belonging to the Church of England. It was not unusual in England to find a school with 120 scholars belonging to the Church of England, the Methodist and Baptist bodies, and the Roman Catholic Church, together with some whose parents would not wish them to receive any religious instruction at all. There was nothing strange or false about that: and it was quite in accordance with the experience of everybody who had made himself acquainted with the working of the schools. The practical difficulty, therefore, was an enormous one, and baffled, he believed, all possible attempts at solution. If we were to have the pan-denominational system he did
    192
    not think it would be right to have it under terms which would make it almost impossible for many denominations, such as the Methodists, to have anything like fair play in the matter. Under that system the present difficulty would be found to exist—namely, that parents would be unable to get the religious instruction they desired for their children, and they would perforce have to fall back on the dominant sect of the school. It was not fair for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had tried their hands at solving this problem and had failed, to say it was the duty of the Government to solve something which time and space, over which they had no control, prevented their solving. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had invited the trustees of 14,000 schools to buy a little book of his on "Trusts." It would be very desirable, perhaps, that they should. But he felt bound to warn them against it, because they would not find a single word in it dealing with public or educational trusts. It dealt with the duties of private trustees, marriage settlements and wills. There was the greatest possible difference between private trusts, wills, and settlements, and public trusts; One reason was that; public trusts had been torn in two by this House again and again. The Government were not tearing them one bit; more than they had been torn heretofore. This was an Amendment which they could not accept because it would be found impracticable. It could not be worked without completely breaking up the discipline of the schools, or without imposing upon a number of denominations something which would appear to give them equality and freedom, while as a matter of fact, they would find themselves totally unable to supply the teaching that would be of any use, and therefore they would have to fall back on the dominant sect of the school where their children were sent. For these reasons it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
    SIR E. CARSONsaid he thought the Committee should hesitate before it rejected an Amendment which was admitted to be logical, just, and fair. This Amendment was the Education Bill promised by the

    193
    Minister for Education at the general election. It left the Cowper-Temple clause untouched. The right hon. Gentleman told the country during the election that, while in all schools he would have Cowper-Temple teaching, he would attempt to provide that in all schools there should be denominational education so that people who wanted more than Cowper-Temple teaching should be able to enjoy the benefits of such instruction. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Why did he not find out that it was impracticable before he told the electors that was the Bill they were going to have?
    MR. BIRRELL: I never said that was the Bill they were going to have.
    SIR E. CARSONsaid he told them that was the Bill he was going to try to give them. He said—
    "Not only was he desirous that there should be Christian education, Bible education, in all the schools; he was also anxious that in all the schools there should be facilities given if they could be arranged on proper terms, whereby all denominations would have opportunities of instructing the children who attended these schools in what they believed to be their religion."
    Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment if the words "if they can be arranged" were inserted? If he would not, then he would have misled the country. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the Amendment; he had dealt with generalities as to impossibilities. They asked by this Amendment that provision should be made by by-law, or otherwise, at the expense of the State, or otherwise, whereby instruction was to be given in the schools. [Cries of "Or otherwise."] This was not a matter to be treated as a joke or to be got rid of by unmannerly interruptions. Since the debate began nobody had been able to point out any injustice in this Amendment. All they asked was perfect equality, and that was what they did not get from the Bill as it stood. Would anyone suggest that equality was given by the Bill? He noticed that there were no cheers from the Government side of the House. No, it was because it could not be contended by anyone that equality was given by the
    194
    Bill. How could there be equality when thousands and thousands said that they were satisfied with the system of the Bill, and other thousands and thousands declared that they were dissatisfied? If he might digress for a moment, he might say that the former had every right to be satisfied, because if the Bill was to give religious teaching at all, it was to give religious teaching with a view to capture the maximum number of votes. The Bill was on the straight road to the very Amendment which was negatived just before the dinner hour. And why? Because, in the first place, it was quite possible that local education bodies might not adopt any religious education in the schools at all. That had happen: at the present time; there were fifty seven places where religious teaching was not given. In the second place, the religion the Government had laid down to be taught was entirely unsatisfactory to millions of children in the schools. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Hon. Gentlemen said "no"; but surely the only way to test that was by what people said. In the third place—and he took it that this was the most serious part in relation to the children—it was proposed that the Opposition should be satisfied that such religion as the Government grudgingly gave, should be taught, by a person who did not believe in is.[MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Yes, because there was to be no test. He contended that any such system as that was the secularisation of religion; and he thought that the secularisation of religion was far worse than the secularisation of the schools. If the schools were secularised they might have still the teaching of religion outside; but the moment religion was secularised in the schools it would be a very great disadvantage in the future for the religious teaching of this country. Objection had been made to the Amendment that it was impracticable. Why should it be impracticable that each denomination should be allowed to go in and teach its own children? He believed that for a very long time in Ireland the two religions which divided the people in that country were taught in the same National schools, and he never knew that any difficulty had arisen from it. He could not but believe that what was practical in

    195
    Ireland was also practical in England. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had said there would be a difficulty about the teachers; but he maintained that there would be no such difficulty if the chance was given to denominationalists to obtain the teachers at the public expense. The truth of the matter was that the Government did not want to come to any compromise; that they would not listen to anything in the nature of equality. The Parliamentary; Secretary to the Board of Education had said that it was the intention of the Government to meet the views of the Roman Catholics and the Jews, but he held: that before this Bill became law it should be made applicable to all sects and denominations alike. There were only two possible ways. One was to allow no religion in the schools at all, or that all religions equally should be taught in the schools. That was the system which the right hon. the Minister for Education advocated during the general election, and that was the system which the right hon. Gentleman had abandoned, but to which the Opposition would attempt to hold him all through this controversy.
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to say a few words from his own point of view on this question. As he understood it, the Amendment proposed that after the Committee had rejected the idea of secular education, each denomination should have the right to give its own definite instruction in the schools. The Committee had done a very-remarkable thing that day in rejecting the logical solution of this difficulty from the non-sectarian point of view, a solution which had received a smaller number of votes than in 1870. The Government had taken up the attitude to the present Amendment that they could not assent to the principle that each denomination should have the right to give its own teaching. Though of course Catholics maintained the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals, in rejecting this Amendment a new and exceedingly startling doctrine had been brought forward by hon. Members and that was the infallibility of Birrell. The right hon. Gentleman had said he could not have the denominationalist religious solution of this difficulty. He said he must have
    196
    religion, but it must be on the cheap. He had to regard the whole question economically; he had to regard not religious education, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not provide each of the religious sects with their own religious teaching because modern English economics did not allow of it. He (Mr. Healy) had been endeavouring to ascertain the number of days on which the average Christian went to church on Sundays. He was not compelled to go, but during, say, twenty years of his life he would go on fifty out of fifty-two Sundays. That was 1,000 times that he went in order to learn the doctrines of his Church and religion. Under this Bill a scholar had to go to school 300 days in the year compulsorily, and if he did not go his father and not himself would be sent to gaol. Taking the average school period as four years, a child had to go 1,200 times to school to learn a religion in which he did not believe, whereas the ordinary Protestant citizen who was not under compulsion went 1,000 times. When they had rejected the secular solution they had no right to impose on people a form of religion which was not adopted by a single Nonconformist body or by the Roman Catholics or by the Church of England, but which was the solution of a number of gentlemen sitting in county councils who had neither training nor practical experience in this teaching. Surely the Government under these circumstances would be well advised to leave the various schools alone and provide for the various bodies the religion they desired to be taught.
    COLONEL WILLIAMSwished to say a few words upon the practicability of the proposals which had been put forward from the Opposition side of the Committee. His solution, if he might present it without transgressing the laws of order, would be that there should be compulsory Cowper-Temple teaching in every school in the kingdom alike, whether board school or voluntary school, but that it should be supplemented. He believed that this country was still a Christian country, and he was sure, that hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would. say with him that if we were a Christian country we ought

    197
    to have the courage of our convictions and in some form or another have Christianity taught to our children. They were told that they could not teach religion to little children, and that they could not teach dogma to them. His own feeling was that there was no religions teaching which was not dogma, although they could make their dogma as simple as they liked. He believed that there was no religious teaching which would not contain the germ of Christianity, and that they must commence by giving such teaching to the young. He believed that they could teach religious dogma to very little children indeed. It was objected that they ought, not to got the children into the school and then sort them out in separate pens, one in this pen and one in the other. But they were told that children must go to Sunday school. Was not that a sorting of them out into pens? Moreover, did not all parents take their children to church or chapel on Sunday, and did not that convey to the youthful mind the idea that there were different religions in the country in these days? Of course it did, and of course parents would take their children to their particular place of worship. But to return to the question of practicability his suggestion was that Cowper-Temple teaching should be given in every school in the kingdom, both board school and voluntary school alike, on three days a week, but that the parents of every denomination should have the right to have their children taught in the religion of their denomination on two days a week. Hon. Members talked, however, about the difficulty of sorting the children, but he did not see where that difficulty, arose for Nonconformists always said they did not want denominational teaching. As a matter of fact it was almost only the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics who would demand denominational teaching. If those two sects afforded an example to other sects it would be a great advantage, but at present it was only those two religions which demanded such teaching; that simplified the matter, because if the Nonconformists did not want denominational teaching they need not have it. He agreed with everything that had been
    198
    said on the other side as to the value of the Cowper-Temple teaching; it was very good teaching indeed. But it was not enough. Hon. Members opposite talked about a foundation, but what was the use of making half a foundation for a whole house. They could not forget that there were thousands of people in this country who said that Cowper-Temple, teaching was not sufficient and that they wanted something more. Hon. Members opposite said they should not have anything more. Of course they would be told that Clause 3 provider for that, and that Clause 6 gave them another chance, but where was that provided for and where was that chance given? In the voluntary schools only. What about the 1,500,000 children who were in the elementary schools of the country, the parents of many of whom would be thankful if they could get for their children denominational teaching on one or two days a week, but who could not get it. Both sides must admit making mistakes. Hon. Member? opposite must deeply feel the mistake? they made in 1870. He admitted also that mistakes were made in the Act of 1902, but were they going to perpetuate the mistakes in this Bill? Surely they should endeavour to rise to higher things on the stepping stones of their own dead selves. Could not hon. Members opposite say that in 1870 Cowper-Temple religion was established in the land to a certain extent, that in 1902 the Unionist Party had too much denominational teaching—could not the Committee now say, "Never mind Party advantage and Party triumph, what we want now is that there should be a solid foundation for Christian teaching, and that there should not be anyone in this country deprived of it?" It was said that clericalism was the enemy. Clericalism was not the enemy; the enemy was unbelief and carelessness. Were we not to see that our children had religion? They could have too little religious teaching, but not too much. Let them give that religious teaching as trained teachers could give it, and they could give it best. Let the trained teachers give what religious teaching they liked, and let them have the power to give the religious teaching which they liked to give. Let them by all means have a system

    199
    which should be alike for all—the Cowper-Temple system if they liked —but in all the schools let them have the power to teach the children the religion which their parents believed. Let not hon. Gentlemen opposite press their fingers upon the consciences of those who honestly and sincerely believed that denominational teaching was right for their children. He could tell the Committee of working men and working women who, when a petition was put before them to sign praying for religious teaching, said, "Give it me and I will take it round."They did that because
    they wanted their children taught some-sort of denominational religion. By giving undenominational religious teaching in every school in the kingdom to those who wanted it and by providing denominational facilities to every school in the kingdom to those who wanted that they would get justice and, as lie thought, truth.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 367 (Division List No. 101.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Du Cros, Harvey

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lundon, W.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO.

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H

    Fell, Arthur

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Ediuburgh,W

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    M'Kean, John

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Killop, W.

    Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

    Forster, Henry William

    Mason, James F. (Windsor).

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East

    Meagher, Michael

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Blake, Edward

    Ginnell, L.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Boland, John

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Haddock, George R.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Halpin, J.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Murnaghan, George

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

    Murphy, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harrison, Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nield, Herbert

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cave, George

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

    O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

    O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.)

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Hills, J. W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    O'Dowd, John

    Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond.

    Hunt, Rowland

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Coates, E. Feetham (Lewish'm

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N)

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

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    O'Malley, William

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W.

    O'Mara, James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keswick, William

    O Shaughnossy, P. J.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Percy, Earl

    Delany, William

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants.,Farehn

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Liddell, Henry

    Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. AR

    Reddy, M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Starkey, John R.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Sullivan, Donal

    Young, Samuel

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

    Younger, George

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Thornton, Percy M.

    TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Cairns, Thomas

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cameron, Robert

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford S.)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cawley, Frederick

    Gill, A. H.

    Alden, Percy

    Chance, Frederick William

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Goddard. Daniel Ford

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Grant, Corrie

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Cleland, J. W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Astbury, John Meir

    Clough, W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

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

    Grove, Archibald

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gulland, John W.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Barker, John

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

    Hall, Frederick

    Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Cory, Clifford John

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Barnes. G. N.

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Barran. Rowland Hirst

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Beale, W. P.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Crombie, John William

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

    Crooks, William

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Crossley, William J.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Benn, John Williams (Dev'np'rt

    Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

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

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Bethell, J. H. (Essex. Romford)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Billson, Alfred

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

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Higham, John Sharp

    Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

    Dodd, W. H.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hodge, John

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Brace, William

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Hooper, A G.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

    Branch, James

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Brigg, John

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Brodie, H. C.

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brooke, Stopford

    Elibank, Master of

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

    Erskine, David C.

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Bryce, Rt. Hn.James (Aberdeen

    Essex, R. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Jackson, R. S.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Findlay, T. Alexander

    Jenkins, J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swans' a

    202

    203

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Paul, Herbert

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Summerbell, T.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

    Perks, Robert William

    Taylor Theodore C.(Radcliff)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester

    Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

    Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

    Lambert, George

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Lamont, Norman

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Pollard, Dr.

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

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

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham

    Thompson, J.WH(Somerset, E.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

    Tillett, Louis John

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Radford, G. H.

    Tomkinson, James

    Levy, Maurice

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Torrance, A. M.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Toulmin, George

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Trevelvan, Charles Philips

    Lough, Thomas

    Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

    Verney, F. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Rees, J. D.

    Vivian, Henry

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Walker, H. I). R. (Leicester)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Wallace, Robert

    Lynch, H. B.

    Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

    Walsh, Stephen

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpton

    Walters, John Tuder

    Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Richardson, A.

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

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Maclean, Donald

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    M'Arthur, William

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    M'Crae, George

    Robertson, Sir G. Scot (Bradf'rd

    Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Robinson, S.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Maddison, Frederick

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Weir, James Galloway

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Whitbread, Howard

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Rose, Charles Day

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Rowlands, J.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Runciman, Walter

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Russell, T. W.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Massie, J.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer.

    Menzies, Walter

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Mond, A.

    Scott, A.H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sears, J. E.

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Montgomery, H. H.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Shackleton, David James

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Morrell, Philip

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Morse, L. L.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morton, L. Alpheus Cleophas

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Winfrey, R.

    Murray, James

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, ·)

    Myer, Horatio

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Napier, T. B.

    Snowden, P.

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Newnes, Sir George; (Swansea)

    Spicer, Albert

    Nicholls, George

    Stanger, H. Y.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Peace.

    Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r)

    Stanley, Hn. A. (LyulphChesh.)

    Norman, Henry

    Steadman, W. C.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    THE CHAIRMANruled that the remaining Amendments to the clause upon the Paper were either out of order
    204
    or contained matter which had already been disposed of.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he desired to point out that on this clause, which practically made every school a provided school, it would have been greatly to the convenience of the Committee if the Government had given them even the smallest intimation of the course they were going to pursue on those later clauses of the Bill which in some way mitigated or were expected to mitigate the full force of Clause 1. Of course, if the Government's intention was to remain rigidly fixed in the formulas they themselves had determined upon, they had no announcement to make. The Government, however, did not think that the wording of the clause, at all events, was satisfactory, and they were prepared to make modifications to an extent which the Committee could not conjecture. But hon. Members might have been in a better position to judge of the policy they were pursuing had the Government taken the Committee a little more into their confidence. It might be because the Government had not made up their minds as to what modifications they ought to accept. They were torn between different and irreconcilable schools of thought. There was the Minister for Education, whose opinions they knew from sources more authentic than those of his speeches in defence of the Bill, because there were other speeches of the right hon. Gentleman available which were not made in defence of anything or of any Government; and he presumed that in a position of irresponsibility the right hon. Gentleman had a better insight into what he would do had he the power, had a more clear and unmistakable insight, than anything they could gather from his statements made under the inevitable responsibility of office, when he had to consult, not merely his colleagues in the Cabinet, but the varying forces in the House and in the country with which he had to deal. It might be, and probably was, that neither the right hon. Gentleman himself nor the Government had any doubt in their own minds as to the future policy they were to recommend to the Committee, but that they were waiting to
    206
    see, he would not say how the cat jumped but, at all events, in what direction the political forces which acted upon them were going to drive them in dealing with Clauses 3 and 4, and the clauses dealing with trusts. That was not the only complaint they had to make as to the conduct of the Government on this clause. Nor was it the most serious complaint. He understood and sympathised with the determination of the right hon. Gentleman to maintain a discreet silence as long as and as well as possible with regard to the provisions of the Bill. But he thought that the right hon. Gentleman must feel, after the arguments the Committee had listened o, that the position which he and his friends had taken up was one which was absolutely indefensible. The Government made every school a provided school. By doing so they prevented the appointment of a teacher by any denomination, although as regarded Clause 4 the teacher was expected to teach the religion of some denomination. He did not know how they were going to remedy that in the later clauses. He saw indications of a remedy in the speeches made to deputations, but he saw no indication of the same desire either in the speeches delivered in the House or in a Government Amendment on the Paper. What was the plea the Government had systematically put forward in the House? The plea was that the public desired simple Bible teaching, and the Government were going to give it at the public expense; and anything else that was to be given, was to be given under serious limitations, under limitations which he thought inflicted a gross injustice on the voluntary schools, a gross wrong upon the consciences of many parents of many children. He would suppose that a Government which was prepared to endow a particular form of undenominational teaching would take care at all events that undenominational teaching reached a certain standard of religious excellence, and that arrangements were made to see that those who taught it should have adequate qualifications for teaching it. Neither of these provisions was in the Bill, nor was there any indication that they were to be. Therefore it seemed to him that on their

    207
    own theory as to what education ought to be the Government had fallen lamentably short of their own standard— deficient though it was in the opinion of those who had no quarrel with the Free Church Catechism, but who had some regard for the consciences of the parents. Why were the Government endowing out of the rates a particular form of religion and refusing any kind of facility for those who professed another kind of religion? Even if only a small minority of parents preferred the denominational system, was no effort to be made to meet their conscientious desires? He could not gather from the speeches of the Minister for Education that he had the smallest idea outside Clauses 3 and 4 of meeting to any extent whatever the claims of the great body of the schools now non-provided. Two logical solutions had been proposed for this difficulty—the secular solution, rejected by an enormous majority, and that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. A third solution had been proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford University—a solution which permitted Cowper-Temple teaching to be paid for out of the rates, provided that side by side with it was the other teaching which so many parents desired. How could the Government reject all these solutions? Was it not plain that one of them must ultimately be accepted? Did the Government seriously say that, in spite of the enormous sums which the denominationalists had spent, and in spite of the undoubted wishes of large numbers of parents, they were not only going to pay for one kind of religious teaching alone, but they were going to forbid other people from paying for their own religious teaching? Mr. A., Mr. B., and Mr. C. might be satisfied with the teaching, but Mr. D., Mr. E., and Mr. F. would come and say:—"That teaching does not satisfy us. May we teach what we think our children ought to learn? We are quite ready to pay the whole cost of it, and do not want to go upon the rates. Will you, please, give us, not financial equality, for it could not be, but religious equality?" The Minister for Education replies:—"This is inconsistent with my Bill." He did not say it was inconsistent with justice—no man could say
    208
    that. The injustice which the Government were deliberately intending to inflict upon vast masses of the population was of a kind which every man could understand, which every man would realise, and which the country would soon realise, if it had not already done so. How could the Government hope to base a solution of the religious difficulty upon so rotten a foundation as was provided in this Bill? It was not as if denominationalists asked for equal treatment—they were merely asking by this Amendment to have unequal treatment; they were merely asking to be allowed to pay for that which other people received pay for out of the rates. Even that the Government refused. No attempt to solve this question based upon such a fundamental injustice could really stand continuous criticism, or could become part of the permanent educational system of the country. He hoped the Minister for Education would feel the force of the appeal now being made to him. Was it unreasonable to ask him to give some indication that he was prepared to consider a demand, on the face of it just and reasonable and consistent with parental rights and with true religious education? Would the right hon. Gentleman not make some indication of a desire to meet demands so inherently and so intrinsically in accordance with common justice and with common sense? They would, no doubt, on the later clauses of the Bill, raise in substance the demand which he now made, but he did feel that the Committee ought not to pass from Clause I without the Minister in charge of the Bill getting up and telling the Committee how he proposed to meet the arguments which he had advanced, and what hope he could hold out to those who represented not a small minority in this country, that the demands which they said were intimately bound up with religion and parental rights would receive consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid that if there was any truth whatever in the formidable allegation just made against the Bill—and for the moment in speaking of the Bill he meant Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4—that it inflicted an intolerable injustice upon a vast number of the people of

    209
    this country, then the Bill, even if it became an Act, was doomed to failure. It was, however, the belief of the Government that this measure, capable of improvement as it might be, did not inflict upon any considerable number of the people of this country, particularly on the parents of children in daily attendance in public elementary schools, between the ages of five and fourteen years, any injustice whatever. In the Church school the Catechism and the definite dogmatic teaching of the Church of England might be taught if only the owners were anxious that they should be taught. That surely was not putting too much upon the owners. If they made a bargain to that effect, the teaching must be given by the law of this country. [Cries of "No.] Certainly. If the local authority took the school and the conditions were accepted, these stipulations became obligatory and secure by law. What happened now in a large number of the Church of England schools? In Gloucester they used three days a week the Gloucester County Council Syllabus, and on two days the Catechism and the Prayer Book were taught. Apart from the question of the teacher, which would have to be most carefully considered, he saw very little difference between the religious instruction given in these schools now and that which would be given under the Bill. Considering the matter from the point of view of substantial practice, he saw no reason why the Church of England should not have the satisfaction of knowing that, in the voluntary schools of the country, so far as they were taken over by the local authority, their children would still receive just the same manner of teaching as they did now. With regard to children in the provided schools, if a hardship was imposed upon the children of Church of England parents and other children who desired dogmatic teaching, all he could say was that the hardship was one which they had endured thirty-five years, and which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made no effort to do away with. Exposed as he was to every kind of logical battery and artillery, he still believed that as a matter of fact the method of education adopted had given complete satisfaction. It was no use to say that a parent in a
    210
    town was dissatisfied with a Board school education for his child because his second cousin in the country was able to send his child to a Church school. Although he would be glad if the practice suggested were possible in our Board schools, although there was nothing in it contrary or shocking to the senses, he had come to the conclusion that it would create greater ill-temper and more difficulty than the plan he proposed. But he submitted that the language of the right hon. Gentleman, if he would permit him to say so, was really grossly exaggerated. The protests which one received from parents were couched in language which seemed to make it plain that they did not apprehend what was before them. They seemed to imagine they would be deprived altogether of the opportunities of having their children taught the Catechism or the Prayer-book. He did not think that was at all likely to be the case; but if it was it would be the fault of the trustees of the schools, who would not negotiate with the local authority upon the terms suggested. He was perfectly satisfied of this much, that when syllabus teaching was properly developed and properly given, it would be found in no sense inconsistent with Church teaching of the Protestant persuasion, and entirely consistent with the wishes of the parents. He wished there were some means by which there could be placed before the parents the kind of teaching their children would get. He believed they would be perfectly satisfied, and would consider that there was provided in the vast majority of schools a system of religious education every bit as good as they could wish for. If they went into the matter with particularity it would be found, he believed, that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to teach the children something the parents did not desire. He thought the time had come when the Committee might come to a decision on the clause. There was no real or substantial difference in the Liberal Party about it, nor were there many people who took part in the recent general election in any doubt as to its being the natural outcome of that general election, when it was made plain that all public elementary schools should be placed under one control and become

    211
    provided schools. When they came to Clauses 3 and 4, which they would have every opportunity after the recess for discussing, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that every information would be, and would have to be, given to him and to the Committee as to the form those clauses were to assume. He hoped now right hon. Gentlemen were in favour of that clause. They received those clauses with scanty civility when they made their appearance. For a long time he thought they were going bitterly to oppose them and suggest alternative schemes. He rejoiced to think that those clauses now commended themselves to their minds, and only required to be strengthened in certain particulars. At all events the Government adhered to those clauses, and intended they should not be illusory. But w hen they were told that the syllabus teaching, which the Committee was becoming more and more acquainted with, had inflicted an intolerable injustice and a grievous sense of wrong on the mass of the parents, he could only say, with all courtesy, he did not believe it.
    *MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he could not help feeling when the Minister for Education made his last speech this evening that he was surely one of the most unfortunate of men, because in spite of all his eloquence, ability, and power of expression he had failed to convince many Members even of his own Party of the reasonableness of his proposals. Those who sat below the gangway representing Ireland were irreconcilably opposed to the proposals of the Government. The almost unanimous hostility of the Roman Catholic Members ought to supply the right hon. Gentleman with a basis for reflection whether or not the boasts he made that the Bill considered fairly the claims of all denominations were justified. He could at least speak on one point of sympathy with, he believed, large numbers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that was that he did not happen to be a member of the Church of England. If he were sending his child to a public elementary school he himself would be satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching. But upon what principle of justice and liberalism could they go to the hon. Member for North Louth and other Members below the gangway
    212
    representing Ireland, or to the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, and say to them, "We have here a syllabus which is admirably moral, and we have here a hymn of which I will read you a verse in order that you may satisfy yourselves"? That was exactly the line of argument adopted by the Minister for Education. Was the Party opposite, because it was in a majority, to force those who did not believe in this teaching to pay for it because the syllabus was moral or the hymns good? The Committee that day had rejected more than one scheme which would have swept away once for all this grievance. The opportunity had been deliberately flung away, and when they appealed to the country on this clause they would be able to say that they had advocated Amendments in respect of which not one opponent had said that they were unjust, and against which was only the unsupported allegation that they were unworkable. No one who had any experience of the permanent Education Department would believe that those proposals were unworkable, and when they went to the country which had been misled by the proposals of the Government they would be able to show that this clause was unjust, whereas Ministerialists could only idly allege that the proposals of the Opposition were unworkable. [Cries of "Divide" and "Order."]
    MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University) moved to report progress as a protest against the interruption from the Ministerial benches.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?"] The 11 o'clock rule has not been suspended for nothing.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On n point of order, I am well aware that a discretion lies in the Chair as to whether or not a Motion for adjournment.should be put. But may I ask you whether, under the special circumstances that the debate on the clause which the Government have admitted to be the most important in the Bill has only been on for an hour, that those who oppose it have had, to put it

    213
    mildly, extreme difficulty in getting a hearing, it would not be desirable for the Committee to adjourn to a period when the majority would be in a more patient temper, or at all events more disposed to allow the opponents of the clause to advance their arguments, however ineffectual, with a fair chance of being heard?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that I have not raised any objection to hon. Members advancing arguments. What I did say is that I cannot accept the Motion.
    SIR GEOEGE DOUGHTYsaid he had listened with a great deal of pain to the speech of the Minister of Education. [Cries of "Divide," and interruption.]
    THE CHAIRMANappealed to the House to give the hon. Member a hearing.
    SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYsaid he had listened to the speech of the Minister for Education with pain because he had hoped he would have given some indication of what he would do to meet the desires of a large number of people in this country who disagreed with the provisions of the Bill. He objected to the view, from whichever quarter it came, that the Bill was promoted with a view to meeting the vast majority of the Nonconformists of this country. There was a strong minority of Nonconformists in England who yet believed in the principle of religious freedom, and he thought that when they realised that the Bill in its main provisions, instead of establishing the principle of religious freedom, was aimed at destroying that principle and of placing under one particular form of teaching all the various religious bodies of the country, they would strongly resent the proposals. He understood that
    214
    the grievance of the passive resister was that he objected to his money being taken for the payment for teaching certain religious beliefs in which he himself did not believe. If this Bill ever became law it was pretty clear that there would be a very large number of people paying for religion in the State schools in which they did not believe, and which they did not desire that their children should have taught to them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he thought the Bill would meet the wishes of parents. How did he know that? What right had the right hon. Gentleman to make that proposition unless he had asked the parents? He happened to be chairman of an education committee educating nearly 20,000 children. He took that position in 1902 to endeavour to find out how the Act would fulfil the expectations of its promoters, and, speaking generally, he could say that the Act had fulfilled those expectations. He had been very much surprised that the Government had not asked the Education Committees what they had to say about this Bill. There was not an education committee throughout the length and breadth of the country whose opinion the Government had considered. Had the Government asked the parents of the children? He himself had done more in that direction than the Government. He had caused a circular letter to be sent to various large education committees of England asking a number of questions. One was—
    "How many parents of children in your schools have complained, for have lodged a complaint with your Education Committee or the head teacher of the school, as to the religious teaching that has been given in the school since the Act of 1902 came into operation?"
    He got a reply from Liverpool—his connection with which the right hon. Gentleman said he was proud of—and to the effect that they had not had one complaint in their schools since 1902. He inquired of Bristol, which the right hon. Gentleman represented with so much

    215
    distinction in this House, and that city also wrote that they had not a solitary complaint to make. Not one child in 100,000 in the schools in England had complained as a result of the Act of 1902. There were no people in the world more likely to make a religious grievance known than Englishmen. If parents were dissatisfied with the religious teaching given under the Act of 1902 there would have been multitudes of complaint long before this, but as a matter of fact there had been no complaints. To inform the country that they were satisfying a large body of Nonconformists by this Bill was stating something that was not true. What he desired was religious freedom for all sections of the community. He thought the Amendment they were discussing was directed towards that end and would provide the foundation for a settlement, and would give freedom to every parent to have taught what he desired. It was assumed that the Catholics would be satisfied with the provisions contained in Clauses 3 and 4, but he ventured to say that both those clauses would have to be very much amended in order to satisfy the wishes and desires of those who had a right to speak for the Catholics. Were the Government going to do for one section of the people what they refused to do for another section? Religious freedom and religious intolerance were great principles which could mot be applied to one Church and refused to another. He felt that in not giving some expression of the real mind of the Government upon this question the President of the Board of Education was not acting fairly to the Committee or justly to the country, and that instead of giving satisfaction these proposals would create a greater storm than ever.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he thought the time had now arrived when a Motion to report progress might very properly be
    216
    made. Clause 1 which was said to be the backbone of the Bill could not be adequately debated at that hour of the night. The Leader of the Opposition had explained to the Committee some of the injustices which appeared on the face of the clause apart altogether from its actual working. He wanted to present to the Committee the actual working of the clause as it appeared to those who were interested in the voluntary schools of the country. He had never under-estimated the injustice which was said to have been done to Nonconformists by the Bill of 1902, but in all those rural districts with which he happened to be acquainted the injustice complained of never had any practical existence. He wished to explain to the Committee how this clause would appear to Church people. He did not ask them to say that the clause was; wrong, but he asked them to put themselves in the position of a Churchman in a quiet country parish in the South of England. There they had been accustomed to the schools being carried on by the Church and by the clergy. What would be the position of those schools under this Bill? Let the Committee consider the question from this point of view. The parents sending their children to those schools would conceive this Clause as one which would wantonly turn the clergy out of the schools. [Cries of "Hear hear" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that, and that was exactly the spirit of the Bill. It was not that they desired so much to remedy ft grievance as to take vengeance on the Church. That was how the action of the Government would be understood in the parishes to which he was referring. Action of that kind had always been bitterly resented by Englishmen. It was that kind of conduct that brought about the expulsion of James II. from the throne. It was the petty personal injustice manifested in the way in which he treated certain individuals far more

    217
    than any disapproval of his principles or the principles of his Government that brought about his downfall, and that was the kind of injustice the Government were going to inflict under this Bill in a number of small parishes in the South of England. That was quite apart from the actual logical injustice of not allowing Churchmen to teach their religion even at their own expense. It was the ejection of these clergymen from schools where there was no practical grievance that would be regarded as a wanton piece of injustice. It was said that Clause 3 was obligatory, that the local education authority might make an arrangement with the owner, but if they asked too much the arrangement would break down, and they had to go to the Commission of three, and there was nothing obligatory on the Commission of three. There was no appeal from them. When the President of the Board of Education asserted that the facilities under Clause 3 were obligatory he could only conclude that he had in his mind some draft of the Bill which had not yet been presented to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech by denying that any injustice was going to be done to the members of the Church of England, but had he been present at some of the public meetings which he himself had attended, he would never have made that statement. At the meeting held in the Albert Hall there were 10,000 people present, and for anyone to say that those people were not in earnest was positively ludicrous. He had never been more impressed by the earnestness of a meeting. If there were only these 10,000 people with a burning sense of grievance the Act could not remain on the Statute book. But before the Act was amended or abrogated there would be a period of great turmoil.
    LORD HELMSLEYsaid he did not think the discus-
    218
    sion on Clause 1 should be terminated to-night. The problem now before the Committee affected the future education of the children of the country, and hon. Members who disapproved of the proposal of the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not in the strongest possible terms express their disapproval of, and even disgust at, Clause 1. The effect of the clause would be to abolish definite religious instruction in our schools. The extinction of the voluntary schools would open the door to secularism. While the basis of the Bill was secular, the bias of it was most certainly Nonconformist. The idea that religious teaching could be banished from the schools, and that parents in the middle of their daily work should undertake the duty of instructing their children in the religious beliefs which they thought to be right, was absolutely absurd. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] He did not for a moment suppose that if the parents had time and. ability they would not willingly undertake the work.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord appears to be discussing what does not properly come under this clause.
    LORD HELMSLEYsaid he was led away by the interruption. The alternative proposed by the Government of giving facility of entry to the schools might have some advantages, but he did not think it was a practical or desirable one.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The matter which the noble Lord is discussing is not dealt with by Clause 1.
    LORD HELMSLEY: May I ask if I am not at liberty to discuss the clause as a whole and not the alternative?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord, can discuss the clause as a whole.
    LORD HELMSLEYsaid hon. Members opposite had tried to make out that Cowper-Temple teaching ought to be encouraged because the indefiniteness suited all creeds and all denominations, but the truth had come out at the eleventh hour that it was their definite religious teaching. That was the teaching which they wished to thrust down the throats of all the children in the country, no matter what the parents might wish the children to be taught. The hon. Member for Mid. Glamorganshire said this afternoon that it was essentially the right of the people of a locality to say that simple Bible teaching should be given to their children in the schools. There was not a clause in the Bill for the improvement of education or for settling the religious difficulties which had agitated Parliament and the country for the past thirty years. The fact came out more plainly as the debates proceeded that this was a Bill which more than anything else aimed a blow at the Church of England and at definite religious teaching, while endowing the system of religious instruction favoured by Nonconformists contrary to the wishes of the parents of the people of England.
    MR. HADDOCKsaid he wished to ask on what question the general election turned. Was it not on the question of Chinese labour?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman must remember that the question before the Committee was that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
    MR. HADDOCKsaid that what he wanted to put out was that at a bye-election it had been decided that the parents should have the right to have
    220
    their children brought up in their own religion. The Ministerialists had a large majority in the House, bat had any attention been paid to the enormous number of petitions which had been presented against the Bill? There had been a cry all through the country that this Bill was intolerable.
    *MR. J.F. MASON (Windsor)said that if this clause was passed as it now stood the result would be to give the children of the country a form of secular education. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had said that religious teaching could not be left in the hands of parents or Sunday schools. Perhaps it was said there might be some private individuals who had sufficient knowledge to impart religious instruction, but mere attainment of knowledge did not qualify a person to be an efficient teacher. His own idea was that if professional teachers were not allowed to give that instruction, religious teaching would have no avail. If that was to be the effect—which he really believed the majority of the people of this country would not submit to—what could the result be? The hon. Member for Leicester had made the remark the other day that parents had no right to demand religious instruction at the hands of the State. He himself contended that the parents, as parents, had no right to demand any education for their children at the hands of the State; they recognised the responsibility which lay on themselves. However, the State having given free and compulsory education to the children in the interests of the State and of citizenship, if the majority of the people of this country who were the State, required that religious education should be given by professional teachers, and no teachers were available except the State teachers, it was now the duty of the State to undertake the counterpart of the work by giving

    221
    the necessary machinery for providing denominational religious instruction.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided;—Ayes, 358, Noes, 169, (Division List, No. 102.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

    Grant, Corrie

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cawley, Frederick

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Chance, Frederick William

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Agnew, George William

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Grove, Archibald

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Alden, Percy

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Gulland, John W.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Clough, W.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

    Hull, Frederick

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Astbury, John.Meir

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

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

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

    Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cory, Clifford John

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Barker, John

    Cowan, W. H.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

    Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Crombie, John William

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Crooks, William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Beale, W. P.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Crossley, William J.

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

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

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

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

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hodge, John

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Dodd, W. H.

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Billson, Alfred

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Black, Alexander Wm (Banff)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Bolton, T.'D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Elibank, Master of

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Brace, William

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Illingworh, Percy H.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Branch, James

    Essex, R. W.

    Jackson R. S

    Brigg, John

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Brodie, H. C.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jenkins, J.

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Johnson W. (Nuneaton)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Findlay, Alexander

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Byles, William Pollard

    Gill, A. H.

    King Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Cairns, Thomas

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Kitson, Sir James

    Cameron, Robert

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Laidlaw, Roberts

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Lambert, George

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Strauss, K. A. (Abingdon)

    Lamont, Norman

    Perks, Robert William

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Philips, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

    Summer bell, T.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Taylor, Austin. (East Toxteth)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lever, A. Levy (Easex, Harwich

    Pollard, Dr.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

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

    Tennant, K. P. (Salisbury)

    Levy, Maurice

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Thomas. Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Raphael. Herbert H.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Lynch, H. B.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Tomkinson, James

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rees, J. D.

    Toulmin, George

    Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Mackarness, Frederick C.

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Verney, F. W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

    Vivian, Henry

    M'Arthur, William

    Richardson, A.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wallace, Robert

    M'Crae, George

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Walsh, Stephen

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Tr't)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southanipt'n.)

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wardle, George J.

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Robinson, S.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan.)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Massie, J.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Menzies, Walter

    Rowlands, J.

    Wedgwood. Josiah C.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Runciman. Walter

    Weir, James Galloway

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Russell, T. W.

    Whitbread. Howard

    Mond, A.

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Montgomery, H. H.

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Whitehead. Rowland

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Morrell, Philip

    Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Morse, L. L.

    Sears, J. E.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Murray, James

    Seddon, J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Myer, Horatio

    Shackleton, David James

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Napier, T. B.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

    Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn

    Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Nicholls, George

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

    Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncaster)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Norman, Henry

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Winfrey, R.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Spicer, Albert

    Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    O'Grady, J.

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudderef'd)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Steadman, W. C

    Paul, Herbert

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, K.E.)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

    Beckett. Hon. Gervase

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Blake, Edward

    224

    225

    Boland, John

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hazelton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burdett-Coutts, W

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh)

    O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    O'Malley, William

    Cave, George

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Mara, James

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Joyce, Michael

    Percy, Earl

    Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)

    Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)

    Keswick, William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, M.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    King.Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

    Craig, Captain James (Down,E

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Delany, William

    Liddell, Henry

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Devlin,Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

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

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Long.Col.Charles W.(Evesham

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lundon, W.

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East

    Du Cros, Harvey

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift-

    Smith,F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

    Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

    Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Starkey, John R.

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

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    M'Iver,Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

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

    Fell, Arhur

    M'Killop, W.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Tuke, Sir John Barry

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mechan, Patrick A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Fletcher J. S.

    Meysey-Thompton, E. C.

    White, Patrick (Heath, North)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Middlemore.John Throgm'rt'n

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Mooney, J. J.

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

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Ginnell, L.

    Murnaghan, George

    Young, Samuel

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Murphy, John

    Younger, George

    Haddock, George R.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Halpin. J.

    Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Nield, Herbert

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Nolan, Joseph

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent.Ashf'rd

    O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

    Question put accordingly, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided;—Ayes, 365; Noes, 162 (Division List No. 103.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

    Barnard, E. B.

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Astbury, John Meir

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

    Agnew, George William

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Beale, W. P.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Alden, Percy

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Beaumont, W.C.B.(Hexham)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Beck, A Cecil

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barker, John

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

    Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerst

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R

    Benn, John Williams(Devonp't

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edwan

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

    Erskine, David O.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Bennett, E. N.

    Essex, R. W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Evans, Samuel, T.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lambert, George.

    Billson, Al red

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lamont, Norman.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Layland-Barrat, Francis

    Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

    Findlay, Alexander

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

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

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lever, A.Levy (Essex Harwich.

    Brace, William

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral).

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Levy, Maurice

    Branch, James

    Gill, A. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brigg, John

    Gladstone.Rt.Hn.Herbert Jo'n

    Liddell, Henry

    Brodie, H. G.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lough, Thomas

    Brooke, Stopford

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Lupton, Arnold

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

    GordonJ. (Londonderry, South)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

    Grant, Corrie

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough]

    Lynch, H. B.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Macdonald,.J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Grove, Archibald

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

    Gulland, John W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Bules, William Pollard

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Cairns, Thomas

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    M'Arthur, William

    Camerson, Robert

    Hall, Frederick

    M'Callum, John M.

    Garr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

    M'Crae, George

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Kni't

    Hardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Channing, Francis Allston

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

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mansfield, H. Rendalll.(Lincoln)

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire

    Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Clough, W.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Massie, J.

    Cobbald, Felix Thornley

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Menzies, Walter

    Collins.SirWm.J. (S.PancrasW.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Cooper, G. J.

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Henry, Charles S.

    Mond, A.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Montgomery, M. H.

    Cory, Clifford John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Monran, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hodge, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Morse, L. L.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Morton, Alphens Cleophas

    Crombie, John William

    Hooper, A. G.

    Murray, James

    Crooks, William

    Hope, W.Bateman(SomersetN

    Myer, Horatio

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Napier, T. B.

    Crossley, William J.

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Davies, David (MontgomeryCo

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Newnes, Sir George (Swansea).

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Nicholls, George

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Norman, Henry

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

    Jackson, R. S.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Nutta'll, Harry

    Dodd, W. H.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Grady, J.

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pual, Herbert

    Dunne, MajorE Martin(Walsall

    Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh..

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Elibank, Master of

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Perks, Robert William

    228

    229

    Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

    Sears, J. E.

    Wallace Robert

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Sea veins, J. H.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Seddon, J.

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Shackleton, David James

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    Price, CE(Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Ward, W.Dudley(Southampton

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wardle, George J.

    Priestley, W.EB(Bradford, E.)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Radford, G. H.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Rainy, A. Holland

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Rea,Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Spicer, Albert

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Rees, J. D.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh

    Whitbread, Howard

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Steadman, W. G.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Richardson, A.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. Norwich)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Robertson. SirGScott(Bradf'rd

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Tavlor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Robinson. S.

    Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

    Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

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

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Rowlands, J.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Runciman, Waller

    Thompson, J.W. H. (Somerset)

    Winfrey, R.

    Russell, T. W.

    Tomkinson, James

    Wodehouse,Lord (Norfolk, Mid.

    Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland)

    Toulmin, George

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Woodhouse.SirJ.T.(Hudd'srf 'd

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Verney, F. W.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Pease.

    Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

    Vivian, Henry

    Scott, A H(Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    NOES.

    Abraham Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Forster, Henry William

    Ambrose. Robert

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cecil,Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Gibbs, G. A. (Brislol, West)

    Anstruthey-Gray, Majör

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.)

    Ginnell, L.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Haddock, George R.

    Arnold-Forster,Rt. Hn.HughO.

    Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

    Halpin, J.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.SirH.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Balcarres, Lord

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Delany, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baring, Hun. Guy (Winchester)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Beach Hn. Michael Hugh H.

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hervey,F.W.F.(BurySEdm'ds)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

    Blake, Edward

    Du Cros, Harvey

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

    Boland, John

    Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan)

    Hills, J. W.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Hogan, Michael

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Faber, (George Denison (York)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Joyce, Michael

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Keswick, William

    Cave, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Cavendish Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull)

    230

    231

    Lambton, Hn. FrederickWm.

    Nield, Herbert

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smith, FE (Liverpool, Walton)

    Long, Col Chas. W (Evesham)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Stanley, Hn. A. (Ormskirk)

    Lundon, W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Starkey, John R.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Sullivan, Donal

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

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

    MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

    O'Malley, William

    Thomson. W. Mitchell (Lanark.)

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    O'Mara, James

    Thornton, Percy M.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    M'Killop, W.

    Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

    Walker, Col.W. H. (Lancashire)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Percy, Earl

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Meagher, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

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

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Reddy, M.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Mooney, J. J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Young, Samuel

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Younger, George

    Murnaghan, George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Murphy, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday June 11th.
    While the remaining Orders of the day were being read over, several hon. Members moved, but objection was taken in each case,
    MR. MOONEYon a point of order, asked whether it was competent for any Member of the House to move any Order of the day after 11.30 of the clock.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid if the hon. Gentleman would refer to Standing Order No. 1, Sub-section 8, he would find these words—
    "Provided always that if any business exempted after the operation of this Order is disposed of the remaining business, etc." (See Standing Orders).
    That meant that the Orders of the day have to be gone through.
    MR. MOONEYsaid that under a further Standing Order, which was published in the amended Standing Orders, it was
    232
    definitely stated that no business was to be entered upon at 11.30 of the clock, when Mr. Speaker automatically left the chair.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the Order remained exactly the same, only there was a change in the time. It was necessary for the House to go through the Orders.
    MR. MOONEYsaid his point was, whether in going through the Orders of the day formally, it was competent for a Member to move a Bill.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I think it it stands as an Order of the day an hon. Member is entitled to move it.
    And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Two o'clock.