Commons Sitting of 13 March 1907

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 66 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 66 has not been complied with, viz., South Wales Mineral Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz., Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bills.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Galwey's Divorce Bills [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (Additional Capital, etc.) Bill (by Order);Great Central Railway Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked for some explanation of the Bill. Had it anything to do with dock dues and charging dues on the tonnage of vessels? That was a most important question on which the Government had not yet declared itself, and they ought to have some information before the Bill was read a second time.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Bill does contain a clause about dues, but the promoters have agreed to take it out in Committee. The Board of Trade are satisfied with their undertaking and agree to the Second Reading.
  MR. JENKINS: Are the Board of Trade going to make any suggestion to the House on this matter?
  MR. CALDWELL: On some other Bills the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Am I to understand that any clause in this Bill dealing with the question of levying dues on the registered tonnage of vessels will be eliminated in Committee.
  MR. CALDWELL: Certainly.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: —From Alma; Bagworth; Bailey Brook; Balgonie; Birley; Birley (No. 2); Blackrod; Bruntcliffe; Buckhaven; Carlton Main; Coaltown of Wemyss; Corton Wood; Crossgates; Dearne Valley; Denbeath; Donibristle; Dronfield; Else car; Fence; Fordell; Hightown; Houghton Main; Hoyland; Ibstock; Langley and Marlpool; Langwith; Lassodie; Lea Green; Lidgett; Lochgelly; Lochore; Lofthouse; Low Laithes; Lumphinnans; Markham; Measham; Methil; Mithilkill; Nailstone; Netherton; Newmarket Silkstone; New Oaks; Normanton; Oakley; Oargreave; Rawdon; Renishaw Park; Reservoir; Roundwood; Sharlston; Shaw Cross and Chidswell; South Leicestershire; Stourton Grange; Sutton Heath; Syndale; Thornhill; Townhill; Udston; Upper Hartshay; Wakefield (Robin. Hood Hood); Warreley; Wath Main; Wellsgreen; Wellwood; West Sharlston; and, York Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Woodham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Rugeley, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th March; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 69.]

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education for the year 1905–6 on the Administration of Schools, under
  10
  The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 77.]

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st February; Mr. Sloan]; to lie upon the Table.
  HARBOUR, ETC. BILLS (HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL).
  Copy ordered, "of the Report of the Board of Trade on the Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  CROWN AGENTS.
  Address for "Return showing the total amount, including loans, on which any commission was charged or received by the Crown Agents for the Colonies during 1904, 1905, and 1906, differentiating between (1) commercial, railway, and general business, and (2) financial, loan, and miscellaneous business; the total amount of commission charged or received in each year; and the separate totals debited and commission charged to each Colony and Protectorate in each of the said years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 264, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Persons Receiving Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of persons receiving constant police protection and special protection by patrols in each county in Ireland on the 1st March; the number of police employed on each of the branches of this duty, respectively; and what is the number of persons not included in this list to whom constant and special police protection was afforded in each county during the period from the 1st January 1906, to 1st February 1907, but from whom protection was withdrawn on the ground that necessity for it had ceased.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General of Royal Irish Constabulary has furnished me with the following Return, showing (a) the number of persons receiving constant police protection and the number receiving special protection

  Counties, &c.

  (A) Cases on 1st March 1907.

  (B) Number of Police affording constant Protection.

  (C) Cases withdrawn.

  Constant.

  By Patrol.

  Total.

  Constant.

  By Patrol.

  Total.

  Antrim

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cavan

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Donegal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Londonderry

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monaghan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyrone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carlow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dublin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  40

  Kildare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kilkenny

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  King's

  1

  4

  5

  2

  —

  2

  2

  Longford

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Louth

  —

  12

  12

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Meath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Queen's

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Westmeath

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  5

  5

  Wexford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wicklow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Galway, East Riding

  5

  29

  34

  23

  4

  10

  14

  ” West Riding

  2

  5

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Leitrim

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Mayo

  1

  8

  9

  4

  1

  8

  9

  Roscommon

  2

  1

  3

  4

  —

  9

  9

  Sligo

  1

  4

  5

  4

  —

  2

  2

  Clare

  5

  34

  39

  11

  —

  33

  33

  Cork, East Riding

  9

  14

  23

  21

  2

  23

  25

  Cork, West Riding

  4

  3

  7

  8

  1

  5

  6

  Kerry

  13

  11

  24

  26

  11

  1

  12

  Limerick

  2

  10

  12

  4

  —

  8

  8

  Tipperary, N. Riding

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Tipperary, S. Riding

  1

  6

  7

  3

  2

  6

  8

  Waterford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  47

  152

  199

  120†

  23

  155

  178

  †Eleven of these policemen are not solely employed in affording protection.

  by patrol (b) the number of police employed affording constant protection on the 1st March 1907, and (c) the number of cases in which protection was withdrawn between the 1st January 1906 and the 1st February 1907—

  The American Mails—Proportion for North of England, Scotland and Ireland—Delay in Delivery.
  COLONEL PHILIPPS: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he can state approximately how many of the 1,300 mail bags ordinarily brought over by the White Star mail boats are for Ireland, the North of England, and Scotland, how many for London and the South of England, and how many for the Continent.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The approximate numbers are as follows—

  Ireland

  100

  Scotland

  97

  North Midlands and North West England

  148

  London

  125

  South England

  26

  England unsorted

  104

  Continent

  710

  I am obtaining further information as to the amount of correspondence contained in the bags, which vary considerably in size.
  COLONEL PHILIPPS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, under the new proposals for White Star Line sailings, there will be an acceleration of the home mails for the South and West of England and London; and, if so, whether, under these circumstances, he will before recommending any reversion to the old arrangements, carefully consider the great benefits accruing to London and the South of England under the new proposals.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There will be an acceleration in the mails for the South and West of England and for London by the inward mail steamers; but there will be delay in the mails to various other parts of the United Kingdom, especially in the case of Scotland and Ireland. The whole question has been receiving my careful consideration.

  Post Office Accommodation at Caldercruix, N.B.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Caldercruix, N.B., there is no accommodation for the sorting of correspondence, the work having to be done on the counter of a grocer's shop in the midst of other business; and whether he will take steps to
  14
  procure suitable accommodation, in the interests of both the public and the staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will have inquiry made upon the subject and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Dublin Postmen and Sorters' Examination.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he has received a memorial from the postmen at Dublin complaining against their exclusion from the limited section at the male learners' examination to be held on 4th April by the introduction of a new age limit; and if he has arrived at any decision in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received the memorial referred to. As I explained in an Answer to a Question from the hon. Member for College Green, Dublin, on the 3rd of December last,†postmen will not in future have to wait their turn on the learner class but will be allowed to compete for appointment direct to the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists. There are still some learners of long service waiting appointment at Dublin, and, when they have been provided for, a competition for places as sorting clerks and telegraphists limited to postmen and other persons employed by the Department will be arranged. The age limits will be eighteen and twenty-five, with extension in favour of those officers who have been employed from a time when they were under twenty-five. The successful candidates from that competition will rank for appointment before the learners admitted as a result of the January and April competitions.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, how many estates were vested in the purchasers by the Estates Commissioners in the months of December 1906, January and February 1907, respectively; and what was the total amount of the purchase money.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following Table gives the information asked for—
  †See (4) Debates, clxvi., 738.

  Class of Sale.

  Month of December, 1906.

  Month of January, 1907.

  Month of February, 1907.

  Total.

  Number of Estates.

  Amount of Advances made.

  Number of Estates.

  Amount of Advances made.

  Number of Estates.

  Amount of Advances made.

  Number of Estates.

  Amount of Advances made.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Direct Sales

  46

  347,271

  34

  168,643

  44

  373,400

  124

  889,314

  Sections 6 and 8

  3

  93,840

  6

  56,899

  2

  21,097

  11

  171,836

  Section 7

  3

  39,209

  2

  3,680

  4

  10,928

  9

  53,817

  Sections 72 and 79

  3

  16,550

  2

  4,663

  3

  33,852

  8

  55,065

  Total

  55

  496,870

  44

  233,885

  53

  439,277

  152

  1,170,032

  Welsh Education Department.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if the existing officers and clerks of the Board of Education, who are to work in the new Welsh Department under the new secretary, will continue to have access to, and be subject to supervision by, the permanent secretary and chief clerk of the Board; and whether the officers of the Welsh Department will be entitled to promotion in other branches of the office, and vice versa.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am not yet in a position to say how far it will be possible or expedient to assign a clerical staff exclusively to the work of the Welsh Department, but in any case the transfer of any officer to or from the Welsh Department will not be allowed to affect his prospects of promotion.

  Imprisonment of Martin Hawes in Galway Gaol.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Martin Hawes has recently been discharged from Galway gaol after eight weeks incarceration; and can he state the nature of the crime for which he was committed, the sentence pronounced and the number of convictions against him prior to the last trial.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 1st March, by order of the Lord-Lieutenant, Martin Hawes was discharged from Galway prison, after eight weeks and three days imprisonment. The offences for which he was committed were: (1) drunkenness;(2) assault on the police; (3) drunkenness and disorder; (4) drunkenness. The sentence for the assault was four calendar months imprisonment, and for the three other offences an aggregate of five weeks imprisonment in default of payment of fines. Hawes had been previously convicted forty-nine times.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Ellen Kiernan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the
  18
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Ellen Kiernan, Newtowngore, whose father, Francis Hamilton, was evicted from the Morley estate, in 1879, in the Poor Law union of Enniskillen and county of Cavan; and will he say when it is likely this tenant will be restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application in question and have referred it, with others, to an inspector for inquiry. The Commissioners are not at present able to say when the case will be decided.

  Age Retirement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury made it a condition of the appointment of the present Comptroller and Auditor-General that he should retire at the age of sixty-five, such condition was made by the Treasury after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown; or, if not, upon what authority such condition was based.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Appointments to the office of Comptroller and Auditor-General are made by the Crown on the recommendation, not of the Treasury but of the Prime Minister. Before his appointment, Mr. Kempe gave an undertaking to the then Prime Minister that he would retire from the office on attaining the age of sixty-five. It is not on record that the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted with reference to the matter, and there does not appear to be any legal power to enforce the undertaking.

  Appointments to Staff of Colonial Audit Branch, Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how many clerical appointments were made in London to the Colonial Audit Branch of the Exchequer and Audit Department from its establishment in 1889 to the date of its reorganisation in 1906; and how many of these appointments were

  19
  given by the respective comptrollers respectively to Second Division clerks, to University graduates, and to men neither graduates nor Second Division clerks, who were admitted without Civil Service examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The appointments in question were in the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the time being. The salaries of the officers appointed were not paid out of the British funds, and the Treasury has had no cognisance of or control over the appointments. I am, however, informed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General that the number of clerical appointments made was seventy-two, including five Second Division clerks, five other civil servants, and twenty-two University graduates.

  Messengers and Clerks in the Board of Works Office, Dublin.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the Board of Works, Dublin, messengers are deputed to mark the officials late in the attendance book by the instructions of the Secretary, and that they avail of the opportunity thus given to them to show their resentment to members of the staff, who have had frequently to complain of their lack of respect; can he say if this is another scheme of the Secretary to inflict as much indignity as possible on the staff; and will he see that this practice is discontinued.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that for the last forty years it has been the duty of the head messenger to indicate in the attendance book all cases of clerks being more than fifteen minutes late in arrival. The Board of Works have received no complaint of any lack of respect on the part of the head messenger towards a member or members of the staff, and know of no foundation for the hon. Member's statement. Of course there is no justification whatever for the charge made against the Secretary.

  The Edalji Case.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  20
  Department, what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in regard to the Edalji case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend on Thursday last, which was to the effect that a full statement had appeared in the press on the previous Saturday,2nd March, and that the names of the three gentlemen who are examining the materials in the possession of the Home Office are the right hon. Sir Arthur Wilson, K.C.I.E., the right hon. J. L. Wharton, and Sir Albert de Rutzen, the Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Courts.

  Great Northern Railway of Ireland—Second Class Accommodation on Motor Trains.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what has been the result of his communications with the Great Northern Railway of Ireland with reference to the controversy between the company and their second-class season-ticket-holders on the want of second-class accommodation on their motor trains; whether he can say if there are any cases in England or Scotland where a railway company, having three classes on its ordinary trains, has only first and third classes on its motor trains; and what regulations are made in these cases for the carriage of second-class ticket-holders.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The company state that the motor service in question has been in operation over eighteen months, so that all holders of seasons tickets were aware, on taking their tickets, of the nature of the accommodation provided. They have also stated the number of trains and of motors, showing that together they provide an extended service. I am sending copies of the company's letters to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for South Down. Several railway companies in Great Britain run motor cars on sections of their lines, either in substitution for or in addition to a service of ordinary trains conveying first, second, and third-class passengers. It is exceptional for such cars to afford accommodation for

  21
  more than two classes of passengers and in most cases they afford it for one class only. The Board of Trade are making inquiry in regard to the conditions of issue of season tickets by railway companies in these cases, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Registration of Limited Companies.
  MR. STEWART-SMITH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many companies, limited by guarantee and using the word limited as part of their title, have been registered during each of the years 1895 to 1906, inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The number of companies limited by guarantee and using the word limited as part of their title registered during each of the years 1895 to 1906, inclusive is set out below: —

  1895

  57

  1896

  45

  1897

  44

  1898

  84

  1899

  58

  1900

  84

  1901

  42

  1902

  42

  1903

  38

  1904

  26

  1905

  45

  1906

  34

  Free Church Appeals.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Lord Advocate what means of redress is open to the Free Church in the event of the Free Church desiring to appeal against any decisions of the Executive Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) It is not within my competency to advise in a matter of this nature. I may, however, inform my hon. friend that by the provisions of the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905, no court has power to review or interfere in any way with the orders or other proceedings of the Church Commission.

  Filling of Vacancy on Scottish Church Executive Commission.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps the Govern-
  22
  ment intend to take to fill up the vacancy on the Executive Commission caused by the death of Sir Charles Logan, as in the case of a division of opinion Free Church interests might be seriously affected.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The point is under consideration, but I am unable to make any statement at present.

  Plan of Meeting of Free Church and United Free Church Assemblies.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Lord Advocate if there is any reason why the mutual arrangement come to last year as to the place of meeting of the Free Church and the United Free Church assemblies respectively should not be made permanent.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) This would seem to be a matter between the churches concerned and the Church Commission, and it in no way comes within the purview of my department.

  Gambling in Bank Shares on the London Stock Exchange.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chanceellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the transactions on the London Stock Exchange the terms of Leeman's Act re bank shares transfers are openly violated; and whether he will take measures to ensure that the members of the London Stock Exchange shall be required to observe the safeguard imposed by law to prevent gambling in bank shares.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have no information on the subject; but the effect of the Act is merely to invalidate certain contracts if entered into. If people choose to enter into such contracts there is nothing to prevent their doing so, but they do so at their own risk, since the contracts cannot be enforced. The Act imposes no penalty for entering into such contracts, unless there be false entries of numbers and names therein.

  Wages of Carpenters and Joiners in Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. W.T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the wages paid to carpenters and

  23
  joiners employed in the works department at the Woolwich Arsenal are a ½d. per hour below the standard rate of wages paid by private firms in the district, and that in the other departments a system of piece-work prevails which prevents trade union workmen in this trade accepting employment therein; and whether he will consider this question, with the object of altering the conditions at present obtaining in the Arsenal, so that trade unionist carpenters and joiners may accept employment there without violating the rules of their various societies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The rates of wages paid to carpenters and joiners in the ordnance factories are, when the benefits accruing from Govern

  Date.

  Batteries.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Horses.

  1/4/95

  100, and 6 Depots.

  597

  17,592

  10,808

  1/4/05

  178, and 9 Depots.

  1,141

  29,778

  18,908

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Repairing Stations.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make close inquiries into the capacity for berthing and repairing warships of all dimensions in the various seaports and rivers on the east and west coasts, where ship-yards and steel-works at present exist, before any large sums of money are spent in uselessly duplicating such facilities at Rosyth.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): The hon. Member may rest assured that every consideration will be given to his suggestion.

    Civil Servants and the Territorial Force.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under his Army reform scheme, Civil Servants will be allowed to enter the territorial force; and, if so, whether the Treasury will allow them extra leave for the purpose of going through the prescribed periods of training.
    ment service are taken into account, considered equal to the rates current in the district. Working by piece-work is the custom whenever possible throughout the ordnance factories. There is no intention of making any change in the present conditions.

    Strength of Horse and Field Artillery.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the strength of the Horse and Field Artillery by batteries, officers, men, and horses on 1st April, 1895, and 1st April, 1905.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Strength of the Royal Horse and Royal Field Artillery on the 1st April, 1895, and 1st April, 1905.: —
    THE SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): On military grounds the case of a Civil Servant entering the territorial force will require to be carefully considered on its individual merits, as public funds should not be expended in peace in training any persons whom the necessities of national business may make it impossible to spare from their duties in order to render military service in time of war. On the other hand, the Government, who are making an appeal to the nation to come forward, are not likely to be backward in doing what is right. I have not yet reached the stage of detailed negotiation on this important question, and I am, therefore, unable to answer further.

    Army Reserve Figures.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the actuarial calculations, showing the total of the Army Reserve under normal conditions as 115,000 men, were based upon the same data as the calculations furnished to the House in July, 1906, in which it appeared that the total calculated Reserve for the infantry of the line was 62,900; and what reason is there to suppose that, after the abolition

    25
    of another battalion of the Guards, the reduction of the Royal Artillery, and the substitution for that arm of a six years term of service, the Reserve of the Army other than that of the infantry of the line will reach 52,100 men.
    MR. HALDANE: The statement which I propose to lay upon the Table will fully explain the mode of calculating the normal figures for the Army Reserve. I think the hon. and gallant Member will find all the information he desires in this statement.

    Disbanded Line Battalions.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the date of formation of each of the eight line battalions recently destroyed; for what period were those battalions recruited on the basis of a three years colour service; and what number of men have passed from the battalions in question into the Army Reserve since their formation.
    MR. HALDANE: The dates of formation were as follows: —3rd Batt. Northumberland Fusiliers, February, 1900; 4th Batt. Northumberland Fusiliers, February, 1900; 3rd Batt. Manchester Regiment, February, 1900; 4th Batt. Manchester Regiment, February, 1900; 3rd Batt. Royal Warwickshire Regiment, April, 1898; 4th Batt. Royal Warwickshire Regiment, February, 1900; 3rd Batt. Lancashire Fusiliers, April, 1898; 4th Batt. Lancashire Fusiliers, March, 1900. Enlistment for three years colour service commenced in April, 1898, and three years men were enlisted for these regiments as well as the others until this period of enlistment was stopped in November, 1904. As regards the Reserve, as all transfers to the Reserve are from the regiment as a whole, it would not be practicable to obtain the information required without very considerable labour.

    Insolvency of Arbuthnot and Company.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that injury is being caused to British credit in Southern India by the disclosures in connection with the insolvency of Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company, of Madras; that certain native
    26
    creditors are opposing the insolvent firm's petition for protection under the Insolvency Act on the ground that the firm have been in a state of virtual insolvency for some years; that these creditors have begged for a searching inquiry by the Crown in the interests, to use their own words, of truth and justice, of public morality, and British honour; and whether, under the exceptional circumstances, he will consider the advisability of instructing the Government of India to undertake a public inquiry independently of the proceedings of the local court.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for INDIA (Mr. HOBHOUSE Bristol, E.): The inquiry held by the Madras Insolvency Court is a public inquiry. The Secretary of State sees no reason at present for instituting an inquiry independent of this.

    Lahore Press Prosecution.
    MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the nature of the offence for which the proprietor and editor of the Panjabee, published in Lahore, have been sentenced, the former to two years imprisonment and a fine of £60, the latter to six months imprisonment and a fine of £6.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The offence is reported to have been one under the section of the Indian Penal Code which deals with promoting, or attempting to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. The case is under appeal.
    *MR. REESMay I ask if there was any circumstance of extenuation in this false charge of murder, except that it was brought against an innocent Englishman?
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I think it would be very improper for me to attempt to pronounce an opinion on any case which has yet to be decided by the Judges.
    SIR H. COTTON: Has the hon. Gentleman heard the result of the appeal?
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; as soon as I do I will communicate it to my hon. friend.
    MR. DOLAN: Is the Indian law as to freedom of the Press the same as that in England?
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked for notice of the Question.

    Johannesburg Immorality Prosecutions.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a case recently before Mr. Graham Cross in the E Court at Johannesburg, in which Emma Grovernor (a coloured woman), Martha Muller and John Jacobs (whites), William John Matthews (coloured), and two Chinamen named Wee Chang Juen and Lu Te Sing were charged with a contravention of the Immorality Law, in keeping a brothel at No. 8, Fox Street; whether he is aware that evidence was given to the effect that between two and three hundred Chinamen had been seen waiting in the back-yard of the house, being admitted two at a time to a room in which the two women were; that Wee Chang Juen was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment and ten lashes, and the two whites and the coloured woman were committed for trial; and whether he will state if the trial of the committed prisoners has yet taken place; and, if so, with what result.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): No, Sir. I have not seen the report in question.

    General Botha.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether any reply has been received to the invitation sent to General Botha by His Majesty's Government to attend the Colonial Conference.
    MR. CHURCHILL: A telegram has been received from Lord Selbourne as follows: —"Prime Minister informs me that the Cabinet have unanimously
    28
    decided that General Botha ought to accept the invitation to attend the Colonial Conference. He will accordingly attend, and will be accompanied by Mr. F. W. Beyers, member of the Legislative Assembly for Turffontein, who will act as interpreter and secretary, and two other gentlemen who have not yet been decided on."

    New Hebrides Expenditure.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the details of the sum of £7,000, to be voted during the next financial year, for the Anglo-French Convention connected with the New Hebrides.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is impossible to give details at present, as it is not yet known when the Convention will come into operation and, moreover, a considerable part of the sum to be voted is to cover expenditure the precise amount of which has still to be settled in consultation with the French Government. The main purposes for which expenditure may be necessary during the next financial year are the salaries of the members of the Joint Court, and other officers, such as labour inspectors, and the provision of Government buildings as required by Article III. of the Convention.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Has the money yet been paid?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    Russo-Japanese Convention.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russo-Japanese draft Convention contains a clause binding the two contracting Powers to refer to arbitration all future disputes without reservation; and whether The Hague tribunal has been accepted as the arbitrating authority.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): This is a question on which it would be impossible for any Government other than the two concerned to say anything.

    Anglo-Russian Convention.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the draft Anglo-Russian Convention has been acquiesced in by the Persian Government; to what extent it safeguards British interests in the Persian Gulf on the gulf littoral and in the gulf hinterland; and whether there is any clause binding the two contracting Powers to refer all or any future disputes in the Middle East to arbitration.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend can say nothing about negotiations with Russia or any other Power which are not concluded.

    Portuguese Tariff on Imported Fish.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Portuguese Government has decided to impose a prohibitive duty on fish landed at Portuguese ports by British fishing vessels; and, if so, whether he will make representations to the Portuguese Government on the subject with a view to having these duties withdrawn or reduced.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A Bill is now before the Portuguese Cortes relative to an increase in the duty on the imports of fresh fish landed by foreign vessels. His Majesty's Government have already made representations to the Portuguese Government as to the effect of the proposed measure on British interests.

    The Hague Conference.
    *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the representatives of Great Britain at The Hague Conference will have any power to bind the country by any engagements regarding the strength of its armaments.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Nothing can yet be said about the instructions which will be given to the British delegates at the Conference.

    Income Tax on Easter Offerings.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in spite of the judicial decision in the case of Cooper v. Blakiston, the Board of Inland Revenue are
    30
    still demanding through their officers in various parts of the country the payment of income tax by the clergy upon Easter offerings; and, if so, what is the justification for this course.
    THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): The case of Cooper v. Blakiston is being carried to the Court of Appeal, and meanwhile it is not desirable to give to it any wider application than may be absolutely necessary. Whether or no it should be applied to any particular case must depend upon the precise circumstances of the case, and upon the view taken of them by the District Commissioners of Income Tax. But, wherever the Commissioners consider it right to do so, the Board of Inland Revenue have instructed their surveyors to allow matters to remain in suspense, pending a decision by the Court of Appeal.

    Clerkenwell Sessions.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the statements of the chairman at the Clerkenwell Sessions that every year about 500 men and women were dealt with at these sessions who were guilty of no definite offence, but were people who loafed about the streets, could not or would not work, and were people on whom existing prison treatment had no good effect; and whether in view of the cost to the country generally from this treatment, his Department can recommend more beneficial and reformative methods of treatment which would include assured and useful forms of work for the class referred to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): This matter was fully considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, to whose Report I must refer the hon. Member. It involves large and important questions which require, and are receiving, the careful consideration of the Departments concerned. I quite agree that it is desirable if possible to find a better way of dealing with this class of cases.

    Assistant Inspectors of Factories.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

    31
    for the Home Department whether the position of assistant inspector of factories is subject to competitive examination; how many assistant inspectors are there; how many assistant inspectors of factories have been appointed during the three years last past; and when will candidates for this position be called up again, and for how many vacancies.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The post of factory inspector's assistant is usually filled up by a competitive examination among a certain number of candidates nominated by the Home Secretary. There are now forty assistants. One was appointed in 1904 to fill a vacancy caused by retirement, and four additional appointments were made in 1906. The date of the next examination depends on the occurrence of a vacancy, and I cannot say for certain when that will be.

    Rate Summons Fees.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the charges made for summonses for non-payment of borough rates vary in the Metropolitan boroughs, the practice in some boroughs being to charge 6d. or 1s., whilst in others as much as 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. is charged; will he consider the expediency of taking steps to secure a uniform system; in what way are these charges accounted for; and whether he will consider the practicability of discontinuing them.
    Mr. GLADSTONE: All I can say is that in the Table of Fees for Justices' Clerks in force in the county of London, the authorised fee for complaint, summons, and hearing in a rate case is 1s. where the sum involved is under 40s., and 2s. where it is above 40s. I have no information as to the charges mentioned in the Question, but if the hon. Member brings any specific cases to my notice I will make further inquiry.

    The Wreck of the "Berlin."
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the steamship "Berlin" was carrying bags of vegetable or animal oil and a vessel of an approved pattern for distributing it in the water in rough weather, as required by the provisions of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; if so,
    32
    whether it was used for the purpose of saving lives after the wreck of the steamer; and what is the depth of water in the Hook of Holland harbour.
    MR. WEIR: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade in view of the recent wreck of the steamship "Berlin" at the Hook of Holland and the loss of many lives, will he consider the expediency of taking such action as may be necessary to require all steamers to be equipped with an apparatus or wave subduer for the distribution of oil on broken seas during stormy weather.
    THE PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I will reply to the hon. Member's Question and to that of my hon. friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty at the same time. As the House is aware, a formal investigation into the circumstance of the lamentable wreck of the "Berlin" has been ordered, and pending the result of that inquiry, I do not think it would be expedient for me to refer to any matters bearing on the case. The matters referred to in the Question are of a nature which might be considered at the inquiry.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the depth of the water?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot.
    MR. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman possess any power to secure that approaches to harbours used in this cross-channel traffic shall be adapted to the steamers using them.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no power at all in foreign waters.

    German Tariff on Welsh Slates.
    *MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the objections raised by Welsh slate quarry proprietors to the German tariff of 1906; what representations were made to the German Government in view of these objections; what concessions were ultimately accorded; and how does the new duty on slates obtained as the result of these negotiations

    33
    compare with the rates before the present German tariff came into operation.
    I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the exports of Welsh slates to Germany in each of the last five years.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Welsh slate quarry proprietors objected to the provision in the new Conventional German tariff that blue or grey slates of less than five millimetres in thickness must be punched with a hole at a certain distance from the edge in order to claim admittance at the reduced rate of sixty-five pfennigs applicable to roofing slate, and to avoid the higher rate of one mark applicable to table slates. If this provi-

    Years.

    From the United Kingdom including Welsh Ports.

    From Welsh Ports.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    Tons

    £

    Tons

    £

    1902

    24,851

    99,958

    24,841

    99,918

    1903

    19,977

    83,714

    19,925

    83,519

    1904

    18,918

    81,660

    18,917

    81,640

    1905

    17,206

    74,001

    17,206

    74,001

    1905

    15,657

    66,242

    15,655

    66,230

    Slates exported from ports in Wales may be regarded as Welsh slates.
    *MR. REMNANT: Is it not the fact that whereas the tariff was 5s. per ton, it is now 6s. 7d.?
    MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I have said it has been raised from fifty to sixty-five pfennigs.

    Canadian Wheat Exports.
    *MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in the twelve months ending 30th June, 1905, the combined exports of wheat from Canada and the United States to the United Kingdom amounted to 15,187,000 bushels, whereas the combined imports into the United Kingdom in
    sion had been put into operation it would have seriously handicapped Welsh slates in competition with Austrian. As the result of representations made to the German Government, the regulation objected to has been withdrawn, and practically the whole of the roofing slates exported are now admitted at the lower rate. Full particulars are given in the Board of Trade Journal for 27th December, 1906. The rate of duty on roofing slates under the old German tariff was fifty pfennigs.
    Statement of the registered exports of slates of British and Irish manufacture from the United Kingdom and from Welsh Ports to Germany, during the years 1902–1906 inclusive, showing the quantity and value—
    the same period from these two countries amounted to 17,007,000 bushels; and whether he can explain the discrepancy of 10 to 12 per cent. in these figures.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The figures stated by the hon. Member for the export of wheat to the United Kingdom from the United States and Canada combined are not correct. They should have been 500,000 bushels greater. The hon. Member has ignored the exports of United States wheat, via Canada, and of Canadian wheat via United States, and also the difference between the American and the British bushel. The remaining discrepancy between the correct figures and those of the recorded imports into the United Kingdom from Canada and the United States combined is probably due

    35
    mainly to the diversion of floating cargoes.

    Unexploited Markets.
    *MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether for the advantage of the traders of this country and of the unemployed, he will now state what markets there are yet remaining to be exploited for our commerce.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: All available information as to new openings for British goods is published from time to time in the Board of Trade Journal, or when confidential, is communicated direct to Chambers of Commerce and others interested.
    *MR. REMNANT: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give a more definite Answer than that. He stated the other day, in his speech at Nottingham, that there were vast markets not yet exploited for our commerce.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now arguing the matter.

    Canadian Preference.
    SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the proposal in the Canadian House of Commons to limit the preference in British goods to those landed in Canadian ports; and if he can form any estimate of the relative amount of goods passing through Canada in bond for places in the United States, with the amount of goods passing through the United States in bond to places in Canada.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that a proposal of this nature has been made. I cannot give any estimate with regard to the value of goods passing in bond through Canada for the United States, or vice versa, but the value of re-exports of imported merchandise from Canada to the United States in the year 1905–6 is stated in the Canadian returns to have been £1,347,000, including the goods transhipped at Montreal for the United States. The total value of merchandise imported into Canada from other countries, via the United States, is
    36
    stated in the same returns to have been £5,331,000.

    Railway Freights for Furniture.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what is the usual rate of insurance charged by railway companies, say the London and North Western Railway, the Great Western Railway, and the Great Northern Railway, upon furniture; do these companies require furniture imported from Ireland to be differently packed from the same article offered for carriage in England.
    I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will say whether a clearance house rate of £5 10s. per ton, 5s. 6d. per cwt., is charged by railway companies on the carriage of furniture and such commodities booked over their lines in Great Britain and Ireland; is he aware that any fraction over a ton is charged at the rate for one and a-half tons, and that any fraction over the one and a half tons is charged for at the rate of two tons; and will he say whether, seeing that this system has the effect of raising this particular freightage charge, he will make representations to the railway companies with a view to securing more equitable treatment in this connection.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am having inquiry made as to the points raised in the Questions of the hon. Member with reference to the carriage of furniture, and will inform him of the result.

    Unemployed Fund.
    MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the whole of the £200,000 voted for the unemployed has been expended; and, if not, to what object the balance will be devoted.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The whole of the Grant has not been spent. Any sum remaining unexpended on the 31st instant will be surrendered to the Exchequer. In the meantime, I am continuing to deal with applications made to me by the local bodies under the Unemployed Workmen Act.
    MR. KILBRIDE: How much of the grant has been applied to the relief of the unemployed in Ireland?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: £10,000.

    Unemployment in Manchester.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that nearly 700 names are at present on the Manchester unemployed register; that less than 100 of these are attached to the building trade, and that, with the limitations of the Unemployed Act, the distress committee can find work for only a small number each month; and whether having now declined to propose any Amendment of the Act, notwithstanding that such Amendment was previously promised, he can state that he has other methods to recommend whereby local authorities may better deal with unemploment.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen a statement to the effect that at the end of January last there were 687 persons on the labour register at Manchester. It rests with the distress committee to propose schemes for the provision of work for the unemployed, and in October last I expressed my willingness to consider an application from them for a payment out of the Grant; but it is only recently that I have received any such application.
    MR. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the register of unemployed represents but a very small proportion of the total number unemployed, and that the distress committee, with the present limitation under the law, find it absolutely impossible to provide work for them?
    MR. BURNS: I can only deal with the names on the register. On October 12th I sent a circular to the Manchester Committee offering a grant. On February 25th I received a reply containing a representation as to a certain farm colony, but I asked for details which I believe are being obtained for me.

    London Unemployed.
    MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the appeal for funds issued
    38
    by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, as well as those sent out by other distress committees, have been in-effectual in consequence of there being a balance of the £200,000 Grant still remaining in the hands of his Department, he will consider the advisability of disbursing that balance in grants to the various committees in order that they may do the work they were appointed to do but which they are now prevented from doing by want of means.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: If the distress committee of any district in which there is exceptional distress apply to me at once for a payment out of the Grant, and submit a definite scheme of useful work, I shall be prepared to consider it; but I could not undertake to distribute the balance of the Grant amongst the committees generally.

    Unemployed Workmen Acts—Qualification for Assistance.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed by the Norwich Distress Committee to the case of William George Jex, who was discharged from the 3rd Rifle Brigade at Devonport on 28th July, 1906, after serving six and a-half years with a character marked very good, and who is regarded as not possessing the necessary residential qualification for assistance under the Unemployed Workmen Act, though, with the exception of his term of Army service, he has resided all his life in the city; and whether, having regard to the hardship thus placed upon men who have served their country, he will take early steps to remove the restriction, thereby enabling such men to participate under the Act.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to the case mentioned, but I am not empowered to remove the restriction referred to in the Question, as this is imposed by the Act.

    Societies Journals Postage Rates.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will make such alterations as are necessary to enable royal and other societies to send their weekly, monthly, or quarterly journals

    39
    through the post at the uniform charge of ½d.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I regret that I do not see my way to introducing the fresh legislation which would be necessary in order to bring them within the registered newspaper post.

    Pose Office Service Rules.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what book of rules was referred to by the Secretary of the Post Office on the 20th July, 1906, when he stated before the Post Office Servants' Committee that the general book of rules is accessible to everyone in the service; and whether all Post Office officials have free acess to such book of rules without making written application.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The reference quoted by the hon. Member was to the book of "Rules for Head Postmasters and other officers of the Post Office." This book should be accessible to all members of the Post Office Service without written application.

    Battle Post Office Staff.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what increase has taken place in the number of the Post Office staff at Battle, Sussex, during the last ten years; and what is the greatest number on duty at that office at any one time.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Since 1898, when payment of a fixed salary and allowances for assistance were introduced at Battle, Sussex, in lieu of payment by commission, there has been an increase of one—making four altogether—in the number of assistants employed indoors. There has been no change in the last ten years in the number of postmen employed. The greatest number of officers on duty at any one time is thirteen—ten postmen and three indoor officers.

    Education Code for Wales.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the
    40
    Code of the Board of Education will be applicable to the newly-constituted Welsh Department of the Board; and, if so, whether questions which now arise as to the construction of the Code will be determined by the Permanent Secretary at Whitehall or the Permanent Secretary to the Welsh Department.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The Code will continue to apply to Wales unless and until it is thought advisable to establish a separate Code of Regulations for Elementary Schools in Wales. Questions as to the construction of the Code, like all other questions arising out of the Board's administration, whether in England or Wales, will be determined by me or on my responsibility.

    Welsh Education Department.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the Secretary of the new Welsh Department will be subordinate to the Permanent Secretary of the Board.
    MR. McKENNA: The Answer is in the negative.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the existing officers and clerks of the Board of Education, who are to work in the new Welsh Department under the new secretary, will continue to have access to, and be subject to supervision by, the Permanent Secretary and Chief Clerk of the Board; and whether the officers of the Welsh Department will be entitled to promotion in other branches of the office, and vice versa.
    MR. McKENNA: I am not yet in a position to say how far it will be possible or expedient to assign a clerical staff exclusively to the work of the Welsh Department, but in any case the transfer of any officer to or from the Welsh Department will not be allowed to affect his prospects of promotion.

    Scottish Ecclesiastical Assessments.
    MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of this House having declared itself in favour of the immediate abolition of ecclesiastical assessments in Scotland by

    41
    a large majority, in which Scottish opinion was represented by thirty-five votes to six, the Government can now state what steps they propose taking to give effect to such an expression of Scottish views and to relieve Scotland of this long-standing grievance.
    THE SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As my hon. friend is aware, the terms of the Resolution moved by the Member for East Edinburgh upon this subject were assented to by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government, but I am unable to give any undertaking now in regard to legislation.

    Tweed Fishery Rights.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if any action has been taken on the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tweed Fishery Acts that persons claiming exclusive rights to fishing in parts of the rivers and streams should be called on to prove their title by production of charters or other muniments.
    MR. SINCLAIR: In the years 1896 and 1897 some investigation was made by the Commissioners of Woods into some of the titles to salmon fishings in the River Tweed as to which there seemed to be a doubt. The investigation, as far as it was carried, did not warrant claims being made by the Crown, and having regard to the probable value of the fishings as to which further information was desired and the expense which further investigation would have involved it was considered undesirable to press the inquiry further at the time.

    Prosecution of Moray Firth Trawlers.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the masters of all vessels found trawling in the Moray Firth will be prosecuted.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, if they are British subjects.

    Scottish National Galleries—Board of Trustees.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that, under the Act of last year, the Board of Trustees to manage the National Galleries of Scotland must be established
    42
    by the 1st April, is he yet in a position to announce the names of the chairman and members of the Board.
    MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.

    Crofter Leaseholders.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what steps he proposes to take to prevent crofter leaseholders from being evicted pending the consideration of the promised Bill to amend the Crofters' Act of 1886.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I strongly deprecate any action of the kind referred to by my hon. friend. Pending the introduction of the Bill, however, I am not in a position to give any undertaking.

    Island of Lewis Common Grazings.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that large areas of the crofters common grazings in the island of Lewis are absolutely valueless for grazing purposes, being merely skinned land from which the peat has been removed; and will he consider the expediency of introducing a clause into the promised Crofters Act (1886) Amendment Bill to render such land available for the erection of fishermen's dwellings.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The point shall be considered.

    The Arbroath Disaster.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sentence of five months imprisonment passed on Driver Gourlay at Edinburgh yesterday in connection with the Arbroath disaster; and whether, in view of the absence of unanimity among the jury, of their recommendation of leniency, the extenuating circumstances under which the accident took place, and the advanced age of Gourlay, he will consider the advisability of revising or remitting the sentence.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW, Hawick Burghs)said he had received last evening a telegram on the subject of this trial. Substantially the hon. Member's Question accurately narrated the conviction and the recommendation of the jury. It was not within

    43
    his province to deal with the revision or remittance of the sentence, but he had mentioned the matter to his right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland, to whom, perhaps, the hon. Member would put a specific Question on the point.

    Moray Firth Trawlers.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONasked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangement had been made with Norway with regard to their withdrawal of trawling rights in the Moray Firth; and whether it was the intention of the Government to maintain the three-mile limit as now defined.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid the first part of the Question should be addressed to the Foreign Office, which was in communication with the Norwegian Government in reference to the situation which had arisen in regard to the Moray Firth. The three-mile limit was not in question.
    MR. PIRIE: Is the Scottish Office acting in sympathy with the Foreign Office in this question?
    MR. SINCLAIR: No doubt the Government is acting as a whole.
    MR. CHARLES WILSONasked if the Government had considered the probability of foreign countries retaliating by closing considerable tracts of fishing ground if this policy of protection was continued.
    MR. SINCLAIR: That and all other considerations will no doubt be attended to.
    MR. PIRIEasked if the Government with regard to this question would give due attention to the protests from numerous big fishing centres in the world against the action of the Government.
    MR. WEIRasked that attention should also be given to the protests from the line fishing industry, also a large one.
    MR. FERENS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 1,000 steam trawlers go out of the Humber—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice should be given of that Question.

    Westmeath Untenanted Lands.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that nearly all the untenanted land in Westmeath, outside of desmesnes, is evicted land; that many of the young men reared upon uneconomic holdings are descendants of tenants evicted from the better lands, and have hoped to be enabled to remain in Ireland as purchasers of new holdings on those lands at prices to be fixed by the Estates Commissioners; and, seeing that the Act of 1903 in more than three years working has done nothing to this end, and the emigration season is again approaching, can he hold out any hope of dealing with the problem this session.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I informed the hon. Member yesterday of the steps which the Estates Commissioners are taking for the acquisition of untenanted land in Westmeath. The Commissioners are not aware how far the statements contained in the Question may be correct, but, as the hon. Member knows, their powers as to the classes whom they may provide with land are strictly limited by the statute. The Commissioners, when distributing land, fully consider the claims of all qualified persons. I hope to be able to deal with the problem during this session.

    Land Act Administration Officials.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that Land Commissioners, Sub-Commissioners, assessors, valuers, and inspectors of land, whose findings affect the property and livelihood of two important sections of the community engaged in litigation with each other, have hitherto been almost exclusively nominees of one of those sections, to the detriment of the other section, and competent men of character have been excluded from even nomination, will he take advantage of the present opportunity to inaugurate, in appointing to all these positions, a system of public advertisement and competitive examination, subject to impartial rules analogous to those in force in other branches of the public service.

    45
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the prevalent dissatisfaction with the system of official land valuing which has been twenty-six years in operation in Ireland, and the approaching revision of the staff engaged in this work, will he throw this branch of the public service open to all competent men of character and practical experience, irrespective of creed and politics, by establishing a system of appointment as a result of impartial public examination; and, if he cannot do this, will he state what the objection is.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to both of these Questions is in the negative. I should be glad if some system could be devised whereby the Government would be relieved of the doubtful boon of patronage in these cases, but I am afraid that a system of competitive examination would not be appropriate.
    MR. MOORE: Have the Government abandoned the principle of qualifying examinations for these Land Commission appointments?
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is knowledge of the value of land deemed to be one of the main qualifications?
    MR. BIRRELL: Certainly. I can conceive no other more important. If a qualifying examination is found to be useful we shall not abandon it.
    MR. MOORE: But it was abandoned last year for the first time.
    MR. BIRRELL: The question is under consideration.

    Evicted Tenants—Number of Claims for Reinstatement.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of persons purporting to be evicted tenants who have made claims for reinstatement under the Land Act of 1903 to date.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received applications from 7,156 persons who seek reinstatement as evicted tenants.

    Heirs of Evicted Tenants.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the four sons of an evicted tenant, who has died since his eviction, are to be regarded by the Estates Commissioners as four evicted tenants; and if four farms will be provided for them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners hold that under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1903 they have no power to make advances to four sons of an evicted tenant. They may nominate one son or other person as the representative of a deceased evicted tenant.

    Irish Land Purchase.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many estates were vested in the purchasers by the Estates Commissioners in the months of December, 1906, January and February, 1907, respectively; and what was the total amount of the purchase money.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total number of estates vested in purchasers during the three months mentioned was 152, and the amount of the advances made, £1,170,032. I will furnish with to-night's Votes a tabular statement, showing for each month the figures in respect of each class of sale.†

    Evicted Tenants Statistics.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state, of the total number of evicted tenants in Ireland who have made claims for reinstatement, how many were dispossessed of their holdings under judgments obtained by merchants and creditors other than landlords, and for causes of action other than rent.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total number of applicants is 7,156. The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge as to how many of these applicants were dispossessed of their holdings at the instance of persons other than landlords.

    Sir Horace Plunkett.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether
    †See col. 14.

    47
    he is aware that Sir Horace Plunkett, the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department in Ireland, was absent from his duties for upwards of two months in America; did he ask permission for thus absenting himself, and, if so, from whom and on what grounds; by whom were Sir Horace Plunkett's duties discharged in his absence; and why is the privilege of being absent from duties, which he is paid to discharge, granted to Sir Horace Plunkett while not extended to other members of the Civil Service.
    MR. BIRRELL: Sir Horace Plunkett's visit to the United States extended from 6th December to 26th January. It was made during his annual holiday and did not exceed the amount of leave to which he is officially entitled. Nearly half of his stay in the United States was devoted to inquiries made on behalf of his Department at the Department of Agriculture and other public offices in Washington, at Agricultural colleges in four States, and at several technical institutions. His duties are discharged in his absence by the secretary of the Department. These arrangements are approved by the Chief Secretary for the time being.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to grant Sir Horace permanent leave of absence?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish Resident Magistrates.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what, if any, are the qualifications for the position of resident magistrate in Ireland, and what steps are taken to secure that candidates selected for appointment to that position shall be persons of unblemished character; whether he is aware that a person was appointed by the late Government to an Irish resident magistracy shortly after his dismissal with ignominy from a corps in Cape Colony for the embezzlement of the money of private soldiers entrusted to him for transmission to their relations at home, that this person formed one of a court of resident magistrates, specially constituted under the Crimes Act, by which forty-eight persons, some of whom were Catholic priests and Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament, were convicted
    48
    and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and were in charge of the police or military on the occasion of a collision between the forces of the Crown and the people, in which these civilians lost their lives; and whether he will give an assurance that the persons appointed to the position of resident magistrate will only be appointed after a strict investigation of their previous careers.
    MR. BIRRELL: No qualifications for the position of resident magistrate in Ireland are prescribed by statute or otherwise, but in making appointments the Lord-Lieutenant selects gentlemen of whose competency to hear and determine cases in Courts of summary jurisdiction he is satisfied. In making such appointments the Irish Government utilise any sources of information which may be at their disposal in each individual case, in order to ensure that the person appointed is qualified in all respects, including character. The concluding part of the Question appears to relate to an appointment made in 1886 and terminated in 1889. I find that this case was fully discussed in this House in 1888 and 1889, and I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Parliamentary Debates of those years for full particulars.

    Leitrim Boycotting Trial.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Bradys, the boycotted persons for attacking whom certain persons were indicted at the recent Leitrim assizes, were unable to get supplied with shelter, food, or drink in the county town where the assizes were held during the trial; were the police and Crown solicitor unable to procure any person in the town willing to relieve their wants; has he received any Report from the police on this matter; are the Bradys under constant police protection by night and day; were they attacked on the road, and some provisions they had obtained in a remote village forcibly taken from them and destroyed; and has any person been punished for the various outrages committed on these people.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that on the occasion mentioned the persons referred to were unable to obtain a lodging in the assize town elsewhere than in the police barracks. They were able,

    49
    however, to obtain food supplies in the town. They are under constant police protection. As regards the two concluding inquiries, eight men are still awaiting trial for the offence referred to, and I am therefore not prepared to enter into the details of the case.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not the fact that during the trial the boycott of these Bradys was carried to such an extent that the learned Judge had to send them his own luncheon, and that they had to be smuggled out of the town into another county where they were not known before they could obtain a night's lodging?
    MR. KILBRIDE: Are not the Bradys looked upon by the people of Leitrim in the same light as trade unionists in this country look upon blacklegs?
    MR. BIRRELLrepeated part of his Answer as to the difficulties experienced by the Bradys. He could not, he added, say whence they obtained their food supply.

    Goodall Estate, Roscommon.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any claim for the purchase of the Goodall estate, in the county Roscommon, has been laid before the Estates Commissioners; whether it has been represented to the Commissioners that only ten of the tenants agreed to the landlord's terms and fifteen declined; whether, in addition, there is a large quantity of grazing lands in the hands of non-residential tenants; and, if so, whether the Commissioners will approve of the sale as proposed.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that there are thirty-seven tenants on this estate, of whom all but twelve have lodged agreements for purchase. Before sanctioning the sale, the Commissioners intend to have the estate inspected in view of the fact that tenancies in respect of certain large holdings have been created since January, 1901. The inspection will take place as soon as possible.

    Crofton Estate, Leitrim.
    MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    50
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the delay of the negotiations regarding the Crofton estate, Ballinagleragh, county Leitrim, is a serious inconvenience to the tenants; whether he is aware that the neglect to restore an evicted farm on the estate to its owners is strongly resented in the district; and will he take steps to bring about an immediate settlement.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have suggested terms of settlement which they understand the owner is prepared to accept. The Commissioners have therefore directed their inspector to attend on an early date for the purpose of ascertaining whether the tenants will purchase on these terms, and if so, of obtaining their signature to the necessary documents. The Commissioners are aware that the question of an evicted farm in the district is causing ill feeling. They have endeavoured to settle the matter, but so far without success.

    Royal College of Science, Dublin—The Library.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why the librarianship of the Royal College of Science in Dublin has been kept vacant for nearly nine months; how the money saved by reason of this vacancy will be applied; and when it is proposed to make a new appointment.
    MR. BIRRELL: There is no post of librarian at the Royal College of Science. The library was looked after by one of the attendants, who received an additional allowance of £20 a year for the work. This officer retired on pension at the end of October last. The arrangement by which the library was entrusted to an attendant was not altogether satisfactory, and the question of providing for the future care of the library is now under consideration.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there used to be an officially appointed librarian; that when the vacancy arose the post was actually offered by advertisement to public competition, but that no appointment being made this valuable library was left in charge of the hall porter?
    MR. BIRRELL: That is news to me. I only know there is no librarian at present, but I hope there soon will be one.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the inconvenience caused to those who use the library.

    Gooseberry Mildew in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the powers possessed by the Irish Executive for dealing with gooseberry mildew and other agricultural pests are sufficient; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that legislation has been promised to confer further powers upon the English Board of Agriculture and local authorities, he will consider the advisability of increasing the powers of the Irish Department of Agriculture.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Department of Agriculture do not possess any specific powers for dealing with gooseberry mildew and similar diseases. The question of applying to Ireland any legislation which may be introduced in connection with such matters will receive due consideration.

    Agrarian Troubles in County Clare.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the number of cases recently reported from the county of Clare, where firearms have been used for purposes of outrage, since 1st January, 1907, where persons respectively named Kelly, M'Inerney, Scanlon, Maher, Frawley, Doherty, and FitzGerald (seven cases in all) were shot at and some of them badly wounded; was any person convicted in respect of any of these outrages; and has his attention been called to the charge of the Judge of Assize to the Clare Grand Jury.
    MR. BIRRELL: The offences in which firearms were used were not seven but four, as I informed the hon. Member on 27th February.†In the case of Kelly, a shot was fired outside his house, but not at him. McInerney and Scanlon were,
    †See (4) Debates, clxx., 57.
    52
    when working together, fired at by one man and injured, but not seriously. Maher was fired at, but not injured. Frawley was fired at and seriously injured. In the first three of these cases, the accused were acquitted at the recent Assizes. In the fourth the accused is on remand. In the case of Doherty no firearm was used, and the police authorities do not regard Fitzgerald's case as one of outrage. I have seen the Judge's address, which bears out the facts stated.

    Clanricarde Estate Planters.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a meeting of the planters on the Clanricarde estate had been summoned in February at Portumna Castle, by the agent, Edward Shaw Tener, who advised them to refuse compensation and resist the operation of the Land Bill of 1903 by every means in their power; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to prevent the landlord or his agent from inciting tenants to resist the operation of the Law.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no information as to the meeting in question, and I have none.
    Mr. DILLON: In view of the extremely serious condition of this district, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information from the police?
    MR. BIRRELL: We are rather shy of drawing the police into these matters. We do not wish to introduce them more than we can help into quarrels of this kind, but I am fully alive to the importance of seeing what is done on this estate, and I will do my best to find out.

    Labourers' Cottage Scheme in County Antrim.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what figures and on what information he has estimated that, even when the entire sum of £2,000 for labourers' cottages, which was formerly borne by the Exchequer grant in county Antrim, should fall on the rates, they would only be affected to

    53
    the extent of five-sixths of a penny in the pound; and whether, in the case of Lisburn rural district, in county Antrim, the amount which the rates had already to bear owing to the reduction of the Exchequer grant was 1½d. in the pound.
    MR. BIRRELL: The aggregate valuation of the several rural districts in county Antrim is £597,000, and therefore an average rate of five-sixths of a penny in the pound would produce £2,000. In the particular district to which the hon. Member refers, the rate appears to have been above the average.

    Gaelic Athletic Association and England's Influence.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Patrick Larkin, a justice of the peace for county Galway, at a meeting of the Gaelic Athletic Association, at Loughrea, on 21st January last, to the effect that any policy which would help to crush England's influence in Ireland would have his support; and whether, in view of the effect which such speeches may have, he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to it, with a view to the removal from the commission of the peace of persons who openly proclaim their disloyalty.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to a newspaper report according to which Mr. Larkin, who is an ex officio magistrate, made the remark attributed to him in the Question. Whether this remark is disloyal is a matter of opinion. I see no reason to call the Lord Chancellor's attention to the matter.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: What is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman? Does he think the remark disloyal?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Beale National Schoolmaster
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Beasley, of Beale national school, Bally bunion, though bringing his school from middling to good since his appointment in 1904, is now worse off in the matter of salary than if he remained
    54
    assistant; and whether the whole question of the method of granting increments and their amounts will be fully inquired into.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is not the fact that this teacher has suffered by promotion. He now receives as principal some £6 per annum more than he would have received as assistant, and has the additional advantage that he is eligible for further promotion. As regards the concluding part of the Question, I am not in a position to make any promise.

    Ancient Order of Hibernians—Cloveneden Meeting.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians are to be permitted, contrary to usage and written agreement, to march through an Orange district in procession and with a band on the 17th March, at Cloveneden, county Armagh; and whether, in view of the possibility of a breach of the peace, he will direct the procession to take another route.
    Mr. MOORE: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Government have authorised the Ancient Order of Hibernians to break an agreement entered into with the authorities and with the Orangemen of the district, and observed for sixteen years past, by allowing a procession of the Hibernians to march in procession and with a band at Cloveneden, county Armagh, by the route which it was agreed should not be taken by them.
    MR. BIRRELL: I understand that the Ancient Order of Hibernians propose to assemble at their hall in Cloveneden, and march with their band in procession to the chapel in that village by the only available road. This road passes through a Nationalist quarter though there is an Orange hinterland. It is intended to afford the party any protection which may be necessary to secure the exercise of their legal right to pass along the King's high road. In similar circumstances, and in the same district, the Government protected a

    55
    procession of Orangemen last year when passing over Annaghmore Hill. I understand that the use of the proposed route does not conflict with any agreement which may be in existence.

    United Irish League Demonstration at Ardagh.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Ardagh on the 24th February, when, at a public demonstration arranged by the local branch of the United Irish League, and attended by a large number of persons, Mr. Patrick Keane, one of the persons who have taken the Crannagh Farm, was denounced by name and the people were advised to boycott him and make it hot for him; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to this matter. The police are in constant attendance at the Crannagh farm, for the protection of Mr. Keane and others who have taken divisions of the land. Steps are being taken for the erection of a police hut on the farm, and the police will take all possible steps to prevent any interference with the persons concerned in the exercise of their legal rights.

    Intimidation on Ryan's Estate, Galway.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. H. Burns, a grazing tenant on Ryan's estate, county Galway, has received a notice purporting to come from the Mullagh branch of the United Irish League, informing him that he will not be permitted to occupy his farm of Addergoole one moment beyond 1st April, 1907, and that, if he refuses to comply with the mandate of the people of Mullagh, the signatories of this notice will themselves put it into execution; whether the persons signing this threatening letter are known to the police; and what steps are to be taken to prosecute them and protect the tenant.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Persons bearing the names appended to the notice are known to the police, but so far the
    56
    police are not in a position to prove the signatures. The police will take all necessary steps to protect Mr. Burns in the exercise of his legal rights.
    MR. LONSDALE: Have any steps been taken as yet to protect him?
    MR. BIRRELL: Certainly.

    County Court Land Valuers.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what the ages of the land valuers to the county court judges in the several counties in Ireland are, or whether any of them are over seventy years of age.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am inquiring into this matter. As I understand it, the continued employment of these valuers rests with the county court judges.

    Crime in Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Justice Johnson, in opening the assizes for the county of Limerick on Friday last, stated to the grand jury that there were only three cases, not of any great importance, to go before them, and that they had nothing to say to the general peace of the country, he will take steps to bring about the more speedy reinstatement of the evicted tenants, so that this state of affairs may be maintained.
    MR. BIRRELL: According to the newspaper reports, Mr. Justice Johnson made the statement attributed to him in the Question. The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are using all possible expedition in dealing with the cases of evicted tenants.

    Case of Mrs. Kate Scanlan.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Ballylongford branch of the United Irish League, at which over forty members were present, expressing their regret that Mrs. Kate Scanlan, of Tullahinnell, had been sent to gaol for retaking possession of her evicted farm on which she lived for over thirty years, and

    57
    stating that the case is one which calls for the strongest condemnation; and whether in view of this fact and in the interest of the peace of the locality, he will at once take steps and ask the Estates Commissioners to bring about her reinstatement.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have received the resolution in question. The Estates Commissioners are considering whether they can take any further steps towards securing the reinstatement of the evicted tenant.

    Youghal Bay Salmon Fishery.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that serious damage continues to be caused to the salmon fishing industry in the vicinity of Youghal, county Cork, by the number of seals which frequent Youghal Bay; and whether the Fishery Department of the Board of Agriculture will consider the desirability of offering substantial rewards for the destruction of the seals, or of taking some other prompt steps to deal with this evil.
    MR. BIRRELL: A substantial reward is given for the destruction of seals in Youghal Bay, namely £1 per head, of which half is paid by the Department of Agriculture and half by the local Board of Conservators. The chief haunt of the seals has been discovered in a cave, locally known as the Parliament House, a few miles from Youghal. This Parliament House is difficult of access, but the Department are considering whether some plan cannot be devised for the extirpation of its objectionable occupants.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the steps taken have not reduced the number of seals? Will he increase the reward?
    MR. BIRRELL: I think £1 a head is a substantial sum, but I will consider whether it should be increased.

    Swinford Landlords Pressing for Rent.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. D'Arcy and other landlords in the Swinford union in
    58
    pressing for immediate payment of rent which in ordinary course would not become payable until November next; whether, seeing that the Swinford union is one of the districts in Ireland seriously affected by the potato failure and in which it has been found necessary to take measures for relief of exceptional distress the Executive Government will take steps to secure the retention of those tenants on the land; and what steps the Government propose to take to secure the peace of the district.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information to the effect mentioned in the Question, and none has reached me. It would, I think, be matter for regret if landlords should take exceptional measures for the recovery of rent in a district which has admittedly suffered from scarcity. I have no reason to suppose that any special measures will be necessary to secure the peace.
    MR. DILLON: In view of the extreme gravity of this case and of the fact that it cannot come under the attention of the Estates Commission, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the police to inquire whether any landlords are forestalling the usual time for demanding rent under threat of process in a district in which public money is being used for the relief of distress?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will make inquiries on my own account.

    Rathmullan Breakwater.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any steps have been taken to carry out the repeated promises of having a breakwater constructed at New Bridge, Rathmullan, county Donegal; and whether he is aware of the necessity for such a work.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is, I understand, desirable that some improvements should be effected at New Bridge. My predecessor had the matter under consideration but decided that it must be deferred for the present, in view of the stronger claims of other localities. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that any promise in the matter has been given

    59
    by the Government. The amount available under the Marine Works Act is now small, and I can only say that the claims of New Bridge to have a grant will receive full consideration if funds should be available.

    North Donegal Harbours.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken to improve the harbour and fishing accommodation along the coast of North Donegal; and, seeing the need for such improvement, whether he will take steps to have the same effected.
    MR. BIRRELL: Under the Marine Works Act, a total sum of about £14,000 has in recent years been expended on works at Downing's Bay, Gortnasate, Portnoo, and Cladnageragh, on the north coast of Donegal, and a further sum of £800 is about to be spent at Falchorrib. The Congested Districts Board have expended over £4,000 on that coast; particulars will be found in Appendix No. XXI. to the Board's last Annual Report.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: These places are not in North Donegal.
    MR. BIRRELL: I was speaking of their geographical position; not of the constituency in which they may be.

    Lattin Evicted Holding.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have purchased from the rev. Mr. Pennefather the evicted holding of Richard Merrick, at Ballynulty, Lattin, county Tipperary; that Merrick has been put into possession as caretaker, pending completion of agreement; and whether he will see that Merrick be allowed to commence his spring operations on the farm and be permitted to reside in the dwelling-house.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners' offer for the purchase of this farm has been accepted, but title has not yet been established, and the Commissioners, therefore, cannot yet enter into possession or formally reinstate the evicted tenant. The Commissioners are not
    60
    aware that Merrick has been placed in possession as caretaker.

    In reply to a further Question,
    MR. BIRRELLsaid he greatly regretted the delay which occurred between the acceptance of offers and the establishment of title, and he was doing his best to make it as short as possible.

    Powers of Irish Magistrates—Appeals.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that magistrates at petty sessions in Ireland are empowered to sentence to terms of imprisonment of not more than one month on summary conviction persons brought before them, that such sentences may be accompanied with hard labour, that from these sentences the prisoner has no power of appeal, that an increase of sentence to admit of the lodging of appeal is not uncommonly refused by magistrates, and invariably refused by resident magistrates constituting special Courts under the provisions of The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, and that such refusal has frequently been the subject of grave comments by County Court Judges and Judges of the High Courts, and having regard to the fact that in England there is in every case a power of appeal from the decision of magistrates, he will consider the advisability of assimilating the English and Irish Criminal Law; and whether he will, in the meantime, bring under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland any case in which magistrates refuse to increase sentences so as to allow of an appeal.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. There is no right of appeal in Ireland from a sentence by magistrates for any term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, except in a few specified cases. I believe that occasionally a person sentenced to a short term of imprisonment has asked to have the sentence increased with the object of prosecuting an appeal and that this request has been refused, but such cases are not of frequent occurrence. If any such cases are brought to my notice by my hon. friend I shall be happy to draw the

    61
    attention of the Lord Chancellor to them, but I doubt if he has any power to interfere. With regard to my hon. friend's suggestion of legislation to assimilate the English and Irish practice as regards the right of appeal, I may say that I should personally approve of such assimilation in this and many other respects, but I cannot give any pledge on behalf of the Government to introduce any measure for the purpose this session.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the power of appeal was promised under the Coercion Act, but that the promise has been departed from by the senior Member for the City of London.
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman if he desires.

    Jury Challenges at the Cork Assizes.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of jurors ordered by the Crown to stand aside in criminal trials at the late Cork winter assizes; and under what authority the Crown solicitors acted in challenging jurors without cause assigned.
    MR. CHERRY: No winter assizes have been held at Cork since the year 1905. The winter assizes for the province of Munster were held last year at Limerick. The Crown solicitors there, for the various counties, acted under my directions in ordering jurors to stand aside. The directions I gave were the same as I have always given, namely, to follow strictly the rules laid down for their guidance in the circular issued on 12th February, 1894, to order any juror to stand aside whom they had reason to believe was in any way connected with the accused, or physically or mentally incompetent, or who had been canvassed on behalf of the accused, but not to challenge any juror on account of his religious or political opinions. I have no record of the number of jurors ordered to stand aside, but if the hon. Member desires it I shall endeavour to obtain a return for him.

    Grants for Primary Education in Ireland.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what basis is the amount of State grants given for primary education in 1907 to England, Scotland, and Ireland calculated; what is the amount per head of the population given in each of the three countries in the year 1907;what is the proportion existing between the grants for the three countries for the same year; and whether, seeing that Ireland is a poor country, where education has long been neglected, he will consider the necessity of increasing the grant next year to the amount given to Scotland.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I can give no better answer as to the basis of the several grants than to refer to the titles of the various subheads of the three estimates. As regards the rest of the Question, I may point out that the preparation of a Return giving all the figures is a matter of immense labour, as will be seen from the Return prepared on the Motion of the hon. Member last year (House of Commons Paper 305 of 1906), which gave comparative figures for the year 1904–5, and I do not consider that the additional value of a Return substituting the figures for 1907–8 would justify my asking the Departments concerned to make the calculations afresh. I can see no reason for increasing the total grant for Ireland merely on the ground that the amount is less than that received by Scotland, where the number of children attending school is very much larger.

    Irish Land Act Problems.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury is aware that a vendor under the Land Act of 1903 benefits in proportion to the amount of his debts, within the limits of solvency, by receiving public money free of interest, or at low interest, to pay off private debts at high interest; that tenants pressed for arrears of rent which their farms have not yielded are not free agents, but sign purchase agreements as their only escape from that pressure; that the bonus is increased proportionately by the amount which the vendor thus obtains; and, if this absence of free bargaining and of inspection for value be

    63
    contrary to sound finance, will Parliament be asked to provide a remedy.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot conveniently discuss, in Question and Answer across the floor of the House, the different views that may be held of the effect and policy of the Act of 1903. I have no knowledge of any tenants not being free agents, or of any absence of free bargaining. I understand that inspection is made in every case where fair rents have not been already fixed; and where fair rents have been fixed Section 1of the Act applies. The bonus is, under Section 48 (1) of the Act "calculated at the rate of 12 per cent. on the amount of the purchase money advanced."

    Advances under the Land Act on Insolvent Property.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difference of judicial opinion, there will be any further appeal as to the legality of advancing public money under the Land Act of 1903 as a price of insolvent property, irrespective of value, with a bonus added to that price, and for payment of irrecoverable arrears of rent, with a bonus added to their amount; whether money is advanced by the Treasury for payments of this character to any other class or section but Irish landlords; and whether he can suggest any reason for the indifference of the Treasury to these payments except the fact that Irish resources are liable.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware what difference of judicial opinion is referred to. The latter part of the Question is based on a misapprehension. Money is not advanced by the Treasury under the Land Purchase Acts. The Land Commission are responsible for the making of advances under those Acts, having regard to the provisions of the same as judicially interpreted.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury have considered the financial soundness or unsoundness of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland that the more embarrassed tenants are the more public money must be advanced for the purchase of their insolvent holdings, including irrecoverable arrears of rent with a bonus added to their amount;
    64
    will the Treasury appeal against that decision, or have its effect counteracted by administration or by legislation; and, if not, will he state the financial reasons for allowing the system to continue.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared to discuss the matter of opinion in the hon. Member's first paragraph. I presume that the decision to which he refers is that in the matter of Crosbie's estate; and I understand that no appeal lies. The "system" referred to is that established by the Acts, and it is not the province of the Treasury to interfere with the administration of them or to introduce amending legislation.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the steady increase of local rates and taxes in Ireland, the growing liabilities upon the fund from which those local burdens have hitherto been relieved, and the fact that, under the Land Act of 1903, vendors are being paid eight years purchase of rent more than was found under previous purchase Acts to be the limits of safety for advances, whether the Treasury will in every case of sale prevent the advance of public money as price beyond the value of the thing sold as ascertained by official inspection.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 the Land Commission, and not the Treasury, are responsible for advances. I believe higher prices are now paid by purchasing tenants than under previous Land Purchase Acts, but this is the result of the Act.

    Taylorstown Postal Arrangements.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Taylorstown South, although only 3½ miles from the postal distributing centre of Toome, in the county of Antrim, has a postal delivery on only three days in the week, and that on the days of delivery, although the letters arrive at Toome, before eight in the morning, they are not delivered until 12.15, while in many places, at a greater distance from Toome they are delivered before 9 a.m.; whether, in view of the statement of the Postmaster-General a few years ago, that every part of the Kingdom was to have a daily delivery of letters where practicable, he will take

    65
    steps to have an early daily delivery at Taylorstown; and whether he will have a pillar box erected in a central position in the same townland.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will send the hon. Member a reply after the necessary inquiries have been made.

    Newcastle West (Limerick) Postal Arrangements.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can say why it is that the people of Newcastle West, in the county of Limerick, have now to post their letters at 7.30 o'clock p.m., while for many years past they need not have done so until 9 o'clock p.m.; and whether, owing to the inconvenience to the public in shortening the time for posting, he will take steps to have the old arrangement carried out.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will make inquiry on this subject and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Donegal Postal Arrangements.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General at what times are the mails delivered at Carndonagh, Malin, Culdaff, and Moville respectively, every day, and what times were the deliveries made at the two former places under the old mail-car system; whether he will state the cause of the change of the morning mail from Londonderry with the mails; and, in view of the inconvenience and loss the business people and community in general are subjected to on account of insufficient and late mail delivery and despatch, will he take steps to have the system of delivery and despatch of mails improved at and from those places.
    I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General at what times the mails are despatched every day from Carndonagh, county Donegal; and whether he will take steps to have such a mid-day despatch as will enable the business people to avail of the limited mail from Londonderry.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have called for a Report respecting the despatches and deliveries at Carndonagh and district, and on its receipt I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Redmond John Barry, esquire, K. C., for the county of Tyrone (North Tyrone Division).
NEW BILLS.
  EDUCATION OF AFFLICTED CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the better Education of Afflicted children in Ireland," presented by Mr. Charles Craig; supported by Mr. Moore, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Lonsdale, and Captain Craig; to be read a second time upon Monday, 15th April, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
  CIVIL BILL COURTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
  "To improve the procedure and make better provision for discharge of the business of the Civil Bill Courts of the City and County of Dublin," presented by Mr. John Gordon; supported by Mr. Harrington and Mr. Waldron; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
  BUILDING LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To deal with Building Lands in Scotland," presented by Mr. Munro Ferguson; supported by Mr. Lamont; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

  PRIVILEGES.
  Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Blake, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Ellis, Sir Henry Aubrey Fletcher, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham) were nominated Members of the Committee of Privileges.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  SUPPLY [11TH MARCH] REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1907–8 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £21,410,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account,

  67
  for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, viz.: —

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  Class II.

  £

  Colonial Office

  25,000

  Class IV.

  Scientific Investigation, etc.

  24,000

  Board of Education

  7,000,000

  Class I.

  Royal Palaces

  20,000

  Osborne

  5,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  50,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  20,000

  Salisbury Memorial

  —

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  30,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  25,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  50,000

  Revenue Buildings

  210,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  200,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  90,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  15,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  10,000

  Rates on Government Property

  290,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  95,000

  Railways, Ireland

  35,000

  Class II.

  United Kingdom and England: —

  House of Lords Offices

  10,000

  House of Commons Offices

  20,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  40,000

  Home Office

  70,000

  Foreign Office

  24,000

  Privy Council Office

  5,000

  Board of Trade

  90,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  32,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  500

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  60,000

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  £

  Civil Service Commission

  17,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  25,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  Local Government Board

  85,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  10,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  500

  Registrar General's Office

  15,000

  Stationery and Printing

  330,000

  Woods, Forests, &c, Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  34,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland: —

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  25,000

  Fishery Board

  5,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,500

  Registrar General's Office

  l,500

  Local Government Board

  5,000

  Ireland: —

  Lord-Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary's Offices and Subordinate Departments

  10,000

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  90,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  30,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  16,000

  Registrar General's Office

  5,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  7,000

  Class III.

  United Kingdom and England: —

  Law Charges

  30,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  28,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  140,000

  Land Registry

  16,000

  County Courts

  2

  Police, England and Wales

  15,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  320,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  130,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  12,000

  Scotland: —

  £

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Crofters Commission

  2,000

  Prisons

  35,000

  Ireland: —

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  25,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  43,000

  Land Commission

  100,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  45,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  60,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  600,000

  Prisons

  52,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  4,000

  Class IV.

  United Kingdom and England: —

  British Museum

  60,000

  National Gallery

  10,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  3,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  60,000

  Scotland: —

  Public Education

  850,000

  National Galleries

  3,000

  Ireland: —

  Public Education

  760,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  2,000

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  Class V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  Colonial Services

  350,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  25,000

  Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  49,000

  Class VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  300,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,150

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  —

  Class VII.

  £

  Temporary Commissions

  28,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  7,943

  Repayment to the Local Loans Fund

  —

  Ireland Development Grant

  100,000

  Total for Civil Services

  £13,980,000

  Resolution read a second time.
  *MR. BOLANDsaid that about two years ago a Motion was moved in the House of Commons calling attention to the position of the Royal Hibernian Academy in Dublin. That Motion was agreed to, and he was glad to say it was supported at the time by not only the Irish representatives, but the representatives from Scotland. A Committee of Inquiry was constituted immediately after the Motion had been accepted by the Government, and the importance of an early discussion of the Report was all the greater, because unfortunately the Committee was not unanimous in its report. He himself was a member of the Committee, and finally three Members decided one way, and he and Mr. Justice Madden, a former hon. Member of that House, decided another way. It was contended that the Academy should be given a proper site and a proper building by the Government, and upon that point Sir James Guthrie, President of the Scottish Academy, was very clear in his evidence before the Committee. He showed that the Government had given a site for the Royal Academy in London. The case of Scotland was also shown in Sir James Guthrie's evidence, and a Bill was brought in in deference to the unanimous wish of the Scottish representatives with a view to having the question of the Scottish Academy satisfactorily settled. The important consideration which was before the House two years

  71
  ago, and which was just as important at the present time, was that the Royal Hibernian Academy received only £300 a year from State funds. The Academy was established in 1823, and received a Charter of Incorporation the same as the Royal Academy in London. With the exception of that £300 and a small sum of £403 that was given in 1872 to roof one of the galleries, not a single penny of State funds had gone to the Royal Hibernian Academy. The result had been that the Academy had not been able to obtain the position which the primary art institution of any country was entitled to hold. It would be hardly necessary to draw the attention of the House to the evidence given before the Committee by the fourteen witnesses who were asked to what the present unfortunate position of the Royal Hibernian Academy was due. Twelve said it was due to the bad position in which it was situated and to the impossibility of the Hibernian Academy really being a successful institution owing to the small amount of State funds coming to it. It was impossible to call attention to the whole of the evidence on that point, and he would therefore only refer to the evidence of those who were not Irishmen, and of those who were officials. Sir James Guthrie, the president of the Royal Scottish Academy, was asked about the accommodation and position and he said—
  "The matter lies at the root of a whole side of the national existence, and if its art life is not to be stifled by undue centralisation that makes all depend upon London, Ireland should have a fitting centre for its art workers and art lovers to rally round. I do not think the question can be tested in their [the Academy buildings] present position. I think the most important feature of all is that they should come to such a neighbourhood as this [the neighbourhood of Leinster House] that they may have a chance of becoming an element in the life of the capital."
  Sir William Abney was an English official sent over six or seven years ago to inquire into the position of the Academy and on his view the Committee based a good deal of their Report. Sir William Abney said—
  "It is situated now in the worst part of Dublin for an exhibition, and people will not go there; whereas, if they had it in an important part of the city, somewhere near the museum for instance, they would have a very
  72
  great many more visitors, and I think there would be many more purchasers. It is simply out of the way, and to be successful it must be in the way."
  Even at that time Lord Plymouth, the chairman of the Committee, seemed very much impressed with the evidence before him, and he asked Sir William—
  "Seeing that the amalgamation which you then proposed has not taken place—and I do not think it is likely to take place—do you think that it would be, not a waste of money, but an advisable step to re-house the Academy first of all."
  And his answer was—
  "I have not the slightest doubt about that; it ought to be re-housed."
  Those gentlemen unconnected with Ireland, who had had a chance of seeing the position of the buildings and the state they were in, gave it as their deliberate opinion that the Royal Hibernian Academy had not been given a chance of success because of the position of the buildings and the smallness of the grant from the State. The Report of the majority of the Committee was to the effect that the Royal Hibernian Academy as a teaching centre should be done away with. The reference to the Committee was to report whether any, and, if so, what, means should be taken in order to enable the institution of the Royal Hibernian Academy and the Metropolitian School of Art to serve more effectively the purposes for which they were maintained. The majority Report recommended that the Royal Hibernian Academy as an educational institution should cease to exist. It was essential that that matter should be discussed, because if it had been put to the Committee that it might be well for the Academy to be destroyed altogether different questions would have been put to the witnesses with a very different result. He therefore submitted that the teaching faculty should not be taken away from the Royal Hibernian Academy. In other countries the idea of an academy was inseparably bound up with teaching, and up to now it had been so with the Royal Hibernian Academy. Point was given to this view by the evidence of an English artist who kindly gave evidence before the Committee. Mr. George Clausen, A.R.A., said—
  "If you take away the school from it, it only becomes then the same as any other body of

  73
  exhibiting artists, and it has no raison ďetre as an Academy."
  Another important consideration arose on that, viz., whether the State would be justified in acting on the majority Report and thereby depriving the Academy of its teaching functions. That would go to the root of the present State grant which it had received ever since it had existed. Since 1832 out of the grant from the State the Academy had devoted £250 to the life school, reserving only £50 for the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings. It was true that the grant was not given conditionally on the teaching being upheld, but it seemed to him that if the teaching function was abolished the Treasury might come down and say, the teaching having been given up, there was no reason for a grant to keep up an institution which served only as an exhibition for artists. It was for that reason as well as many others that he took this strong point. The Art Union of Ireland, the Institute of Architects and the Royal Hibernian Academy itself had passed resolutions strongly protesting against the majority Report, and a petition had been presented against it. In that petition were the names of four governors of the National Gallery of Ireland, who were men experienced, in the art life of the country, and, so far as he knew, there had been no public expression of opinion in favour of the majority Report. If anyone read the majority and minority Reports they must come to the conclusion that the minority were absolutely justified in their Report which would give the Royal Hibernian Academy a new building and a new site in order to carry on its work successfully. Of all the recommendations of the majority Report the most serious was that, when the teaching was taken away from the Academy one art school, the Dublin Metropolitan School of Art, alone should remain. During the last two years that school had been deprived of its headmaster, as the vacancy had not been filled up, and the Treasury had gained in consequence. When the majority Report advised that only one such school should be maintained they suggested an arrangement which was absolutely unworkable. In the constitution of the outside committee three members were to be
  74
  nominated by the Department, three by the Royal Hibernian Academy, two by the Lord-Lieutenant, and one director of the National Gallery—nine in all. Those in Ireland who were acquainted with advisory committees were of opinion that such a committee would break down in a very short time, and the whole management would be thrown into the hands of the Department. It was because he saw the impossibility of the scheme of the majority of the Committee being worked that he strongly opposed, as he believed did the public opinion of Ireland, the Report's being adopted. It had struck him very much indeed, in reading the majority Report, to see that a certain amount of reliance for their opinion was placed upon the evidence given before the Committee by one or two artists. They relied on the evidence of Mr. William Orpen, an artist well-known, not only in Ireland, but in England, who was very insistent upon the point that it was impossible to expect that a body of artists should be controlled by a Government Department. He said it was absurd to have artists controlled by a Department of Agriculture; let the artists control themselves. Sir James Guthrie pointed out that the Scottish system was absolutely unworkable, and that the Scottish artists, under the Board of Manufactures, were absolutely controlled and unable to free themselves and work for themselves. The evidence given before the Committee was that if they wished to encourage fine art they must not tie down artists by putting them under a Government Department. If it happened in London that the Royal Academy could be thwarted and held in bondage by a Government Department, he was perfectly certain that its success would not be such as it was. Mr. Justice Madden and he, in presenting their Report, pointed out clearly that, with the exception of the official witnesses brought before the Committee, practically no support was given to the recommendations now put forward in the majority Report. But Mr. Fletcher, one of the officials, was asked by the chairman the following question—
  "Is there room in Dublin for some other school of teaching for professional artists, such, for instance, I will put it, as a strong Royal

  75
  Hibernian Academy School, side by side with the Metropolitan School of Art."
  Mr. Fletcher answered—
  "I think there is. The difficulty I see at the moment with regard to that is the paucity of properly prepared students, but I think there is ample room for that or for other effort of that character, strengthened as far as it is possible to strengthen it."
  So even one of the official witnesses, on whom the majority relied, when asked whether it was advisable to have a second school in Dublin, said undoubtedly it was, and that the institution should be strengthened as far as it possibly could be. The majority of the Committee further relied on the evidence brought forward about the regrettable position of the Academy, and the fact that it was not in a flourishing condition, and that its teaching had not been up to the standard which should have been looked for. But, as two of the witnesses pointed out, it was not merely in excellence of teaching that they got success or skill; it was in the influence which clever and capable students exercised on one another that they had the real foundation of success and skill. If the remarks which the majority of the Committee quoted in support of their findings were carefully examined, and especially the evidence of Mr. James Brenan, for many years a director of the Metropolitan School of Art, it would be seen that the highest teaching was not in itself so absolutely essential to the success of the school, because the influence which students had upon one another was of the greatest value in creating a good school of art. Mr. Brenan, for example, said—
  "One of the most important factors in the education of the students of an academy is the effect on them of the students with whom they are working. There is more to be learned from working with other clever students than people imagine—it is amazing what influence a clever student has in a school."
  And Mr. Yeats, the well-known writer and an art student in his early days, said—
  "A student learns more from his fellow-students than he does from his teacher. If there is a good teacher, so much the better; but the only teacher a student can learn from is a good creative artist, because there is no teaching worth anything except the infection from a creative mind."
  76
  These two witnesses were strongly for the necessity of a teaching academy. But there were other reasons why they in Ireland had reason to object to the Report of the majority of the Committee, and to express their hope that the Government would not act upon the majority Report, but, after examining the evidence, put aside any prepossessions they might have for what he might call official views, and see if they could not possibly do something to put the Royal Hibernian Academy in a proper position. Their reasons were that if they centralised everything in London, if they made Irish artists in pursuit of their profession go to London or abroad for their teaching, they did away absolutely with the hope of a future Irish school of art; therefore steps should be taken to make the Royal Hiberian Academy in Dublin an academy as efficient and properly supported as it could possibly be. They were not concerned now merely with the existing conditions of Dublin, which from various causes was no longer like London, the capital of a country. Dublin had become merely the principal town of a province. But he had not the least doubt that in the future, when she had a University settlement, and in a self-governed country, Dublin would again become the centre of national life, and the Irish people would look to the city as the focus of the nation. There would be better conditions for a school of art, and the Royal Hibernian Academy would be able to flourish and to carry on its useful work. At present there were intellectual efforts being made which fifteen or twenty years ago were non-existent. The great work of the Gaelic League in reviving the Irish tongue had also a great effect in quickening interest in art. It was shown already in very many ways, and notably at national and local feiseanna where, among the features, was a display of the works of Irish artists. These efforts had been going on for years. If in a moment of aberration the Government, as he hoped they would not, were to crush out of existence the only academy of fine art in Ireland, they would give a terrible set back to those intellectual influences now at work in creating a regular school of Irish art. He begged them, therefore, to consider, not only what Ireland was entitled to, if England

  77
  and Scotland were taken into comparison, but to bear in mind also that Ireland was making a claim, not merely for the present, but for the future of Irish art. He sincerely hoped that when the Secretary to the Treasury came to reply he would say that a grant and a site would be provided in Dublin for a new building for the Royal Hibernian Academy and to enable that institution to fulfil the objects for which it was established three-quarters of a century ago. He formally moved to reduce the vote by £100.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£21,410,000,' and to insert '£21,409,900.' "—(Mr. Boland.)
  Question proposed, "That '£21,410,000' stand part of the Resolution."
  MR. GWYNNsaid it was important to consider the suitability or the unsuitability of the present site upon which the Royal Hibernian Academy was housed. The movement of the population of Dublin had left the present building stranded, and it was now on the wrong side of the river. In London, he thought the site of the Tate Gallery had been against the fulfilment of the original purpose for which it was founded. The essential point at issue was not whether they should have a new site for the Academy or spend a great deal of money improving the present building, but whether they should preserve in Ireland a free institution for the teaching of art. The Report of the Committee which inquired into the question advocated the abolition of the Royal Hibernian Academy as a teaching body, and the Metropolitan School of Art was to take up the teaching functions which at present were discharged by the Hibernian Academy. It was interesting to consider how the Metropolitan School of Art was administered. It was under the charge of the Department of Argiculture and Technical Instruction, which at the present moment had so wide a range of duties that its attention could not be advantageously distributed over all the various departments of life which came within its scope. Provision had been made for a headmistress of art at the Metropolitan School of Art. Four years
  78
  ago that post became vacant, and it had not been filled from that day to this. The salary had, of course, gone into the coffers of the Treasury and had been lost to Ireland. Two years ago the head teacher at the same institution died, and that post had not been filled up. There was no reason why temporary appointments should not have been made in those cases, because there were people in Dublin admirably suited for the positions. The school would then have been properly staffed and the money would not have been lost to Ireland. There was only about £5,000 or £6,000 a year being spent on the teaching of art in Dublin, and out of that sum £700 or £800, so far as he could ascertain, had been lost annually to Ireland through those vacant appointments not being filled up. The Hibernian Academy was not all that they wished it to be, but he thought it would be more watchful over interests of art in Ireland than the Department of Agriculture. He had read the evidence given before the Committee by men of letters and artists of note who evidently were not so conversant with business methods and did not tender their evidence so well as those who came forward with cut and dried schemes. They were, however, all agreed that the Academy should be preserved and managed by artists and not be given up to officials. Mr. Orpen, the well-known artist, spoke with contempt of handing over the teaching of art to the Department of Agriculture. There was an alternative proposal to delegate the functions of the Academy to a committee consisting of a few artists, but the bulk of the committee would be amateurs and red tape officials. They were advocating the continuance of the life of the Royal Hibernian Academy, which he agreed was now in low water in point of talent, but there was always the chance of some man of ability coming forward who would again make the teaching of art in Dublin a reality and a living thing. They all knew the late Mr. Walter Osborne, who was connected with the Academy three years ago. His death was most untimely, and he had left a great blank in art in Dublin, but there was always a chance of another man arising. He would therefore appeal to the Government not to leave the

  79
  teaching of art to the Department of Agriculture, but allow it to be carried on by an association of artists not bound by red tape.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said he had gone carefully into the question of the Royal Hibernian Academy. It was founded about the year 1823, and since the year 1832 it had received an annual grant of £300. He agreed that £300 a year was not a very large sum, but the Academy depended more upon the amount of money received from exhibitions held in its building. A special grant had been made upon one occasion, and he understood that there had been two or three small endowments. He thought they might take it that the amount of money at the disposal of the Academy had never been sufficient for them to do anything like establish an art school. The attendance at the annual exhibition had gone down from 28,000 people in 1885 to about 9,700 in 1905. Under such conditions no art school could possibly flourish. The Committee appointed to inquire into the present state of the Royal Hibernian Academy inquired into the question with the sole idea of benefiting Irish art. It was certainly the wish of the Chief Secretary and himself to do all they could to develop Irish art in the best possible way. He did not know that the hon. Member for Kerry could draw a direct parallel either from England or Scotland in regard to the matter. The English Royal Academy was more of a private institution and had maintained its independence and was altogether free from interference by the State. He thought it was a very happy circumstance that it was not controlled by officials or politicians. The Glasgow school, which was a better parallel, was altogether free from State interference, but there was no Academy in Glasgow, where the life school was conducted by the school authorities. It had been under the control of the municipality with such assistance as the students and artists themselves by their voluntary services chose to give. The Board spent far more money for dairy farms and fisheries than it was ever likely to spend for painting and sculpture.
  80
  He wished to know whether it was thought that it would not be possible to provide a sufficiently good life school. He only put that as a purely hypothetical question. The question they had to decide was whether it was possible in Dublin for two life schools to flourish side by side. Dublin was not very large, nor indeed was all Ireland very large, and the number of art students that could be trained in a life school must of necessity be small. A life school was an expensive institution, and he was inclined to doubt whether two life schools could prosper in the city of Dublin. The question was whether the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries should have the whole of its work in this direction handed over to the Royal Irish Academy or whether the reverse should take place. At the present time the life school of the Royal Hibernian Academy was by no means prosperous. He thought the numbers in the institution in the last term were fifteen women and one man. With such a number of students they were not likely to have prosperity. His hon. friends might consider the possibility of either amalgamating or giving up this part of the work. For his own part he would be very glad to see the Royal Hibernian Academy in a more prosperous condition. They had to consider ways and means. It was clear that they could not afford to keep up the life school of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and that of the Royal Hibernian Academy as well. His hon. friend made no reference to one of the recommendations, namely, to have a gallery of modern art. That was outside the Motion now before the House, and therefore he would not further refer to it. The recommendations of the majority had been carefully considered. The points were that grants should be made out of the Votes to render the galleries suitable for exhibition; that there should be a reconstitution of the Academy in the way of amalgamating the life schools; that a professorship should be established at the school, and that there should be an outside committee to direct the work of the life school of painting and sculpture, and to select teachers. All he could say at the present time was that he looked sympathetically

  81
  at the position of those behind the Royal Hibernian Academy. But the recommendations were not such as he could accept. He felt that there was something more required than the majority seemed at realise. He hoped his hon. friends would rest satisfied with the assurance that he would do all that he could in the matter, and if they would be so good as to forward to him and the Irish Government details of such real business-like schemes as they wished to put forward, they would receive sympathetic consideration. He would like to point out in passing that his hon. friends must not assume that it was altogether an easy matter to get a suitable site in Dublin. He understood that Sir James Guthrie thought that it would cost something between £15,000 and £20,000. Might he point out that Sir James Guthrie was a Scotsman who, so far as he knew, did not know about land values in Ireland. He doubted whether that estimate would cover anything like what was required for both site and building. If his hon. friend wished to follow the Scottish precedent, he must remember that the Government had not provided a building in Scotland. All that they had done was to provide a site. He would be glad if his hon. friend submitted a scheme which he thought would be approved by the Royal Hibernian Academicians and the large number of people in Ireland outside of the Academy who were interested in Irish painting and sculpture.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he was very glad that they had now an authorised statement that there was no intention on the part of the Government to support the majority Report of the Committee. He never for a moment imagined that they would assent to it. Speaking for himself, he would prefer that all artistic matters should be in the hands of the Royal Hibernian Academy, his view being that the Board of Agriculture had more than enough to do in other directions. The idea that a number of well-meaning gentlemen should be entrusted with the extremely difficult and altogether peculiar work in connection with sculpture and painting was quite beyond his comprehension. What was really wanted was the establishment of a national school of art, and he
  82
  thought that the discussion that day might lead towards that end. If the Irish had a Government of their own, one of the first things they would do would be to establish an Irish school of art, and endow it well and richly. Probably one of the first things they would do would be to break up the cumbersome administration of the Department of Agriculture and divide the work among separate departments. At all events, art would be entitled to a separate Department for itself. The Irish had produced good painters, and at the present moment there were several sculptors of merit in their midst. Those who took an interest in the intellectual development of Ireland were anxious that the question should receive immediate and proper attention. They could not suppose that the miserable pittance of £300 a year was sufficient for the encouragement of art in Ireland. What they would like, pending the arrival of the time when they would be allowed to do things for themselves, would be to have a fairly generous endowment of art from the Imperial Parliament. Everybody knew how much had been done for the promotion of art in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool. It was not wise to drive all art teaching into one centre. The proper thing to do, even in one country, was to have various artistic centres. Dublin, as the capital of Ireland, should have a school of art of its own. Ireland was a poor country as compared with England, and it had not the wealthy and leisured class who were to be found on this side of the Channel—people who were either disposed or able in a large degree to do anything for artistic matters. Therefore, the State had special and particular responsibilities in regard to Ireland. He thought that was a good opportunity for urging the claims of Ireland for the establishment of a national art gallery. Nothing would tend more to the encouragement of Irish art in future. If there was an English school, and a Scottish school, why should there not be an Irish school also? He hoped that any proposals which might be laid before the Government would receive careful and favourable consideration.
  MR. DILLONsaid he supported the views expressed by the hon. Members who had just spoken in support of the reduction. The aspect of the case

  83
  that appealed most strongly to him was the absurdity that the school of art in Ireland should be under the control of the Department of Agriculture. There never was in the history of the muddle which had characterised English Government in Ireland a greater absurdity than that the Department of Agriculture should have control of art matters. Its functions were so multifarious that one was reminded of a character in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado." The Department had under its control for some years the only art school in Ireland, and amongst its other duties were those of attending to swine fever, the supplying of potatoes, the teaching of science, the superintendence of the National Library and Museum, and an infinite variety of other matters. In fact no human being, no matter how great his acquirements might be, could possibly attend to one quarter of the matters under the jurisdiction of that extraordinary Department. What qualification they could be supposed to have for the conduct of art schools surpassed his comprehension, unless it was that megalomania had taken possession of the Department in its desire to obtain control over all activities of Irish life. What qualification had its officials for the selection of masters in art? As the hon. Member for Galway had stated, for the last two years the school of art in Dublin had been left without a head master, a most outrageous condition of things, entailing a return to the Treasury of a portion of the infinitesimally small amount devoted to the teaching of art. No proper excuse had ever been offered for the action of the Department in not appointing a teacher. Perhaps he could suggest the excuse that there was not a single man who had an atom of qualification for selecting a teacher of art. The real truth was that the Department was utterly over-burdened with work, and it was not managed in a way to qualify it to do one fourth or one fifth of the work imposed on it. Perhaps the failure to appoint a head master might turn out in the long run to be a blessing in disguise; because it was possible they might ultimately get a teacher appointed by people qualified to select a proper teacher. The hon. Member for Galway was exceedingly sanguine in the matter, but he was not. The
  84
  fate of Dublin was exceedingly sad. A century ago it was one of the art capitals of Europe, and could hold its own with many cities in Europe in its artistic achievements. If the art life of Dublin had been allowed to develop on national lines there would have been no city in Europe with which it would have feared to compete. Dublin had been dragged down from its position as the capital of a nation possessed of considerable artistic gifts, and reduced to the position of a decaying town. The old houses in Dublin were a wonder and admiration to those who wandered amongst them; and hundreds of the best artists of Italy were attracted to Dublin a hundred years ago by its wealthy citizens to decorate their great palaces. Those houses were still a source of wonder, although they had fallen into decay, and many beautiful works of art had been pillaged and brought over to England. The Government had gradually withdrawn all encouragement for artistic effort; and yet so persistent was the art tradition in Dublin that even in spite of the discouragement. Irish artists, like Mr. Foley, had decorated the city with statues which were infinitely superior as works of art to those which were to be found in London. As years rolled by, instead of making progress in artistic work, Dublin, under the blight of this extraordinary kind of government, had gradually decayed. The hon. Member for Kerry had said one of the greatest merits of the Gaelic League had been that in the last stage of decay of Irish art a movement had arisen among the people, which, although in its infancy, carried with it the promise of great artistic development among the Irish people. It would be a most unfortunate and cruel thing if that promise were blighted by the teaching of art in Dublin being placed completely under the control of a Department which had not the confidence of the Irish people. He entirely supported the appeal of his hon. friends, though he did not profess to have so much knowledge of these matters as they had. He urgently appealed for sympathy for the new movement which was stirring so widely and so deeply among the people in their pathetic desires to recover their lost traditions, of which they were justifiably proud; and he

  85
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in settling the matter, to see that the whole control of art, whatever scheme might be adopted, was taken out of the hands of the Department of Agriculture and put under the control of men who knew something about it, who would be free from the trammels of the Treasury, and who would have a fair chance of contributing towards the recovery of that glorious element in the spiritual life of the nation.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he felt it to be a privilege to be in entire agreement with hon. Members below the gangway in trying to do something on behalf of art in Ireland. He had pleasure in the last Parliament in supporting the hon. Member who moved the reduction, and he thought every Irishman owed him a great debt for the earnest and eloquent and wholehearted perseverance he had devoted to this cause. He and his colleagues entirely agreed in supporting the hon. Member in what was a reasonable and practical proposal. Irishmen were by temperament a poetic and artistic people, and it was not owing to any fault or want of natural aptitude, but owing to want of opportunity and want of training, that they had not produced the large number of artists that one would naturally expect them to have. He was not sure that he was in order in repeating the appeal he made unsuccessfully in the last Parliament for the circulation on loan of the great pictures which belonged to the nation as a whole, and which ought not to be hoarded up as they were. There were accumulations of pictures in all parts of Ireland, which, if exhibited, would do a great deal towards stimulating the growth of the artistic spirit. He only wished the Chief Secretary had been present to listen to the appeals that had been made, because, although he could not trust the Chief Secretary in everything, he would trust the artistic side of his nature; and he felt sure that however hard of heart the Treasury might be, the Chief Secretary, with his artistic and literary temperament, would have been stirred by the appeals which had been made.
  *MR. BOLANDsaid he was perfectly satisfied with the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he hoped that the attention which the hon. Gentleman would give to the claims of Ireland in this respect would meet the case. He had not referred to the urgent claims for a modern art gallery, as he thought it might not have been in order on this Vote, but he trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would not lose sight of those claims. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid there were some points to which he wished to draw attention before the Resolution was agreed to. The first was as to the character of the teaching which was apparently allowed to be given on Sundays by the London County Council in some schools belonging to them. The principle which he had always supposed to reign in regard to the use of elementary schools had been that those schools which were built and maintained by public money should not be used, except under the strictest limitations, for public political purposes; and certainly should not be used for a definite political propaganda. He had also understood that in according the use of those schools, as a local authority might well do on days when they were not required for secular teaching, equal treatment should be meted out to all forms of religious belief. There were, if he was correctly informed, certain schools in London in which teaching of a distinctly Socialistic and secular character was given on Sundays. He had before him a list of five such schools, and he thought that the attention of the President of the Board of Education should be directed to what had occurred in them. He had read a description of such a school meeting, and what took place was this. The children were ranged in classes. The teacher called them comrades and said he met them as comrades. Then what was called the "roll of builders" was called over, and the children were asked to answer to that as builders, because they were builders of a new world. He himself hoped they would

  87
  be builders of a new world, but not of such a world as was contemplated by that instruction. In one of the cases of which he read a description, the instruction was mainly given by a young working man, who was introduced as a convert. He confessed himself to have been a Liberal and to have entertained certain religious convictions, but he said he was no longer a Liberal but was a Socialist, and he informed the class also that he had dismissed all religious teaching as the rags of a useless superstition. That meant that on the religious side the teaching of these schools was distinctly secular. The hymns that were recited or chanted by the children called upon them to look for no help from any other source, except such as was to be found in this world, and entirely through themselves. In fact the whole tenour of the teaching appeared to be what a French Minister described as the object of the Secularist Party in France, to "tear the light out of Heaven and faith out of the heart." Of course those who entertained those opinions and desired that teaching, were welcome to it, but not, he should imagine, in the public elementary schools of the country. And where the use of the schools on Sunday was granted by the local authority he ventured to say that not merely should equality be observed between all forms of religion, but preference should not be shown to a class of teaching which enjoined the advantages of having no religious belief. He had been informed of a case in which the vicar of a parish inquired of the Local Education Authority for London whether he could have the use of a school for Sunday School purposes, and he was informed that he could not have it on the Sunday he asked for as the managers did not meet for a fortnight; but on that very Sunday the use of the school had been granted to this Socialistic Society. [An Hon. Member: Probably leave was granted previously.] But he was told that the managers did not meet for a fortnight, and he naturally presumed the school was vacant. On the political side the teaching was particularly, definitely, and aggressively of a Socialistic character. He took two subjects which he had seen set forth in the catechism which the children went
  88
  through on these occasions. One related to the feeding of children, and the children were asked why the rich objected to the feeding of children by the nation; and one of the answers was that the rich objected because they said it would tend to pauperise the parents. Then they were asked what was a pauper; and the answer was that a pauper was a man who could work, but was unwilling to work, leading the children to believe that the rich were the real paupers because they, being able to work, did not work, but lived on the labour of others. Then the children were asked whether there was any other reason in the minds of the rich for refusing to support the feeding of the children by the nation other than the pauperising of the parents; and the answer the children were taught to give was: —"The rich think that if the children of the working class are better fed and become better educated they would become more independent and demand a higher wage." That seemed to be an attempt to inculcate in the minds of the children the idea that those who were better off than themselves deliberately rejoiced in the starvation of the poor, because if they were better fed and brought up they would be able to demand a higher wage. The children were taught that everybody who was better off, better educated, and seemed more comfortably circumstanced than themselves was an enemy,. He held that teaching of that sort was most pernicious. There was one other little bit in one of these catechisms which he would like to commend to the notice of the President of the Board of Education: it turned upon wages. The question and answer ran: —"If the masters had their way, to what level do you think they would reduce your father's wages?" "To the level of the Chinaman's." "Has this been attempted?" "Yes; in South Africa, where they employ Chinamen instead of white men." The comment which he had seen made upon that portion of the catechism was that this well-known piece of mendacity had never been more concisely put. He thought that teaching of that kind should not be given in these schools on a Sunday afternoon to the children of the poor. He would like to ask with what authority was that teaching given to children, and

  89
  did their parents desire it? Of course, if they did, they were welcome to it elsewhere than in the school; but he really doubted whether the parents knew of the character of the teaching given. All the parents knew probably was that on a Sunday afternoon their children were in a clean and comfortable place. He would like also to ask if the ratepayers knew of the teaching, and did they approve of the use of the schools, built with their money, for the purpose of putting such ideas into the minds of the children of London.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,N.): May I ask how the hon. Baronet makes his remarks germane to the Vote?
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was asking the President of the Board of Education to pay some attention to some matters within his Department, and he wished to know by what authority the schools were lent for this purpose. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could inquire on what terms the use of the schools was granted on a Sunday afternoon without the sanction of the ratepayers. They were public schools, and a public authority ought not to allow such things to go on if they were not satisfactory to the ratepayer. They ought not to allow to be taught in public schools propaganda of that kind of which he was sure the ratepayer would not approve. If a school was improperly used for that purpose he thought it was the duty of the Board of Education to ascertain by whose authority it was done, and if they found that it was sanctioned by the local authority or the managers, the President might state that if the policy was continued it might lead to the withdrawal of the grant.
  MR. McKENNA: Can the hon. Baronet tell me of any such power in the Board?
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: replied that the President of the Board of Education had great power in regard to reducing or withdrawing a grant.
  MR. McKENNA: To a public elementary school?
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONurged that surely the Board of Education, as it first of all allowed the building to be erected at the public expense, had some control over it; and if a local authority or the managers turned their schools during the time they were not being used as public elementary schools into places used for political or other purposes unsatisfactory to the ratepayers, he thought the Board of Education might very properly intervene and ascertain whether it was the managers or the local authority themselves who were at fault in the matter, and intimate that the continuance of such conduct might lead to the withdrawal of the grant.
  MR. McKENNA: I am only asking for information from the hon. Baronet. Can he tell me of any powers which the Board have to do what he speaks of?
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid his strong impression was that the President would find that he had such powers; but what he was doing was to invite his attention to what he conceived to be the public scandal of public elementary schools being used for the purpose he had described, and he was asking the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the matter to see if these things took place, under whose authority they were done, and to use such powers as the Board of Education possessed to bring such a scandal to an end. He had not heard of the scandals occurring elsewhere than in London, and he hoped the education authority, as now constituted, would take care that such things did not take place elsewhere. The matter was one which was properly brought before the House, and he hoped the President would use such powers as he had to bring the scandal to an end. Another matter on which the House ought to have further information had reference to the newly-constituted Welsh Department. He wished to know why the Chief Inspector in Wales was to receive £1,200 a year, while the English chief inspectors got only £1,000. In addition he also desired to know what were the relations between the Chief Secretary of the Welsh Department and the Permanent Secretary at Whitehall. The practical interpretation of the Code, he pointed out, rested with those who

  91
  carried on the current business of the Department, and it was only in the cases when more difficult questions arose that they came before the President. He was anxious to be assured by the President of the Board of Education that there would be even and consistent administration of the law in England and in Wales. They were aware, he thought, that the Welsh Secretary, newly appointed, was not a special friend of the voluntary schools; and they also knew that some of the Welsh local authorities imposed a different standard of building and equipment on voluntary schools and on council schools. They insisted peremptorily on sanitary improvements and the like being carried out in voluntary schools, while they were somewhat lax in carrying out, even at the instance of the Board of Education, similar improvements in their own schools. That was the case in Carnarvonshire. He was told that now the local authority for Anglesey was expressing a consciousness that their council schools were far from what they should be, and were suggesting that the necessary improvements should be extended over a series of years. He did not quarrel with that. So long as the schools were not unfit for the habitation of children, he did not wish that local authorities should have thrown upon them excessive burdens by insistence on improvements not urgent; but he asked that, as in England so in Wales, the requirements in the case of voluntary schools should march pari passu with the requirements in council schools. It was not right that in voluntary schools sanitary improvements and the like should be insisted upon without delay while in the council schools so much latitude was given. He wished, in conclusion, to refer to the compulsion imposed on some local authorities as to the teaching of the Welsh language. That might produce considerable hardship in cases where the parents were not Welsh, and where, as the children did not hear Welsh spoken at home, they were practically taking an additional subject in the form of a foreign language. He asked that the complaints of parents on that point should receive attention, and that freedom should be allowed in respect of that instruction.
  MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)said he wished to criticise the action of the secondary schools branch
  92
  of the Board of Education, which had for many years been marked by an undemocratic spirit and by a want of sympathy with the desire to place higher education within the reach of all children who were qualified or anxious to receive it. That unsympathetic spirit of the secondary school management had culminated in the publication under peculiar circumstances of a Report of the Consultative Committee. The Board of Education had referred to that Committee certain specific questions relating to higher elementary schools; but the Committee had gone far beyond the terms of reference, and had seemed to lay down in their Report what they thought should be the educational future of the children of the poor. They seemed to suggest that secondary schools should be kept exclusive and select, and that very few, if any, of the children of the poor should be admitted to them. It appeared to be suggested to parents of those children and to sympathetic local authorities who desired to erect secondary schools that their ambition should be limited to the higher elementary school. The Board of Education had adopted the extraordinary course of suppressing the names of witnesses and the text of the evidence they gave. The Board of Education took that action entirely on its own initiative; nobody suggested it should be done. There were many statements in the Report which ought not to have been launched under the cover of anonymity, such as one attributed to "a witness of long experience whose opinion was entitled to weight," that certain moral qualities were to-day far less commonly found among the working classes than they used to be thirty years ago. Equally weighty evidence could be adduced to the opposite effect. The constitution or reconstitution of that Committee, which was almost exclusively academic, and, although it had three women upon it, had no representative of working women, should receive immediate attention.
  MR. McKENNAwas understood to say he was already attending to it.
  MR. PICKERSGILLwas extremely glad to hear that, and hoped care would be taken that extra representation was given to labour, co-operative and friendly societies, and organisations of that kind. He urged that

  93
  the policy of the Education Department should be to encourage as far as possible the common education of all classes in elementary schools, and to secure that the secondary schools were in direct relation with the elementary schools. In that respect Wales was far ahead of England. The number of scholars in recognised schools in receipt of grants from the Board of Education in 1904–5 was 94,000, of whom more than 32,000 were in forms below those taking the approved course. That meant that more than one-third of the children educated in those subsidised schools were really in preparatory classes; in other words, receiving elementary education under socially exclusive conditions. He might further point out that the policy of the Education Department in that regard was imitated by local education authorities throughout the country. In many cases grants intended to be devoted to secondary education were really applied to preparatory or elementary education, and had been so, as he knew, in the case of the London County Council itself. They made a grant of £10,000 to a secondary school, and that school immediately proceeded with the money to set up a kindergarten department. That sufficiently established his point, that the money given for secondary education was really applied to a very different purpose, namely, preparatory and elementary education. The effect of the Report, and also the policy of the Secondary Schools Branch of the Education Department, had been to discourage the creation of public secondary schools. When the local education authorities proposed to provide free secondary schools the Education Department insisted that at least £3 a year per scholar should be charged, and that only one school place in four should be free. It was said that it was not necessary that secondary schools should be free, because the scholarship system placed higher education within the reach of all who could profit by it. He thought the Education Department had not been well advised in discouraging the municipal authorities from erecting secondary schools. He pointed out that the present scholarships scheme was of a very meagre character. A few months ago they had a Parliamentary Return showing
  94
  the extent of the provision which the scholarship schemes made throughout the country, and he found that in many places, at all events, the provision was utterly inadequate. For instance, Aston Manor had one scholarship for 12,858 children; East Ham none for 19,191; Walthamstow none for 20,141; and Portsmouth none for 26,871. Moreover, in many places, the scholarships were subject to the condition that the holder should pledge himself to become a teacher. The imposition of such a condition seriously detracted from the value of a scholarship. Further, the children of the poor did not, to any appreciable extent, obtain scholarships in those secondary schools. Therefore the scholarship system, under the conditions which at present attached to it, at all events did not effect what was sometimes contended for it, that it provided an opportunity for the higher education of all children of the poor who had real ability to make good use of it. Another question to which he desired to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention was the fact that some students, at all events, had been refused admission to the schools and colleges on the ground of their social status. They had had a case only the other day of a pupil teacher who on the ground of social status was refused admission to the Training College at Cheltenham, which was subsidised from public funds. He did not think that would be denied. It seemed to him a monstrous thing that an institution, subsidised with public money, should presume to exclude a student on such a ground. The right hon. Gentleman had said that under the existing rules there was no power to interfere, but he would very shortly be preparing a new code of rules for secondary schools and he hoped he would take good care to secure that it should not be possible in any future case for such a gross scandal as that at Cheltenham to be repeated. He hoped his right hon. friend's passing to his new office would have the effect of introducing a more democratic spirit into the Secondary Schools Branch of the Board of Education, and that they would see in future more sympathy exhibited by that branch to secondary schools. He thought it was

  95
  the desire both of the House and of the country that there should be ample provision made for the higher and the highest education of the children of the poor who were prepared to make good use of it.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that, sometimes, when he listened to debates in the House he thought what a great opening there might be for a Party who adopted as their watchword "England for the English." They were perpetually being told that none but Scotsmen were to be employed in Scotland; none but Welshmen in Wales, and none but Irishmen in Ireland. But he had never yet heard, and he was surprised that they should not hear it—he made no reference to the Treasury Bench—a similar declaration with regard to English appointments. Referring to the question of secondary education in Wales, whether this was an accurate statement, he understood that under the Intermediate Education Act Wales got for secondary education a special grant, and in addition a share of the general grant given for education in Great Britain. English secondary education had been content as was usual with only a share of the second of these grants, and had had nothing analogous to the first grant. Yet he was told that the purposes for which Wales got a double set of grants were substantially, if not altogether, similar to those for which the English authorities received only a single set of grants. If that were so, it was an injustice to England, which was at least equal to the injustices to other parts of the Kingdom of which they sometimes heard so much. For the first time they had to consider the creation of a special Welsh Department. The subject required careful attention from the House. It was certainly not going to be a cheap proceeding. There would be a Chief Inspector at £1,200 a year, though no other inspector had more than £1,000. It was true that the Welsh Chief Inspector had under his control a certain amount of secondary education.
  MR. McKENNA: The whole of it.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that, on the other hand, he had an infinitely smaller number
  96
  of elementary schools—something like a tenth of the public elementary schools which a similar officer had to deal with in England. And the new Chief of the Welsh Department, not to be outdone by his colleague and compatriot, had also £1,200 a year, and was put over a separate district—for it was nothing more—of the education of Wales. An assistant secretary got only £900 a year for dealing with a similar district in England, whereas he would have £1,200 for dealing with similar districts in Wales. He understood that these gentleman had been imported into the office, and the only excuse offered for their importation was that they were Welshmen. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not say that there were not perfectly qualified persons in the Education Department at that moment to discharge the duties of the Welsh Department. On the contrary, these Welsh gentlemen, whatever their qualifications might be, had had no experience whatever of the administration of the Education Department, and he heard that one of them had some difficulty in expressing himself in the Welsh language. He wished to know if a third official who was to be imported into the Education Department was also a Welshman, and if so, who he was, and what his duties and his salary would be. That was the financial side of the question; he wished to draw attention to a different aspect. The new Department would exercise in regard to Wales the duties which the present Education Department exercised in regard to England. It would act quite independently of the Permanent Secretary of the Education Department. It was to have all the ordinary jurisdiction of the Department and was responsible alone to the right hon. Gentleman. What were the duties of the Education Department material to the present discussion? They were multifarious. One of the duties was to act in a quasi-judicial capacity whenever matters of complaint were brought forward by managers or others interested in public elementary education. More particularly they had to decide between the managers and the local education authorities. That was a

  97
  power specifically given to the education authority by Section 7 of the Act of 1902. It was a power which was often invoked, and it was of the utmost importance that it should be discharged and administered impartially, and without any suspicion of bias. It was not enough that the decision should be given impartially; it must be given by men who commanded universal confidence. It was of the first importance in regard to this Welsh Department that they should select gentlemen who were known to be absolutely impartial, and who would enjoy the confidence of the managers of the non-provided schools, and those interested in that particular department of public elementary education. He wished to ask whether those conditions had been fulfilled or not. The Chief Inspector would not have those duties so much thrust upon him, because he would be more of an executive officer, but he was an ex-Radical candidate.
  [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  MR. McKENNA: He was a Member.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: Yes, he was a Radical Member, but no doubt he possessed other qualifications. The other gentleman who had been appointed was without doubt a man of great ability, but as a matter of fact he was a Radical representative and the Chairman of the Denbighshire County Council. He would remind the House that that was one of the county councils which joined with the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over the Education Department and the President of the Board of Trade in what was known as the Welsh Revolt. He was, therefore, not surprised to read in the Manchester Guardian, which was regarded in the district as the organ of the Liberal Government, these words—
  "The appointment of Mr. A. T. Davies as Permanent Secretary is a guarantee that a policy of resolute administration will be pursued with respect to the elementary schools, and that the county councils may rely upon staunch support from Whitehall in their efforts to establish effective public control over every type of school with which they have to deal. Mr. Davies' record as an active member of the Denbighshire Education Committee is such as to inspire the confidence of all progressive Welsh educationists."
  [MINISTERIAL, cheers.] Those cheers were not at all unexpected by him,
  98
  but he would like to remind the House what the situation really was. In the great majority of the county councils of Wales there was a strong majority elected because they were hostile to the Church of England schools in the Principality. The function of the Education Department would be to hold the balance even between the voluntary schools and the local education authorities, when the latter attempted to oppress the former. The House was probably familiar with what had been happening in Swansea, where the local authority had over and over again avowedly attempted to treat the Church of England and the Roman Catholic schools there with gross injustice, but had been restrained by the interference of the Education Department. What confidence could the managers of such schools have in a gentleman whoso record was such as he had indicated to the House? He did not know whether hon. Members were aware of what the Welsh Revolt amounted to. It was a conspiracy to evade the law. It had three principal objects, but its avowed object was, if possible to squeeze the voluntary schools out of existence, and it proposed to accomplish that by three different methods. In the first place, it resolved that no rate should be levied in favour of voluntary schools. It would be remembered that that course was considered by an English county council, who went to the extent of obtaining legal opinion on the subject. Of course they were told that it was illegal and the matter was dropped. There was a modification of the policy of that plan known as the Cardiff policy, which was adopted at a great meeting presided over by the President of the Board of Trade, and the President of the Board of Education was on the platform. It was proposed at that meeting that they should cease to maintain all schools if the Default Act was put into operation. The third method was to impose upon voluntary schools such heavy building requirements as they would not be able to fulfil and in consequence of which they would cease to exist. That was the policy with which the present President of the Board of Edution and another Cabinet Minister were identified, and now they had appointed as

  99
  Secretary of the Welsh Department a third gentleman identified with the same policy. That was a great misuse of political power. [Ministerial laughter.] He did not think hon. Members opposite would laugh if such a thing were done by a Conservative Government, and they might search the records of Conservative Governments in vain for a similar state of affairs. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] He was sure it would be difficult to find two Cabinet Ministers connected with a conspiracy to evade the law forming part of a Government which appointed a permanent official who had also been connected with the same policy. It was impossible for voluntary schools to have any degree of confidence in the impartiality of such an official. He strongly protested against the creation of this Department at a very considerable expense, and under the circumstances it would certainly be regarded by the country and by Wales as a mere means of rewarding the political associates of the Government.
  *DR. RUTHERFORDcalled attention to the importance of including hygiene and temperance in the Education Code. Its necessity had been fully realised by the medical profession, and the heavy death-rate among children conclusively proved that something ought to be done in that direction. They felt that a large number of deaths occurred which could be prevented and that a much larger number of children ought to be raised to health and maturity in this country. They had had a report from a Departmental Committee upon physical deterioration, from which they learned that there were three great factors causing degeneration and affecting large sections of the community, viz. housing, the food of the people, and alcohol. From every point of view he thought it was high time that the Board of Education should take steps to do what it could to remedy this unhappy and unsatisfactory state of affairs. Only yesterday they had had a Conference upstairs at which they received a deputation consisting of some of the leading men in the medical profession upon this interesting subject, and they asked the House to
  100
  deal with the question on behalf of their profession. No less than 15,000 doctors had signed petitions asking Parliament to make the teaching of hygiene and temperance compulsory.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the matter to which the hon. Member is now referring is more a matter for legislation.
  *DR. RUTHERFORDexplained that what he desired was that the teaching of hygiene and temperance should be included in the Code under discussion. They wanted a medical bureau established to guide and help the Board of Education not only in regard to this matter but in regard to other important subjects. There was a medical bureau attached to the Local Government Board, and he thought it was high time they should have one attached to the Board of Education. The teaching of hygiene and temperance was being done voluntarily in a portion of the country, but it was very meagre for want of funds, and it was so small that they felt the subject ought to be tackled by the Board of Education in a more thorough and efficient manner. If hon. Members considered what other countries were doing they would find that this country was a long way behind, and in fact was in the position of a third-rate Power in this respect. France and the United States, as well as the majority of our Colonies, already had compulsory teaching on these great subjects. If such a policy was adopted in this country it would be to the advantage of the teachers as well as the scholars. The children would be interested in the demonstrations and experiments which were calculated to enlighten and stimulate their mental activities. The teachers had welcomed the subjects in every school in which they had been taught up to the present. They had been told that the Code was too big already, and that no further subjects could be added to it, but surely some of the subjects of less value to the children, to the parents and to the nation might be struck out in favour of hygiene and temperance. He hoped the President of the Board of Education would avail himself of this golden opportunity of making some

  101
  changes in the important direction which he had indicated.
  MR. McKENNA: I am sorry to intervene between some of my hon. friends and the House, but as a great number of topics have been raised it is more convenient that I should reply to some of them at once. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University opened the discussion by referring to the socialistic and secularist teaching in certain council schools. If he had said council school buildings his statement would have been more exact, because the buildings are the property not of the Board of Education, but of the local education authority. I interrupted the hon. Baronet and asked him if he could inform me what powers I possessed to prevent the state of things of which he complained. I simply wanted to know from him with his long experience at the Board of Education any way of putting a stop to the evils of this teaching. These socialistic and secularist Sunday schools were opened during the time the hon. Baronet was himself at the Board. He holds very strong opinions on the subject. He believes that the best way of suppressing these doctrines is by forbidding them to be taught. I am not sure that he is right. I am not sure that free speech even in these matters—
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. I only complained that these doctrines were being taught in schools built by the ratepayers, without the approval of the ratepayers. I had no desire to suppress the expression of opinion on the subject.
  MR. McKENNA: Then we are entirely at one on that point, and the only question is what are the powers of the Board for dealing with the matter. The application, according to the minutes of the London County Council, was laid before them on 14th June, 1904, while the hon. Baronet was at the Board of Education; the application was acceded to by the London County Council, and the school building was let on Sundays for the purpose which he has described. There were eighteen months during which he might have enlightened himself whether the Board had any
  102
  power of dealing with the matter. I have been there one month, and during my researches I have found no power to enable me to deal with the matter. I appeal to him to give me the benefit of his great experience, and to tell me what power I have to do what he asks. It is a question for the ratepayers of London as represented by the London County Council, and if he wishes to interfere, all that he has got to do is to apply to the Moderate majority of the County Council and get them to act. It is not a matter for the Education Department to consider at all. The hon. Baronet went on to refer to the Welsh Department, and was followed—I must say, with a certain amount of more bitterness—by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone. The noble Lord seemed to regard Welsh education as nothing but a subject of controversy. He considers that the appointments made to the chief Welsh Offices were made solely from that point of view. He is entirely mistaken. He gravely said that one of the qualifications of Mr. Owen Edwards was that he had once been a Radical candidate.
  LORD R. CECIL: I never said so. What I said was that Mr. Edwards was in fact a Radical candidate, but that no doubt he possessed other qualifications.
  MR. McKENNA: As an Oxford man himself, the noble Lord must know as well as possible of the services of Mr. Edwards. He knows that Mr. Edwards's whole career has been apart from controversial topics, and that he has been devoted to Welsh education because of his earnest desire to improve the educational system of his country. It was for that reason he was appointed and for no other. As to Mr. Davies, he has been known to Members of the Government and to a large circle of people throughout Wales as a most capable administrator and lawyer. He appeared to me the most suitable man the Board could appoint for the important duties he has to perform. It is not easy to find any man outside and take him into the Civil Service and expect him to get an immediate grasp of the whole of the business of that service. We believe that Mr. Davies

  103
  is a man of such great capacity, industry, and integrity, that he will be a first-rate capable public servant. We do not think or anticipate that this unhappy controversial period in Wales is going to continue for very long. We believe, hope, and expect that the controversial stage of the educational question will be settled in a very few years. The Welsh Department has been devised for the purpose of organising Welsh education, not merely now, but for the future, in order to establish Welsh education upon a basis better fitted for the needs of the Welsh people. Those are the only grounds upon which the appointments have been made, and I assure the noble Lord that the appointments have not been made for the reasons he thinks. We have sought and, I believe, we have obtained the best and most suitable men for the posts.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Is this Mr. Davies a solicitor?
  MR. McKENNA: Yes, he is a solicitor.
  SIR F. BANBURY: What is the name of his firm?
  MR. McKENNA: I think he has no firm now.
  MR. RAWLINSON: Who are his London agents?
  MR. McKENNA: Does the hon. Gentleman by that mean to imply that the reason I appointed Mr. Davies was that his London agents are the firm with which the President of the Board of Trade was connected?
  MR. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has referred all the way through to the fact that Mr. Davies was known to members of the Government. Why not tell us at once who he was?
  MR. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not answer my question. I leave it to the House who heard the insinuation. I can only say that when I appointed Mr. Davies I did not know he had ever been associated with any member of the Government in any firm of solicitors. I did not know who his Lon-
  104
  don agents were. The hon. Member may accept that from me or not, but those are the facts.
  MR. RAWLINSON: I accept that at once from the right hon. Gentleman; I thought he would have been aware of it.
  MR. McKENNA: I was not aware of it, but if I had been aware of it, it would have made not the least difference. I have been asked why the chief inspector in Wales is going to receive so large a salary as £1,200 per annum. Mr. Owen Edwards is the chief inspector in Wales, and will have duties quite different from those of the chief inspectors in England. The duties of the chief inspectors in England are confined respectively to the elementary, secondary, and technical grades. In Wales it will not be so. There will be one chief inspector of all the three grades together. Mr. Edwards will have duties which do not ordinarily fall to chief inspectors. He will be responsible for duties, by reason of the constitution of the new department, which will entail upon him a knowledge and sacrifice of time which are not entailed upon ordinary inspectors. I think we ought to be very well satisfied with having secured Mr. Edwards' services for the sum named. It is not an excessive salary. The noble Lord said that the only "excuse" he had heard for the appointment of these gentlemen was that they were Welshmen. That is not an "excuse," it is a qualification. When I went to the Board I found that my predecessor had promised to establish a Welsh Department. Naturally my first question was, "What Welshmen have we got in the service of the Board now?"
  LORD R. CECIL: Why?
  MR. McKENNA: Because I conceived that when we were establishing a Welsh Department, we should put one or two Welshmen in it. That appears to me to be most reasonable.
  LORD R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that anybody has been appointed to a post in the Education Department because he is an Englishman?
  MR. McKENNA: Will the noble Lord allow me to finish? I asked what Welshmen were already in the service of the

  105
  Board, and I was told that there were none. So little had Wales absorbed the services of the English Department covering the services of both England and Wales that there was no Welshman there at all. They were all Englishmen. The noble Lord asks: Why should Welshmen be appointed? The sole ground of instituting a separate Welsh Department is to have in control of Welsh education persons who have some knowledge of Wales. After all, if it were true that Wales was merely a collection of English counties, there would be no reason for appointing a separate Welsh Department at all. If the noble Lord had heard the interesting speech of my hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green, he would have heard figures quoted which go to the root of the differences between England and Wales. In England there is a very large and, comparatively speaking, wealthy middle class, and very large educational endowments, and the English system of education has been more or less adapted, be it good or bad, to the existing social grades. But in Wales the conditions are quite different; there the middle class is comparatively very small, and on the whole not rich, and there have been very few endowments. But the mass of the Welsh people have an ardour for education which is not shared by their fellow-countrymen in England; although poor and although they have not the same large leaven of the middle classes as in England, the artisans are willing to make sacrifices for education, with the result that a much larger proportion of the people in Wales are willing to maintain their children at school till they are fifteen or sixteen than is the case in England. Consequently we have to provide secondary schools for the Welsh people of a type which is not required, and cannot be filled, in England. As these fundamental differences exist, the types of school in the two countries have to be fundamentally different, and it is because of this that my predecessor, whose policy in that respect I venture heartily to commend, proposed to set up a different Education Department for Wales. As to the expenditure on this Department, it amounts to very little. We have appointed three new officers, two at a salary of £1,200 a
  106
  year and a junior examiner at £200 or £250. But on the expiration of the term of office the post of one of the chief inspectors will lapse, and we hope to effect the reduction of another inspector. So that, on balance, the whole of this fuss is made about one new appointment. We hope when the scheme is in full working order it will be found on balance to impose no additional cost, but in any circumstances the cost will not be more than a few hundreds a year. Mr. Davies has a knowledge of Welsh, but, as he will be retained in London, Welsh is not required there. It is of course necessary that the inspectors in Wales should speak Welsh. We have nothing to conceal in this matter. Mr. T. G. Roberts has been on the Board of Education list for appointment for a number of years, and I hope that hereafter when a vacancy occurs we shall appoint a new English examiner. The Board has declined to sanction the proposal of Cardiff to make Welsh a compulsory subject, and as at present advised we do not propose to alter that decision. Turning to the Consultative Committee, that body is an advisory committee, whose reports are not necessarily adopted by the Board although they are published by the Board. Taking advantage of the incidental occurrence of several vacancies on that committee, and looking to its present constitution, I wish to seek power to enlarge its numbers. I hope to add two more elementary teachers, one being a woman, and two representatives of the parents of children who attend elementary schools. I am quite sure that when the names are given to the House they will prove satisfactory to hon. Members and to the country. We regret extremely that the Chairman of the Committee, Sir W. Hart Dyke, who has rendered most admirable service, has been compelled, partly owing to age, as he stated, and partly to outside work, to withdraw from the Committee. As to the policy of the Board in encouraging children to go from primary to secondary schools, I admit at once that our system has not been as satisfactory as most of us could wish. I do not suppose that there is a single hon. Gentleman in the House who at one time or another in public meetings has not referred with eulogy to the educational ladder, by means of which children of the humblest parentage

  107
  may be enabled to attain the highest positions in the educational world. We have all said that at one time or another. [Opposition cries of "No."] Well, most of us, and I am sure that any effort genuinely to carry out that policy will have the support of the majority of hon. Members of the House. But it must be a genuine ladder. If you are to enable the children of working men to reach a University education you must have good schools for such children as show ability to go to. But the question of good schools immediately impinges on the subject of fees, because you cannot get good schools without paying for them, and neither endowments nor Government grants are sufficient to maintain good secondary schools. I hope to see good secondary schools maintained, whether by the assistance of fees or not. In the allocation to such schools of any new grants which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has enabled me this year to promise, I hope to make it a condition that a sufficient number of places shall be reserved for children from the public elementary schools who show sufficient capacity to avail themselves of the advantage of a good secondary education. We do not necessarily want to abolish fees qua fees, because if we did, since in most cases neither the endowments nor the grants suffice for maintenance, we should only be establishing inferior secondary schools. By the provision of a sufficient number of free places for public elementary scholars we hope to place within the grasp of poor children of ability as good an education as is open to the children of the richest.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will they be scholarships?
  MR. McKENNA: It will certainly be a free education, whether the name scholarship is used or not, and the children will qualify by examination. The question of any maintenance allowance will be one for the local education authority. In answer to a question on the subject of children being refused admission to subsidised schools on social grounds, I have stated our views on that matter. It came upon the Board entirely as a surprise, and I shall certainly see that in the regulations in future such acts of oppression as that are pro-
  108
  vided against. In conclusion I have only to reply to the observations of my hon. friend the Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex on the subject of the compulsory teaching of hygiene and temperance in every school in the country. If you are going to teach hygiene and temperance you must have teachers who are properly fitted to teach them. At present these subjects are optional, but I can assure the hon. Member that I am giving my most earnest attention to the matter, and that everything is being done to qualify teachers who will be able to give instruction in these branches of knowledge. Beyond that it is impossible for me at present to say anything. I thank the House for the attention with which they have listened to me.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the President of the Board of Education had ignored an extremely important and notable part of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, and he could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman had ignored it because he was not conscious of its gravity. The House ought to watch with great jealousy the creation of all new appointments, especially when it was intended to make them permanent. What the noble Lord said was that one of the gentlemen appointed had taken a prominent part in a conspiracy to evade the law. The right hon. Gentleman had not controverted that. They, therefore, had as a permanent addition to the Civil Service, not a gentleman brought up and trained in that Service, but a gentleman who could not be expected to administer with an impartial hand the controversial matters with which he would have to deal.
  MR. McKENNA,interposing, said he had omitted to mention the fact that the noble Lord was mistaken in supposing that Mr. Davies was chairman of the Denbighshire County Council.
  MR. CARLILE: He was a prominent member of that Council.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it was not denied that Mr. Davies was a prominent member in the Welsh agitation, and

  109
  the technical point of whether he was or was not the chairman of the County Council was hardly worthy of an interruption. This was a new appointment for which were required qualities which might be fairly described as almost judicial in their character, for the new secretary would have to hold the scales evenly between the two contending parties. If the Government had taken the gentleman in question and placed him on the Treasury Bench it would have been a different thing, for then he could have been tackled and removed if the House were dissatisfied with him. But if they wished the Civil Service to be what it had always been—removed altogether from Party—such an appointment ought not to have, been made. The right hon. Gentleman wished the new department to command public confidence, and to be permanent in its character. Did he suppose, however, if he made appointments of this kind that he would not lay himself open to reprisals? Did he suppose the manner in which the powers of the new office were exercised would not be very closely watched with a view to the termination of the appointment when the time and opportunity came? He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had ignored that part of the attack upon his policy.
  SIR G. KEKEWICHsaid he had some knowledge of the formation of the Board of Education in Scotland, and the question which had been raised in regard to the establishment of the Welsh Department carried his mind back to that period. It was many years ago, but a precisely similar objection was raised in that case to that now urged in regard to the Welsh Board. So far as he remembered, no Englishman was appointed on the Board in the case of Scotland—they were all Scotsmen—and he asked why the heads of the Welsh Department should not be all Welshmen? The head of that Scottish Department was now the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, and the result of the establishment of the department in Scotland had undoubtedly been good. He thought the result of there being only one department dealing with educational
  110
  matters in England, Scotland and Wales had been to sterilise the work. There was nothing so vigorous, in his opinion, as a small new department, and he therefore rejoiced from the educational point of view that the new Welsh Department had been established. The agitation had been going on for over twenty years, and personally he was glad to see the Welsh work separated from that of the English Department. With regard to scholarships for children coming from elementary schools, they would be of very little use if they merely extended to the remission of fees. What was really wanted was that they should enable the clever child to climb to that position in education for which he was most fitted and which would enable him to arrive at that position in society in which he might be of the greatest benefit to the State.
  SIR ALFRED THOMASexpressed his delight at the important statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and said the Welsh Members were all very pleased that a Welsh Education Department should be set up. They were far from believing that the two gentlemen appointed were not exactly the gentlemen to fill their positions. The step was one of the results of the great agitation which had been going on in Wales for many years past, and although he himself had taken part in that agitation and in the revolt against the Education Bill of the last Government, he never heard of Mr. Davies taking any part whatever in the movement as an advocate. He looked forward with great expectations to the formation of the Welsh Department and what it would mean for education in Wales.
  MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that though the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had described as a public scandal the use of elementary school houses on Sundays for the teaching of Socialist ideas, the grant of the schools for that particular purpose was made while the Unionist Government was in power. It was well known that Church schools were used for Primrose League meetings.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Not on Sundays.
  MR. SUMMERBELLsaid it was immaterial to the point whether they were so used on a Sunday or on any other day of the week. He repeated that the voluntary schools had been used and were being used for political purposes, and he did not see any distinction between using them on Sundays and on any other day. The schools were not in use at the particular time they were wanted; they were paid for by the people and were the property of the ratepayers. He hoped therefore the right hon. Gentleman would not interfere with any education authority in the country in regard to the use of a school for any purpose, political or otherwise, so long as it did not interfere with the use of the school in school hours. He was afraid that when the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University was summed up it would be found that it was not altogether a question of whether it was right to use a school for teaching any particular code. The hon. Baronet had described it as a perfect scandal. Did he know that a committee of experts had drawn up the code to be taught at those schools and that a better moral code could not be found? He defied the hon. Baronet to find a better moral code than that taught in the City of London by the Socialist body. He looked forward to the time when the education authorities throughout the country would grant the use of the schools, when they were not being used for school purposes, not only to political parties, but to trade, friendly, and other societies. There were to-day a number of trade and friendly societies which were compelled to hold their meetings on licensed property though the schools were empty. He hoped the President of the Board of Education would not accept the advice that had been given to him to interfere with the liberty of any local education authority in regard to granting the use of schools so long as what was taught was of a high moral character.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was glad to hear the character which had been given to Mr.
  112
  Davies by the hon. Member for East Glamorganshire and he only hoped it was justified by the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and acquaintance with him. He did not, however, feel satisfied with all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman as to the selection of Mr. Davies. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was the most suitable man he could find for the appointment. What steps had been taken to ascertain that fact? The present action had no parallel with what was done upon the separation of the Scottish Department, because that was done by statute in 1885, and the head of that Department was appointed from the Education Department, taken from inside and not from outside at all. He did not know Mr. Davies, and that gentleman might have better qualifications than the right hon. Gentleman was able to attribute to him, but one of the right hon. Gentleman's points was that he had a knowledge of the administration of education from the Welsh point of view. He did not know that it could be said that he represented the Welsh point of view, because the seat he occupied on the county council was captured at the last election by a person of opposite opinions. The right hon. Gentleman then said there was no Welshman in the Education Department, but he did not say there was no man in that Department, not Welsh, who was good enough for the position. After all, the Education Department was practically open to all, and Welshmen had an equal chance to compete with Englishmen for places in it. One would have thought that the one qualification for a Welshman filling the post in question would have been that he could speak Welsh. That Mr. Davies did not seem to be able to do. The right hon. Gentleman had given very little proof of sufficient trouble having been taken to ascertain how many men were capable of filling the post, and he (Mr. Bridgeman) thought it had been filled up in a hurry and without proper consideration. He was not quite satisfied either with the answers of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to scholarships. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was making a lot of

  113
  free places in the higher and secondary schools. That was not quite enough, because it would not give a fair chance to those children who were really poor. Children of poor parents had something else to consider besides free education. What would help them would be something that represented part if not all that the students would be earning if they were not at school. He did not believe so much in multiplying the number of free scholarships as in making the scholarships really worth having. Furthermore it was ridiculous to expect the rural child to compete with the town child in that matter, and it was important to have teachers in rural schools who knew something about rural life and who had come from the rural schools themselves. Some scholarships should be allotted for such children. He also thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a poor defence with regard to the grants for secondary education in Wales when he said it was right to encourage the Welsh because they were very keen about education. Was it wrong to encourage anybody else? If it was wrong there was no excuse for spending money on education in any place where the right hon. Gentleman thought people were not keen. To encourage education equal opportunities ought to be given in those places where it might be supposed that the aspirations of the people were not so high. If it was the fact that very little inducement was required in Wales to make children go to secondary schools, then it was right to give equal opportunity in England. The Board of Education had never given the same opportunities to the English children as had been given in Wales. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had in the least answered the questions put to him, and it seemed to him that the educational ladder that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make so effective was only to be made effective in Wales.
  *MR. YOXALLsaid he had listened with admiration and pleasure to the President of the Board of Education in his first speech on the Education Estimates. But there was one point on which he dissented from him when he said that
  114
  the working classes of this country were not so likely to send their children to the secondary or higher schools as were the working classes of Wales. That was an assertion which could be not made with exactitude or fairness until a test had been applied. The complaint against the administration of the secondary schools branch of the Education Department was that since the Board had had to do with secondary education and administering the grants, they had done exactly the opposite of making it easier for working class parents to send their children to secondary schools and had done all they could to dissuade them from doing so. They had put obstacles in the way of children going from the elementary to the secondary schools. His right hon. friend had, on the whole, very ably justified his appointments to the Welsh Department of the Board of Education; he had said that he wanted to have somebody there who knew something about the schools and about the Welsh spirit of education. He would ask him to look at the Secondary Schools Branch of the Board of Education from that point of view. Nobody there had practical experience of the spirit of modern secondary education. He had well-meaning officials there, whose experience had been entirely confined to public schools and the older type of secondary education. When secondary education was mentioned to them, they thought of the Eton, Rugby, and Harrow type of education. When they were asked to give money to a secondary school they made regulations suited to some old grammar school, some little Eton, Rugby or Harrow school, and those regulations were wholly unsuited to the children of working class parents. What was wanted was two ladders—one leading from the gutter to the wall of the University, a ladder by which the child of the poorest workman, born with capacity, could ascend to the University, and afterwards enter one of the learned professions. Such a child might be a born commentator, preacher, teacher, or writer, and the ladder from the gutter to the University should be there for him. They also wanted a ladder leading from the University to some place where technicological knowledge could be obtained—a Charlottenburg or a Leipsic. The

  115
  Association of Education Committees had adopted regulations for their local schools that would lead in the direction he had pointed out, but they had been again and again met by the refusal of the Secondary Schools Branch of the Board of Education, the refusal being based on the old Eton and Rugby idea of secondary education, which was entirely useless and repugnant to the present needs of the country as a whole. His complaint was that the Secondary Schools Branch of the Department was out of touch, out of harmony and sympathy with the times, and he would suggest to his right hon. friend that he should revise that branch of his Department on the same principle as he had applied to the Welsh branch. It was not only a question of the maintenance of scholarships, but they had narrowed and confined pupil-teacher centres and training colleges, because they were to produce the teachers for an inferior type of school. Speaking from a complete knowledge of these matters he would guarantee to bring before the right hon. Gentleman a deputation of the highest authorities interested in pupil-teacher centres, training colleges, and secondary schools throughout the country, who would tell him that things had been mismanaged from top to bottom by an unsympathetic Secondary Schools Branch of the Board of Education, manned by the wrong kind of people, not wrong because they had not ability, but wrong because they had no experience as members of town councils or county councils or education committees, and no knowledge or experience whatever as to the administration or teaching of modern secondary schools. When they were asked to permit a certain number of free places to be made in the secondary schools, the Secondary Schools Branch of the Department said that they could not allow more than 25 per cent. of the places to be free, and when it was pointed out that freedom for more than 25 per cent. was wanted, the Department said, "You shall not do it; if you do we will withdraw our Grant." When it was said, "We want to manage the secondary schools by a Committee of ourselves," the Board replied, "No, you must appoint a board of governors; we must put a buffer
  116
  between you on the one hand and the masters of schools on the other." They were to appoint governors for no other reason except that these gentlemen had always been accustomed to schools with governors, and, because that had always been the way for old endowed schools, it must also be the way for modern schools, paid for out of the rates, and catering for another class of children than those who went to the endowed schools. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would never get a proper condition of the secondary schools branch of the Board of Education until he had somebody there who knew England and its modern wants, exactly as the Welsh Department knew what was wanted in Wales.
  LORD BALCARRESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give some general indication of the policy which his Department had determined to adopt on the question of school buildings. The case of National School No. 66, at Chippenham, had excited a good deal of attention. Very properly the authorities said the school must be repaired, and the Board of Education seemed to have taken a rather severe line in the matter. When the Education Bill was being discussed last year, and it was not known whether it would be passed or not, the Board of Education found it almost impossible to bring severe pressure to bear on non-provided schools. The Bill having failed to become law, however, the Board wrote to the school at Chippenham on December 16th last year, and told them that unless the necessary repairs were promptly made, the school would be closed on December 31st. He submitted that as the Board while the Bill was before Parliament had rightly agreed to hold their hand, it was rather hard to come down upon this particular school at Chippenham on December 16th and say that the school would be closed on December 31st if they did not do the repairs. What he wanted to know from the Parliamentary Secretary was whether equality of treatment would be meted out all round; and to illustrate that he would quote a letter from the Manchester Guardian of February 12th.

  117
  The education authority of Anglesey had had the same difficulty as Chippenham in respect of its schools. The Board of Education had pressed the committee in Anglesey to put their schools in a state of repair, but, in contrast with the treatment of Chippenham, permission had been given to the Anglesey authorities to spread the work over seven years. It was alleged that the people in Anglesey were not perfectly sincere and genuine in their desire to put the schools right, but he thought they were as keen on education in Anglesey as in central or southern Wales. Would the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that whilst allowing Welsh schools seven years to effecter pairs he would also allow similar treatment to non-provided schools in England? If the President of the Board of Education would treat non-provided schools in England as his Board was now treating them in Wales he would remove much controversy and allay a good deal of anxiety. He also asked what was the reason for increasing the Vote for training colleges from £15,000 to £150,000. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon having been able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase that Vote 1,000 per cent., but he would like to have some explanation of the large increase. When the revision of the terms took place under which the local authorities managed their own training centres he remembered that hopes were expressed that further assistance would be forthcoming from the Treasury. He did not, however, see where the claim for the £150,000 came in, because it was not for buildings, but for the ordinary maintenance grant, and on the face of it the amount appeared to be excessive. The other charge was of a highly contentious character. There was a new charge of £100,000 for the special provision of new schools. In reply to a Question they had been told that that provision was made in order to contribute to a solution of the single school area difficulty, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the money would be granted where there was an effective or overwhelming demand from the parents to have the single school area difficulty removed. He did not think the right hon. Gentle-
  118
  man was going to assist himself or his friends by this grant. Who was to have it? How many single school areas were there in England and Wales, and what was the scheme by which the money would be allotted? He ventured to say that in any parish where there was single schools, but where there was none the less no single school grievance, it would not be difficult to get all the parents to sign a petition to the Board of Education in favour of the erection of a brand new up-to-date school in their midst. What did that £100,000 represent? At the very outside it did not mean accommodation for more than 10,000 children, and that was only allowing £10 for each child accommodated. He did not know much about the cost of school accommodation in the West of England or the Midlands, but in the North of England the cost was £13, £14, or £15 per head, and he had no doubt that there were many other districts where £10 per head would not be sufficient. Did the right hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House of Commons that with a view to solving the single school area difficulty he was going to provide alternative accommodation in the whole of England and Wales by making provision for about7,500 children? Perhaps the proposal meant that there were only 7,500 children whose parents were aggrieved in the matter, and it was thought that the proposed sum was sufficient to remove the grievance. The effect of it would be as follows: There was no county in England he supposed which had a greater grievance on paper in regard to the single school area question than Lancashire. The difficulty only existed on paper, because in actual working there was no difficulty whatever. Several hon. Members who supported the Government were members of the elementary education committee in his county, and he was sure they would be ready to bear him out when he said that it would be impossible for Conservatives, Liberals, advanced Socialists, and reactionary Tories to sit together as they now did upon that committee and administer any Act of Parliament with more harmony than was actually the case in Lancashire to-day. As far as the amount of the grant was concerned, they could comfortably spend

  119
  £100,000 in providing new schools in Lancashire alone. He was confident that Lancashire would get its share of the grant, but instead of removing the difficulty it would only accentuate it, and in many cases create it, in Lancashire. One parish would get a new school out of Imperial funds whilst the next parish would be told that the fund was exhausted. That would occur all over the country. It would be sure to create local jealousy and friction, and unless the £100,000 was the first instalment of a gigantic sum of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman would fail to remove the difficulty. No doubt they would have further opportunities of obtaining fuller information as to the distribution of the money, but his chief anxiety at that moment was to ask the right hon. Gentleman if in the matter of repairs, maintenance, and so on, he would treat the voluntary non-provided schools of England in the same way as he treated the Welsh schools.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he wished to revert to the subject of the teaching of hygiene and temperance in the schools. He desired to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic reply, because there was a feeling that in the past the Board of Education had not been wholly sympathetic in regard to the question and had not given much encouragement to that kind of teaching. He could mention instances in proof of his statement if necessary. He did not know whether, after all, the sympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman carried them much further. They had been told that they must wait until the teachers were qualified in those subjects, and that might be a very long time indeed. He could assure the President of the Board of Education that there was a strong feeling amongst a considerable section of hon. Members that there should be no further delay in the matter, and it was important that it should be dealt with at once. Whilst visiting the United States a short time ago he inquired into the question and asked how it was that they were able to get teachers qualified in those two special subjects. The answer he
  120
  received was that as soon as the subjects were placed in the curriculum the teachers qualified themselves, and that was what he believed would happen in this country. They had training centres for teachers already established in the subjects, and he had in his possession a syllabus specially prepared for the training of teachers by the committee of the medical profession of which Sir William Broadbent was the chairman, and which had the assistance of other eminent doctors, and represented the 14,000 doctors who presented the memorial to the Education Department. He thought he was right in saying that the local education authorities had power to pay without fear of surcharge for the training of their teachers in those centres. He hoped that was so. He believed that if the President of the Board of Education would put the matter into the Code there would be no difficulty, and the teachers would qualify themselves rapidly. He wished to emphasise one point. They did not wish, so far as temperance teaching was concerned, to advocate the preaching of any partisan views, or the teaching of views which were not supported by the best medical opinion. He thought the President of the Board of Education might be safe in feeling that nothing overstated would be taught, and that the instruction would be imparted without bias in a scientific spirit. The matter could be dealt with by means of legislation. He hoped that that would not be necessary, but there might be opportunities in the course of the coming session to deal with it by means of legislation in connection with other Bill snow before the House. He hoped that in view of the strong medical opinion as to the necessity of impressing the rising generation with some elementary knowledge of the laws of health, the President of the Board of Education would do all that was desired by a stroke of his own pen and not leave it to be dealt by special legislative measures.
  MR. FLETCHERappealed to the President of the Board of Education with respect to a limited but very deserving class of servants who, he thought, had been subjected to injustice. He referred to the temporary copyists whose

  121
  case was dealt with many years ago and who, he was told, were now being permanently retired from their duties. They were not entitled to pensions, nor die he plead for any pensions for them According to the arrangement made fourteen years ago they were to be entitled to a gratuity of £100. A number of men whose average age was seventy-four years, and whose average service had been thirty-four years, were to be retired. He asked whether it would not be consistent with fair dealing that those who had served over twenty years should be granted a larger gratuity. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman could make it £200 he would remove the sore feeling at present entertained by the copyists that they had not been fairly treated.
  *MR. ADKINSsaid there was no matter of more importance than the organisation of secondary education, because, among other reasons, the legislation of 1902 and certain Minutes of the Board of Education in 1900 had really had the effect of limiting in more ways than one the scope of elementary education. It was a melancholy fact that some English county councils had been willing to spend their grants in aid of the rates rather than in the development of technical and secondary education. In England there was not the public spirit behind the councils to the same extent as in Wales, and the problem of secondary education would hardly be advanced until that public spirit was aroused. The policy of the Board of Education had, in too many instances, tended to retard and discourage the development of that public spirit, because through some of the regulations there ran the idea that a small amount of elementary education was sufficient for most people, and that those who were to have higher education were to be picked boys and girls, not in large numbers, for whom a system of scholarships was all that could be provided. There was widespread public discontent in the matter which prevented an uprising of the public interest in secondary education such as there was in Wales, where, too, that interest had been further stimulated by the system of intermediate education. He hoped his right hon. friend
  122
  would see that the rungs of the educational ladder were not too far apart, because it was important that others besides the picked boys and girls should be able to climb. He hoped the Board of Education would not be dominated too much by the notion that secondary education was only for a limited number of picked children, but that they would rather aim at raising the standard of education generally throughout the country. The system by which comparatively a handful of picked children got scholarships and went into the secondary schools tended also to foster rather than to hinder class distinctions, which were already so great a hindrance to our educational progress. In Scotland, there was not the same acuteness of class distinction founded on extreme differences of educational training, and he hoped that the Board of Education would do all that it could to hinder, and not to foster, that unfortunate tradition in English education. The right hon. Gentleman did not wonder that strong opposition was felt at much that was in the Report of the Advisory Committee. In regard to the suggestions in the Report that secondary education was almost entirely a preparation for some particular walk of life, he hoped that what the Board of Education would increasingly try to effect was that, whether they were designing schools for boys leaving at fourteen or fifteen to earn their livelihood or schools intended for those who stayed longer, they would have regard not only to the training appropriate to particular occupations in life, but also to those sides of study important to all citizens, women as well as men. They must recognise that national education as given in the elementary schools, although given very carefully by most devoted teachers, was to the overwhelming body of the public an education which stopped short before the gates of knowledge were fully opened. He urged the Minister for Education not to lose sight of that aspect of secondary education which might not be translated so readily into terms of higher wages, greater salaries, or accumulated capital, but was every bit as necessary for the culture and happiness of human life. Although he fully recognised how complicated and difficult the question was, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman

  123
  would try to make education more democratic and to give it wider and more varied scope. The House would look forward with some anxiety and great hope to the rules he had promised to bring forward.
  *SIR HENRY CRAIKwished to call the attention of the House to a question closely connected with that which they had been discussing, but which related more particularly to Scotland. He referred to Vote 7 in Class IV. He was glad the Prime Minister was present, because he might be successful in appealing to the pity of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to a matter upon which unjust treatment had been accorded to Scotland. Of the £201,000 voted for the universities and colleges of Great Britain and for intermediate education in Wales, the Scottish universities received £42,000. That sum was secured to the Scottish universities under the Act of 1889. He was sure that the Prime Minister would agree with him that that Act did not give a gracious grant, but simply repaid to the Scottish universities funds which belonged to them and which had been transmitted to them from the seventeenth century for certain properties transferred to the Crown, the Crown taking over certain burdens in exchange. The words of the Act of1889 were that that sum of £42,000 was to be granted, not in satisfaction of future claims, but simply to meet past and existing claims of the Scottish universities. That £42,000 was no concession; no grant by favour; and he was certain that the Scottish Members would agree with him in thinking that only represented what was the property of the Scottish universities. He turned to the rest of the £210,000, which consisted of £100,000 granted to colleges in Great Britain, £12,000 to the university and colleges in Wales, and £25,000 for intermediate education; and of the whole of that sum how much went to Scotland? He understood that grudgingly £1,000 had hitherto been paid to the university college in Dundee, but that that was to be withdrawn—not on the ground that Scotland had not an equal claim to a share of the £100,000, but on the
  124
  ground that the whole £100,000 was required for the university colleges in England. They had equal needs in Scotland, but they got no grant for secondary and intermediate education, which were as dear to the heart of Scotland as to Wales. The only ground for refusing a proportion of the grant to Scotland was that Scotland was supplied under the Acts of 1890and 1892. But that was not money granted by the House of Commons, but assigned as Scotland's equivalent share of the whiskey duty, and Scotland had chosen to devote part of it to university and secondary education. The Vote only began a few years ago, when it stood at £15,000, but it had risen within less than fifteen years to £100,000, and he thought that Scotland had suffered a wrong in having only a one per cent. share of it. He trusted that the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Scotland would take the subject into consideration and press on the Treasury the claims of Scotland for a proper share of the grant of £100,000.
  MR. ROGERSsaid that the hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the voluntary school at Chippenham had been closed hastily. He happened to be the Vice-chairman of the Education Committee in the county of Wiltshire and had full acquaintance with the facts; and the best answer he could give to the hon. Gentleman's statement was that the school referred to had been condemned by the Board of Education years ago. The school was built in a corner of the churchyard; it was antiquated and insanitary, and really could not be used for the purpose of the education of children in these days. The Education Committee of the County Council met the managers of the non-provided schools in the town and practically asked them to make good, proper accommodation in the voluntary school, but the answer was that they could not afford to do it. The result was that the Education Committee proceeded to provide a properly equipped and sanitary council school. He ventured to say that the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman on the Board of Education in regard to the case would fall very lightly on those most concerned. The decision of the Education Committee

  125
  had been supported in the town, and it was recognised that their action had been dictated not by sectarian feeling, but by the interests of sanitation and the health of the children.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he had listened with astonishment to the defence of the appointment made to the staff of the Board of Education. He was bound to say that, coming to the question with an open mind, he thought the action of the Government amounted to a very serious imputation on the officials of the Board. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was necessary to have an official who had a special knowledge of Welsh schools. But who was the gentleman who had hitherto had the oversight and management of those schools? Somebody at the Board of Education must have had that knowledge. It seemed to him extraordinary to pass over a gentleman on the staff who had knowledge of Welsh schools, and to appoint a gentleman from the outside who, no matter what his qualifications might be, was known to have opinions which would prevent him from dealing with the question with impartiality. The right hon. Gentleman had said that when he came to the Board of Education he found not a single Welshman on the staff, and that he wanted to remedy that. He had a great respect for Welshmen; but Mr. Davies had apparently been appointed on the sole ground that he came from that country. As he listened to the panegyric of the right hon. Gentleman on Welshmen, an old, familiar rhyme rose to his mind, which, slightly varied, seemed accurately to describe the appointment which the right hon. Gentleman had made—
  "Davies was a Welshman—on which slender grounds,
  Davies came to our House and took twelve hundred pounds."
  Those grounds seemed to him to be entirely inadequate. Turning to the financial aspect of the whole Vote, he conceded that the Government were entitled to come down to the House and ask for a Vote on account, to carry them on for a few weeks. But here they were asking for an advance sufficient to carry them on for no less than five months.
  126
  That was far too long a period to ask the House to provide for in a Vote on Account; and the demand amounted to a serious infraction of the financial control of Parliament.
  MR. WALSHsaid he wished to draw attention to the fact that a serious injustice was inflicted on many young people who wished to engage in the educational profession by the theological tests which were imposed on those who desired to enter the training colleges. That could only result in the ultimate lowering of the standard of education.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [12TH MARCH] REPORT.
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, the sum of £71,715 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, the sum of £38,114,700, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  First Resolution read a second time, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Runciman.
  Second Resolution to be considered to-morrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. HOGANrose to call attention to the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the presence of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act on the Statute Book is a gross violation of the Constitution, without parallel in any other portion of His Majesty's dominions, and that the

  127
  Act should be immediately repealed." He said that the Motion was one of very great importance to Ireland. It had been the subject of frequent ballots by all the Nationalist Members, and he brought it forward on behalf of the entire Irish Party, as the whim of the ballot had this time placed it in his unworthy hands, and upon it he now ventured to address the House for the first time, feeling sure that it would extend to him the indulgence usual on such occasions. Ever since the Act of Union, in 1800, their country had lived under coercive laws. The Act to which his Motion referred was passed in the year 1887, and up to that period the number of Coercion Acts equalled the number of years which had elapsed since the destruction of the Irish Parliament. In that year there was rushed through Parliament by the use of the closure and in face of the feeling worked up in this country by the infamous, but then unexposed, Times forgeries, a permanent Coercion Act which still remained on the Statute book. By that Act trials for criminal offences were taken away from the protection of juries. In addition, new offences were created. In fact, it was applied almost entirely against political opponents of the ascendency class in Ireland. The tribunal was neither independent nor impartial. It consisted of two hirelings of the Government who, at the whim of a Minister, might be summarily dismissed. It was not the members of the criminal class who were brought before those officials. Without exception they belonged to a political party, and their alleged offences were of a political character. It was the general belief in Ireland that their sentences were prepared by their prosecutors, and the trial was a mere mockery. Hundreds of the most respected and influential men in Ireland had been imprisoned under that Act. Their treatment in prison was barbarous. There was no distinction made between them and common criminals, unless indeed to make their treatment worse than that of those who offended against the ordinary law. He spoke on the subject with feeling and from bitter experience, as he was one of the victims of the Act only five years ago, and he knew that the treatment given was perfectly inhuman. There
  128
  was no such law in existence in this country. It was contrary to the Constitution of Great Britain. Not even in the Crown Colonies was there anything like it. At present the Act was not in operation, but that was no argument against its repeal. It was in force a short time ago. It could be enforced at any moment at the discretion of the Chief Secretary. By an exercise of the will of one man who might know nothing of the conditions of the country the whole Constitution under which the land was governed might be completely altered. That was not a safe nor a satisfactory state of things. It was a permanent and a standing menace to the liberty of the people. They called on the House to declare that that Act should be repealed and thus to stamp it with a verdict of disapproval. In his own case, although he lived only across the street from the police station, the police allowed him to go at large for some time, and although they could have arrested him at any moment they waited till he was in bed, and then in the dead of night came and took him away from his wife and four children. He was taken by night seven miles and put in a cell, and the Removable did not come to hear his case till three o'clock the following day. All he could say was that if the Chief Secretary had made in Ireland the speech which he heard him make the other night he would have been locked up in a like manner. It was no use to attempt by hirelings of that class to coerce the Irish people, who might be led with a silk rope but could not be driven with a pitchfork. For himself he welcomed the suffering he had undergone, as he would die for his country. He begged to move—
  MR. NOLANin seconding the Motion, said that it was a question of immense importance to the people of Ireland. The Crimes Act placed the liberties, fortunes, and lives of millions of the people at the discretion of an irresponsible Court, or at least a Court which was not responsible to the Irish people themselves. It was also a question of paramount importance to British statesmen, and was one which ought to give His Majesty's Government cause for reflection. It was the object of British statesmen to bring the United States and

  129
  Great Britain into closer contact; but only the other day he read that the Irish in America had joined hands with the Germans in order to prevent that aim being carried out and the land of their adoption being mixed up with foreign politics. The feeling of the Irish in the United States had been largely affected by the exceptional treatment which Ireland had received. He knew that the overwhelming majority of Ministerialists were supporters of the National view, and that in speaking to the Opposition on the subject they were talking to deaf ears; but still it was necessary to discuss the subject. He availed himself with pleasure of the present opportunity because of the conditions which had arisen since the general election. In that House there were something like 300 new members who had never had an opportunity of hearing that important question discussed within those walls. Apart from that, there was also the fact that beyond those walls was the vast electorate of Great Britain, who were taking an increasing interest in what took place in Parliament. It was of the highest importance that they should know for themselves the way in which Ireland was treated under English rule. That was no new opinion. It was the opinion held by many distinguished Irishmen in the past, among others by the great Daniel O'Connell, who said that if the English people only knew the way in which Ireland was treated they would rise up in revolt against it; that if Ireland in the past had been treated with exceptional harshness it was not due to the masses of the English people, but rather to their rulers. The first thing he would ask new Members of the House and the English electors outside to do was to recognise the fact that Ireland was almost a crimeless country. They heard of outrages against God and man in almost every country in the world. In Ireland there was an almost entire absence of serious crime. He would venture to say that in many of the great centres of industry in this country English officers of the law were being brutally beaten that night, and that in a day or two hon. Members would read in the newspapers of policemen giving evidence that while they were being severely beaten the crowd stood idly by and
  130
  allowed the outrage to be perpetrated, and that where men and women had gone up to give evidence against criminals in this country their lives had been made a hell to them by the people of the locality. Irishmen had a right to say that if their country was without crime there was no justification for the Crimes Act's remaining on the Statute-book, and that if there was any justification for its existence there was more necessity for it in England than in Ireland. He knew the arguments which would be adduced in favour of the Act by hon. Members above the Gangway. They would say that while Ireland was crimeless now, on some future occasion the Act might be necessary. He challenged hon. Members to tell the House what conditions would necessitate the Act's being put into operation, and, if hon. Members could not tell them that, he asked them fairly and frankly to say why this Act should not be wiped off the Statute-book. One of the arguments which would be advanced by hon. Members was that a similar Act was passed by a Liberal Government. But many things had happened since then. A reform Act was passed and then came the general election of 1885, after which election English Liberal statesmen who believed in their principles could be blind no longer to the fact that a new state of affairs had arisen. When the general election of 1885 resulted in eighty-five of the 101 popularly elected Members for Ireland being returned to oppose coercion Mr. Gladstone declared that a new state of affairs had arisen; that the justification for coercive measures had passed away, and that Ireland should be governed according to the will of the Irish people. It might be said that Liberal Governments had been in power since then, and yet had not wiped the Act off the Statute-book. But the Liberal Government went one better. During the Parliament of 1892 it passed through the House of Commons in the teeth of great opposition, and in the face of great difficulty, a measure which would have given the Irish people the management of their own affairs. He failed to see how Liberal statesmen could take any other view of the matter than that advanced by Irish Members

  131
  that night, because, according to all Liberal principles, if people were governed without their consent that government was tyranny, however benevolent it might be. Hon. Members above the gangway would argue that the law did no harm except to law-breakers; that the Irishman who went about his business, and did not meddle with politics or public affairs, was absolutely free; that he need have no fear of being brought before a couple of removable magistrates to be sent to prison to herd with the vilest criminals in the world. Those were the arguments of tyrants all over the world. Representatives of the Russian Government and men who knew Russia made use of the same argument, and said that in despotic Russia a man who minded his own business and did not meddle with affairs of State, was as free as he would be in the City of London. That was not the question. So long as Ireland occupied her present position, so long were Irishmen entitled to equal treatment with Englishmen; an Irishman in Ireland ought to receive the same treatment that he would receive in England or Scotland, or in any of the British Colonies. The Irishman who went to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or South Africa, or who travelled up and down Great Britain, could, if he was charged with an offence, claim to be and would be treated in exactly the same way as if he had been born in England; but the moment he set foot upon his native soil he lived under exceptional laws. Some Sergeant Sheridan or some Sergeant O'Haloran, or some other base representative of an unjust system, could make a charge against him, all the more readily because he had been away from home, and might be supposed to have come back with the revolutionary idea of equal justice and equal treatment between man and man, and could have him hauled before a couple of removables, and sent to prison to be treated as a common criminal. Irishmen had a right to resent that kind of treatment, and to demand that a change should be made in the law. As he had said, a new condition of affairs which appealed to English Liberal statesmen arose in the election of 1885. In that new state of affairs, Mr. Gladstone
  132
  decided upon giving to the Irish people the management of their own affairs. Unfortunately, both for Ireland, and, as he believed, for England as well, Mr. Gladstone failed, owing to the abandonment of their principles by a number of so-called Liberals at the time. The election of 1885 was followed by another in 1886, and at that election a very large majority were against them. Since then the Irish people had maintained an attitude which was the same now as in 1885. In 1887, the Leader of the Opposition came into power, and what did he do? He recognised, as Liberal statesmen had done, that a change had taken place. He saw that it would no longer be possible, in a light-hearted, easy way, to pass a Coercion Bill for Ireland. He had an inspiration. He said, "I will take advantage of my present majority to pass a Coercion Act which shall be perpetual." Up to then the Union was eighty-six years old, and every year that it had lasted there had been coercion in some form or other—the White boy Act, the Arms Act, the Crimes Act, a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The majority of Irish representatives had always been resolutely opposed to the passing of exceptional laws of that kind, and saw that Liberal statesmen and their followers would have to be reckoned with. Irishmen saw that the light was beginning to dawn upon the people of England as a whole. They recognised that a large portion of the English Press was submitting the actual state of things in Ireland to the English people, and that on hundreds of platforms, in districts where, perhaps, an Irishman had never been seen before, Irish Members of Parliament were pleading the cause of their country with effect. The Leader of the Opposition recognised that it was a case with him of now or never placing the Irish people under a perpetual political disabilities Act. A Bill was passed notwithstanding the strongest opposition of the majority of Irish Members, and also of the majority of Members of the Liberal Party. He did not know exactly what was going to be the upshot of the debate that night. They felt that if it rested with the Chief Secretary, or even with his Government, that offensive statute would be wiped out without

  133
  further delay. But the right hon. Gentleman would do either of two things—he would either call their attention to the fact that though there was a Liberal Government nominally in power it was not really in power, and that it was impotent to carry out its own will or the will of the people—that any measure passed triumphantly by an enormous majority in that House might be bowled over at the other end of the lobby, that it would be a waste of time to try to repeal this offensive Act. Or he might say something that would be received with great satisfaction by Irish Members and by the Irish people—that in the near future His Majesty's Government would introduce a measure of such a scope as would give the Irish people the management of their own affairs and put an end to the old and bad system which was the root of so much evil in Ireland, and which also had inflicted such damage to the reputation of England not only abroad but in many other ways. Some of the most disastrous defeats which England had sustained abroad had been administered by Irish soldiers who had been driven from their country by coercive laws. An English monarch when he suffered a reverse on the Continent, used these memorable words: —"Cursed be the laws which deprive me of such soldiers." It was those coercive laws which drove Irish soldiers abroad—laws which were now still in force in Ireland. He asked the House to recognise the wisdom and the justice of wiping this Act from the Statute-book of England to which it was a disgrace.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the presence of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act on the Statute-book is a gross violation of the Constitution, without parallel in any other portion of His Majesty's dominions, and that the Act should be immediately repealed."—(Mr. Hogan.)
  MR. GORDONsaid it had been pointed out by the mover of the Resolution that new Members of the House could hardly be expected to know much about the provisions of the Act, but neither he nor the seconder had
  134
  given any very clear indication of what the provisions were or to what class of case they applied. In regard to ordinary crime Ireland no doubt compared most favourably with any other part of the Kingdom. As one who claimed to be as much an Irishman as those who held different political views he was proud of that fact, but at the same time he thought he was right in saying that all Irishmen, whatever might be their political views, ought to see that the best possible efforts were made to get rid of another class of crime, and to free their country from the stigma which attached to it. He had heard it stated that the arguments of the Unionist representatives would be in regard to this Act that no man unless he was a law-breaker would suffer under it. The answer was, that they were all subject to the law, that the law did not coerce those who observed it, but did coerce those who broke it. Law-breakers might say that such a law was tyrannous. But that was all they could say about it; if there were crimes to punish and a law was passed which was adequate and necessary for that purpose, it was idle to speak of it as tyranny. He lived in Ireland, and those who did so only knew of the existence of such an Act of Parliament from speeches of those who held certain political views and who spoke from a certain standpoint, and also from articles which appeared in newspapers which advocated certain political views. Those who were law-abiding did not know that such an Act was in existence. To that part of Ireland which Unionist Members represented the law applied just as to any other part of the country, but it had never become necessary to put it in force. It had never been necessary in his part of Ireland to put this law into force. He said that deliberately. Their idea was that the existence of such a law judging from the past, was necessary. They believed that at present there were matters going on which, even with all the desire of the Chief Secretary to refrain from using it, would probably drive him to use it in the end. The Act could only be brought into operation by the Lord-Lieutenant and the members of the Privy Council. Its operation could be caused to cease if either House of Parliament presented a

  135
  petition desiring the repeal of the Proclamation. It was an Act of Parliament which the present Prime Minister at one period, speaking on the subject, said he considered it would be a wise thing to have permanent. That was in 1886.
  MR. HUGH LAWBut this is 1907.
  MR. GORDONsaid he was well aware of that fact. But if the Act were now applied in England not a single law-abiding citizen would know of its existence. If applied over the whole of the United Kingdom it would injure no one. No injustice would be done. The first section of the Act dealt with the inquiry which might become necessary were crime and outrage prevalent in a particular district, and stated the manner in which it could be brought into force by Proclamation. Under the second part, if a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained the venue might be changed on the application of the Attorney-General, and the party to be tried could apply to be tried in some other place. The Court had power to deal with that and to give witnesses expenses and the costs of counsel instructed. So much about the venue. The case had to be tried by Irishmen in Ireland and in the Irish Courts. The other part of the Act dealt with summary jurisdiction. What was that after all? In Dublin it could be exercised in precisely the way that ordinary summary jurisdiction was exercised. It was under the same Act. In the rest of Ireland when the Act under consideration was put into operation by Proclamation it was to be exercised by two resident magistrates, one of whom must have sufficient legal knowledge to satisfy either the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Lord Chancellor—he forgot which at the moment. Those resident magistrates were appointed wholly apart from the discharge of these particular duties. They could give no more in the way of punishment than was given by the Justices at the ordinary petty sessions. They were limited to six months imprisonment, which was the ordinary petty sessions jurisdiction. There was the right of appeal to the quarter sessions, where the County Court Judge sat to hear the cases on appeal.
  136
  What enormous hardship was there in that? Every word of the Act was directed against criminals, and it was only to be put in force when the Lord-Lieutenant and the Privy Council thought it necessary for the prevention, detection or punishment of crime or outrage, and not for anything else. Under those circumstances what reason was there to complain of the Act's being put into force? Hon. Members below the gangway might laugh, but he would like to hear an answer to that argument. A mere sentimental answer would not do. He did not think that even Nationalist Members would disagree with him when he said that they wanted to have outrage and crime stamped out in Ireland. As for the other parts of the Act, they were merely machinery. He had told the House what were the substantial parts of the Act. In the North of Ireland they did not regard it as a menace to their liberties at all. Even when administered by a Chief Secretary opposed to them in politics they were perfectly satisfied that it would not injure any law-abiding citizens. They had in the North of Ireland their Irish sentiments just as much as the people of the south and west, and yet they did not ask that the Act should be taken off the Statute-book. They wished it to remain, because cases had arisen in which it had been useful and necessary; the predecessors in office of the present Government knew the necessity of it, and they never attempted to repeal it. What was there at the present time to render the repeal of the Act necessary? It was passed to meet a special class of crime, which was a danger to the credit of the country. That class of crime had now diminished, but could anyone say that intimidation, boycotting, or the writing of threatening letters had disappeared? On the 21st of last month the Chief Secretary in replying to a question about boycotting in Ireland and that there were ten serious cases of boycotting in Ireland and thirty-eight minor cases. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!"] What did that mean? It meant that a man living within the law, who had not broken the law of Ireland or England, was to be placed in such a position that his neighbour dare not

  137
  sell him a loaf of bread or a suit of clothes, or shoe his horses, and that men dare not work on his farm, although his crops were rotting away. That was what boycotting meant. Some people, thought that boycotting meant that if persons were dissatisfied with one another they could say, "I will not deal with you, but with somebody else." That was not boycotting. What had the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the day in reply to a Question about the Bradys, who had been deprived of the food which was being carried for them some twenty or thirty miles? They could not get lodgings in the assize town except at the police barracks.
  THE SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): Did the Crimes Act stop boycotting?
  MR. GORDONsaid it did to a very large extent. Without it the state of things would have been much worse. He wanted to point out that they could not expect the case would be fairly tried in the venue in which the people actually lived, where the crime had been committed, where the people were not allowed lodging except in the police barracks, and where they could not get food except it was sent to them from the court house. Did they as Englishman expect that the jury in such a place was going to deal with the case fairly and impartially? Ought not such crimes to be stopped? Did they not think that if a fair trial could not be had in one part the case should be transferred to another where a fair trial could be had and where justice could be administered? That was a state of affairs which the Chief Secretary had had to admit that day in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had had to admit that in another case where seven people were fired at and one individual was seriously injured, no person had been brought to justice. He had had to admit on various occasions what was the state of crime and outrage in Ireland. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thought boycotting a trifle.
  MR. BIRRELL: No, I have never said anything of the kind.
  MR. GORDONsaid he did not want to go beyond fair argument. He asked
  138
  the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question from the point of view of one boycotted man, even if there were only one. The Judge at the last Leitrim Assizes said that any increase in crime was due to that odious form of crime carried on by intimidating and threatening letters. An isolated man living in a hostile neighbourhood received a threatening letter with the emblems of death upon it. It was no wonder that the Judge described that as an odious crime. [An Hon. Member: Who was the Judge?] He declined to be cross-examined. The Judge stated that the county inspector had informed him that a certain district in the county was in a very lawless condition; that three families representing twelve people were wholly boycotted and under police protection; that other three families received partial police protection; and that one family existed in such a state of continual danger that three policemen were quartered in the house. [Nationalist laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh at that, but it was a serious thing for those concerned. The Chief Secretary, even with his short acquaintance with Ireland, must know that in the West there were districts where everyone had to be a member of the United Irish League or it was the worse for him. Meetings were held, cases were brought forward, their pros and cons discussed, and resolutions arrived at, and the reports of those proceedings appeared in the newspapers just as much as if they were the reports of proceedings in an ordinary Court of Justice. The views of that organisation were not merely expressed at the meetings in reference to individuals, but published in the newspapers, and did anybody dare to tell the House that the jurors drawn from that class who had shown what their views were in reference to these very crimes would act fairly and impartially? The Crimes Act enabled places to be selected where cases could be tried. The Attorney-General knew there were places away from the disturbed districts where a fair trial might be obtained. The learned Judge to whom he had referred justified his statement by quoting what his predecessor at the last Con naught Winter Assize said—
  "Everyone knows that when the chain of terrorism is complete no witness will give evidence and no jury will convict."

  139
  There was the case of a horse dealer in Monaghan who took the grazing of a farm from which some previous tenant had been evicted. That poor man's whole property was destroyed; his fences and outhouses were pulled down and fourteen horses and six cows burnt. When the case came before the county court compensation to the extent of £1,150 was awarded, but he did not know whether that fully compensated the man. A case recently came before Judge Adams in Limerick County Court, in which the occupier of a grazing farm who had annoyed some people claimed compensation for the malicious burning of two ricks of hay. Judge Adams said—
  "This was a most disgraceful business. The farmers of Ireland had received from the legislature most important benefits, and if anyone was to tell them thirty years ago that such benefits would come he would be put down as a madman. They must now, farmers and labourers, and all other subjects of the King in this country, remember that grievances having been removed law and order must prevail, and he could see no reason whatever, even according to the popular code, for the persecution to which this humble man was subjected. A piece of land formerly held by a tenant of the Count de Salis had become vacant, and the farmers were looking for portions of it to round their own takes—a very innocent and proper proceeding, but this did not suit the tribunal that sat in the neighbouring public-houses, and accordingly this man's life was made a burthen of. He was abused on the road, and his sisters had to be guarded by a force of the Royal Irish Constabulary coming to and from their work of milking cows. It was a very bad case of popular hostility. No doubt can be entertained that the fire was malicious, because, although it occurred at eight o'clock at night and the police barrack but two miles off, no intimation was conveyed to the Constabulary, who did not discover the occurrence until the morning after. He awarded £60 compensation.
  Those were things which could not be gainsaid, and there were many similar cases as was known to everyone in Ireland who did not keep his head quite covered up. A receiver the other day brought before a Judge the case of a man named Burns who had taken a piece of land for grazing. Here was the letter which was written to him—
  "To Mr. H. Burns.—The caste to which you belong has too long stood between the people and their inheritance. We are determined that no such barriers shall intervene between the people and what is rightly theirs; so, in justice to you as well as to ourselves, we hereby give you notice that you shall not be permitted to occupy your farm of Addergoole one moment beyond 1st April, 1907. Rest assured that if
  140
  you refuse to comply with this mandate of the people of Mullagh we will ourselves carry it into execution in broad daylight, and in the most public manner."
  Of course they would do nothing of the kind; but under the present régime no attempt was made to have the public law enforced in that locality.
  "The time has passed when your prayers for mercy would have been listened to. Justice, not mercy, is all that we shall give you, or receive."
  That letter was signed by eighteen people and was written in reference to a case-pending in the High Court of Justice.
  MR. BIRRELL: Were they real signatures, or were they all in the same handwriting?
  MR. GORDONsaid he did not know; but the Judge said that if it could be proved that they were genuine signatures he would take measures to deal with them. He only knew that the matter came before the Court and no suggestion was made that they were not real signatures. That was only a part of the chain of terrorism that was exercised. The people who could prove these signatures would not come forward and the jury would not convict. But the terror of the man who received that letter was just the same. What steps had the Attorney-General for Ireland taken in the matter?
  *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange)said the letter had not yet come before him; it was before Mr. Justice Ross. If it did come before him he would deal with it.
  MR. GORDONsaid that if such a matter, which was before the Court three weeks ago, and was a crime dealing with property under the control of the Court, although publicly brought forward by the police who were the executive officers, was not reported to the Attorney-General or to the Chief Secretary, the fact was significant. If the officials and the police thought it was no use, or that it would not be thought a good thing to report it to the proper authorities, it would add to the present state of disturbance in the West of Ireland. If the Chief Secretary allowed matters to go on as

  141
  they were going, he would be driven to put the Coercion Act in force; and he would bitterly regret that he had acceded to this Motion.
  *MR. CHERRYsaid that before he dealt with the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Tipperary, North, he wished to congratulate him on his able and eloquent speech. He was sure that the House would always hear the hon. Member in future with pleasure. The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down seemed to be enamoured of the Coercion Act. If it was such an excellent provision, why did it not apply in England or Scotland?
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that one important provision, viz., that of change of venue, did apply to Scotland.
  *MR. CHERRYsaid he was speaking of the Crimes Act generally, of which that was only one small provision. But even the change of venue under the Crimes Act was a most one-sided measure. The Attorney-General for Ireland was entitled to walk into Court and name the venue, and the Court was compelled to change it at his direction. Another provision of the Crimes Act gave power to the Lord-Lieutenant to declare a certain association dangerous, and the proclamation to that effect made it a criminal offence to summon or attend a meeting of such association. That provision was put so frequently in force that under it twenty-three of the Irish Members of the House had been sent to gaol with hard labour by two stipendiary magistrates. Would the English people stand any such law as that? He would like to see a Home Secretary getting a Proclamation issued declaring that a particular trade union, say, in Birmingham, was dangerous, and sending down two magistrates from London to try the members and sentence them to six months imprisonment with hard labour. Another section of the Crimes Act provided that where a crime was committed a secret inquiry might be held and witnesses be compelled to appear before it for examination without the presence of Judge, jury, or counsel. Would the English people tolerate that? Would they stand a special Court con-
  142
  stituted for the trial of offences of political nature, and consisting of two magistrates nominated by Government, who were the prosecutors in the case? His hon. and learned friend had made a most serious charge against the Irish police when he said that they neglected to report breaches of the law.
  MR. GORDON: What I said was that if the police did not report that particular case it was a strange commentary on the way such reports were made.
  *MR. CHERRYsaid that during the year he and his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General had been in office the police had reported to them even the most trivial violations of the law in all parts of Ireland, and in no single instance in which a crime had been committed had they declined to direct a prosecution. On becoming Law Officers of the Crown the first duty he and his colleague had to discharge was to determine on behalf of the Government whether or not they should make use of the provisions of the Crimes Act. A more responsible duty it would be difficult to conceive. They were responsible for the preservation of law and order in the country. They knew that some hot-headed spirits conceived that, as there was a change of Government, they could do what they liked. They fully appreciated the risk, but after the most careful consideration they came unhesitatingly to the conclusion that it was better and safer to adhere to the ordinary law, fairly administered as between man and man, than to resort to the provisions of an Act which they believed to be unfair and unjust. The aim of every Government in Ireland ought to be to convince the masses of the people that the law was their friend and not their enemy, and he had no hesitation in saying that so long as the Crimes Act was made use of in prosecutions for crimes of any kind in Ireland, it would be impossible to get the majority of the people of Ireland to believe that the law was fairly administered. Soon after they came into office all the Proclamations under the Crimes Act were withdrawn and that Act was not now in force in any part of Ireland. They did something more than that; they

  143
  resolved that as far as they could they would put an end to any unfairness in empanelling juries, and for that purpose they summoned the Crown solicitors of greatest experience to a conference, discussed the possibility of allowing jurors to be challenged equally on the part of the Crown and on the part of the prisoner, and arranged that as far as possible that should be done. They believed that if they showed the juries throughout the country that they were to be trusted, and that they were really made responsible to preserve law and order, they would respond to that appeal and do their duty. They believed that the reason for miscarriages of justice was that the jurors in the box felt they were not trusted. They would be told, of course, that that was a most dangerous experiment. For the purpose of seeing how it would work, he sent out before the March Assizes of last year a circular to all the Crown solicitors, asking for a return of the number of persons they felt it their duty, acting under the rules in force (which if observed were excellent), to set aside, the number of jurors challenged by the prisoners, the nature of the charge and the result of the trial. The Crown solicitors acted on the instructions given them, and they found that throughout Ireland the number of jurors challenged by the prisoners exceeded the number ordered to stand aside by the Crown, and there was not a complaint in all Ireland from north to south to his knowledge of the verdicts returned.
  MR. MOORE: You cannot say that this year.
  *MR. CHERRYsaid if the hon. Member would allow him to proceed he would deal with this year. At the March Assizes last year he endeavoured to put the ordinary law in motion fairly with most excellent results. The same thing happened at the July Assizes. The results at the winter Assizes were still more remarkable. The most important was that for the Province of Munster. There they had not only the ordinary crime but two agrarian offences of apolitical character, one being of a most serious nature. The Judge, Mr. Justice Wright, who was not to be suspected of any undue partiality for jurors,
  144
  prisoners, or the Liberal Party, at the conclusion of the Assizes in Limerick, stated that there was not a single verdict they had brought in with which he disagreed. And in both the political cases mentioned, one a very serious charge of attempt to murder, the juries convicted and the prisoners were sentenced. Not only did the Judge approve of the verdicts, but what was more remarkable in Ireland, the leading Nationalist paper of the South of Ireland published a strong leading article approving of the whole of the verdicts. He thought that a great triumph for the cause of law and order, for it was his object to make the masses of the people feel by fair and just administration that the law was their friend and not their enemy. It was his firm belief and that of his colleagues, that by pursuing that course they would really put an end to intimidation and boycotting far more effectually than by putting into force any provision of the Crimes Act. They remembered the time, ten or fifteen years ago, when those provisions were in force in different parts of the country, when the gaols were filled with Members of Parliament, and yet boycotting and intimidation was far more rife than at present. It might possibly be said that in having resort to the ordinary law they had allowed crime to go unpunished. That was the general statement, and it was contended by the leading Unionist newspapers that Ireland was in a terrible state, and that crime was increasing day by day. Yet in 1905, under the late Government the number of agrarian crimes reported by the constabulary was 278, and the total in 1906 was 234, which was a distinct improvement. To take the details: offences against the person were sixteen in 1905 and seven in 1906;offences against property were sixty-four in 1905 and seventy-one in 1906, a slight increase; offences against public peace were 193 in 1905 and 156 last year. Other offences were five in 1905 and none in 1906. Those figures showed that resort to the ordinary law had not increased crime, but had diminished it, and he believed a continuation of that policy would put an end to agrarian crime altogether. He did not think Members were aware of the enormous decrease in

  145
  agrarian offences in Ireland during the last twenty years. In 1886 there were 1,056 agrarian offences reported. In 1896 they had fallen to 257. In 1905 they were 278 and last year 234. Judges in Ireland had a great fancy for the returns of constabulary inspectors, and they had been quoted in the debate. He thought, however, they should be looked at as a whole, and not those picked out which favoured a particular conclusion, and the others ignored. He had a summary of the reports of all the county inspectors in Ireland for 1906. There were only thirty-two counties in Ireland, but the reports numbered thirty-six, the cities and the ridings of counties making up that total. Of those thirty-six districts all but one were reported to be in a peaceful and satisfactory condition, and it was important to note that the exception was the East Riding of Galway where the Clanricarde property was situated. It was fair to mention that certain districts were reported as being disturbed, but even in those cases in almost every instance the police were able to notify improvement in the last twelve months. In no case had they reported any increase of lawlessness. He would refer to three or four of the counties which were not entirely satisfactory. In regard to Leitrim the report was that the country was in a satisfactory state except in certain sub-districts, that there were disputes on certain estates, but that towards the close of the year there were some signs of improvement. The men who attacked Brady had been prosecuted, but as the matter was sub judice he did not think it right to refer further to the matter. The prosecution had been instituted by the present law officers. There had been two abortive trials, but the case would be tried again at the next assizes, and he hoped sincerely the jury would come to a conclusion one way or the other. But even if they did not that would not alter his opinion one jot. He believed that it was far better that one or two guilty individuals should be acquitted than that the whole fountain of justice should be polluted. They heard a great deal about what a terrible thing boycotting and intimidation, were. Of course it was an evil. But it was not a thing of to-day or yesterday. It had been going on in
  146
  spite of the Crimes Act, and as far as he could see, that Act had done absolutely nothing to stop it. He again turned to the reports of the county inspectors. Thirty-six counties, districts, and cities were reported upon in December last. In twenty-three of them the report was that there was no boycotting or intimidation whatsoever. In thirteen, some boycotting prevailed, but most of the cases were of a trifling character. Cavan was mentioned. "County peaceful," was the report. No intimidation, two cases of minor boycotting. Clare was said to be a terrible county. [Mr. W. Redmond: "No, no!"] The inspector's report on Clare was that the county was in a peaceful state, save in two sub-districts. No boycotting, two cases of intimidation. The county of Cork had been referred to. Two cases of partial boycotting and four cases of intimidation was the report for the whole county of Cork. In Fermanagh there had been one case of partial boycotting and one case of complete boycotting. Then there was Galway and the East Riding. It was reported that there was no improvement in the condition of the Riding, which continued in a lawless and unsettled state, except in certain districts. Eight persons were under constant protection. The United Irish League was still a paramount power in the Riding. There were several cases of partial boycotting. Intimidation was very prevalent. That was the only report which he could really say was unsatisfactory; on the whole he thought the position was very satisactory. He sincerely believed that if they adhered to the course which they had taken, they would next year have Ireland in an even more peaceful condition than last year, but if they adopted the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested, they would have a state of lawlessness, intimidation, and violence prevailing from north to south of the country.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the first thing of which he had to complain in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that he had made voluminous references to the reports on agrarian crime in Ireland, and yet

  147
  when hon. Members sitting on the Unionist Benches last session were constantly asking for the production of those Returns they were refused.
  MR. CHERRY: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, they were published in the Criminal Statistics of last year.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he could only say that when the Returns were asked for they were refused, as the right hon. Gentleman said he did not think any useful purpose could be served by any further publication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman relied for the success of his new experiment mainly on two cases in county Cork. They were really county Cork cases, but owing to the Winter Assizes the venue was changed. But that change of venue formed a considerable part of the Act the House was now asked to repeal. He asked the House to say whether the results were to be considered satisfactory. He thought he could convict the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of his own mouth. The Attorney-General had shown that many districts of Ireland were in a very unsettled state, and yet the question before the House was whether the Crimes Act should be repealed. He respectfully asked the House to pause before they said that it should be. As had already been stated, the Act was at present harmless, and there was not a person in Ireland who was affected by its remaining on the Statute-book. The Act in one part dealt with dangerous associations. That was the point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he personally objected to more than to any other. He would tell the House what class of associations came under the purview of the Act as dangerous associations. If an association was found by the Lord-Lieutenant to be formed for the commission of crime, or to encourage or aid persons to commit crime or to promote or incite to acts of violence or intimidation or to interfere with law and order, such associations should be proclaimed. The Attorney-General would have the House believe that the country was in a peaceful state, but he could refute that allegation. He would begin by quoting some words of the hon. Member for East Clare. Speaking on
  148
  February 4th of this year, in his own county, the hon. Member said that unfortunately there had been lately in certain parts of Ireland a mysterious outbreak of crime. Men had been fired at and large quantities of hay had been destroyed.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid he wished to explain what the hon. Member had read. When he made that speech the whole district of Clare was in such a peaceful condition that when two or three outrages did take place they caused universal regret and surprise, and it was with reference to those two or three cases he made the speech referred to. When a short time previously some very bad outrages occurred it was proved that they were committed by policemen who were allowed to leave and go to America.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he was not sure that the House would be very much edified by the hon. Member's explanation. Still he laid great stress on what the hon. Member said in that speech. He had before now observed that hon. Members said one thing in Ireland and another thing in that House.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: I repudiate that.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in possession.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I as a point of order—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I will call on the hon. Member next.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I do not wish to speak. It is a matter of order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to intervene. If he wishes to make a personal explanation he can do so at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Member.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the hon. Member had just given a somewhat long explanation of the remarkable speech to which he had referred, and said that his own county of Clare was in a very law-abiding condition; but the hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the Answer given by the Chief Secretary to a Question on that day, that there

  149
  had been reported cases of the use of firearms for the purpose of outrage in the county of Clare since January last. Although the number was not certainly stated, there had been four more or less serious cases. A shot was fired outside a man's house, for the purpose of intimidating him; in the second case two men working together were fired at by one man and were injured; and another man was fired at and injured. That was a strange commentary on the action of the House last year in refusing to allow the Peace Preservation Act to remain on the Statute Book. The question was whether the state of crime in the country, the number of arrests, and the number of acquittals which were against the weight of the evidence, justified the House in repealing the Act at the present time. In his opinion they emphatically did not. He would have referred, if the matter had not been dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for South Derry, to the charges of the Judges at three assizes recently held in Ireland. The other day the hon. Member for East Mayo, in reference to the charge of one of the Judges to the Grand Jury delivered in the ordinary course, asked whether it was the custom for Judges in England to make political speeches from the Bench. He was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not the courage, he would almost say the common decency, ["Oh!"] yes, to stand up in his place, and defend one of His Majesty's Judges in Ireland, as any English Minister, he guaranteed, would have defended one of His Majesty's Judges in England. Whatever his idea of the Member for Mayo's remark might be, it was almost an unheard of thing that His Majesty's Minister should allow that accusation to go uncontradicted. He proposed to read to the House a list of malicious injury cases which had taken place within the last two or three months, which in his opinion formed as good an index to the condition of the country as anything could be. It had been said from time to time that the absence of charges of intimidation was the best index. To a certain extent that was true, but in many places the absence of intimidation and outrage was due to
  150
  the fact that the people were so much under the heel of the United Irish League that they dare not do anything. With one or two exceptions such was the state of things that the people of Galway, Leitrim, Roscommon, and other counties in Ireland, were absolutely under the heel of the United Irish League and therefore the League did not think it necessary to employ outrage and intimidation to get the people to do what they wished. The people were in such fear, and owing to the deliberate refusal of protection from the Government, they dare not resist, and consequently the Returns showed in some cases a decrease in the amount of crime. Most of the cases of malicious injury were of a bad class, namely, that of burning hay and straw. On 4th January, 1907, for the burning of a stack of hay, £12 damages were allowed. Another case occurred at the Roscommon Quarter Sessions, where £51 15s. was allowed as damages for the malicious burning of 28 tons of hay. At the Dungannon Quarter Sessions, £65 damages were allowed on 24th October last for the malicious burning of a barn and dairy. The hon. Member was proceeding to give details of other cases of malicious injury, when
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose and asked the hon. Member for his authority. The hon. Member was making a serious statement, but he was not stating his authority.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I have never known it done before.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid in that case the hon. Member will hear something new that night. He could give the hon. Member the authority for the cases, but it was a long list, and time was short. There was enough to show that the state of the country was not satisfactory, and did not correspond with the rosy statement that had been made by the Attorney-General. He would like to read an extract which was typical of what went on in places like County Wexford. At a national demonstration called by the executive of the

  151
  South Wexford branch of the United Irish League, at which addresses were delivered by two Members of Parliament, Mr. Dennis Johnston said—
  The way to settle the evicted tenants' question was, to put it in plain language, to boycott the grabbers. I do not know," he continued, "whether our rev. chairman agrees with this line of action, but it is the line of action that has been adopted with marked advantage in every other district throughout the country and, therefore, what has been found useful in other districts must be found useful in the county of Wexford. If you want to get rid of the planters who are in occupation of evicted farms, you will have to adopt stringent measures—"
  "Mr. Edward Neville: 'I'd hang them! By God I would. I'd be the hangman to-morrow.' "
  He need not read the remainder of Mr. Johnston's remarks, but he would read the concluding remarks of the rev. chairman—
  "The rev. chairman in declaring the resolution carried, said they all knew as Catholics that boycotting was condemned by the head of their Church, and therefore, he could not be a party to advising anybody to boycott another, but this he would tell them to do, they could watch these parties and see what they did. These parties never dealt with them, never went into their shops, or dealt with them in any way, and they could follow the example thus given to them."
  That was sailing very close to the wind. The question simply resolved itself into this. When the Act was originally passed in 1887 by hon. Members opposite, or their predecessors, they believed that the state of things in Ireland was such that an exceptional mode of dealing with it was absolutely necessary. The Act was not doing the smallest harm at the present moment to anybody. The people in the north of Ireland lived under it without feeling it in any shape or form, and the same remark was true in regard to most of the people in the south. It was always possible—he hoped it was not going to happen—that a recurrence of the state of affairs which existed some years ago might take place. But even if that was not the case, he contended that he and his friends had shown that the state of Ireland at the present time was not such that they could safely throw away a method of dealing with an abnormal state of lawlessness in the country. It was very easy to repeal the Act, but it would be a very different matter to re-enact it if the circumstances
  152
  were such as to require that to be done. In his opinion the country unfortunately was not ripe for the repeal of the measure, and he hoped that hon. Members, whose predecessors passed it many years ago, would not now consider that the time had come for its removal from the Statute-book.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wanted to take the opportunity of making a personal explanation in reference to the statement of the hon. Member for South Antrim. The hon. Member had read out a number of fragmentary quotations, but anybody who would compare them with the official statements of the Attorney-General would agree that the speech of the hon. Gentleman hardly needed an answer. The hon. Member had said that he was in the habit of saying one thing in the House and another thing outside. He begged in the clearest and most explicit manner to repudiate that assertion. There was no foundation whatever for it. He had been in the House many years longer than the hon. Gentleman, and he did not believe there was a Member on either side who would believe he was capable for any reason whatever of making statements in Ireland or elsewhere, that he was either afraid or ashamed to make in his place in the House. He repudiated the statement as one of the most cowardly description.
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot but feel genuine sorrow for the hon. Gentlemen who come from Ulster for the course they have felt obliged to take in this debate. They are Irishmen. They love their country. Anything that injures it injures them, and anything that benefits it includes them in that benefit. And yet they have felt it necessary, despite the reports which we receive from the police, who subject the whole of Ireland to a miscroscopic examination to which certainly no other part of the United Kingdom is subjected, and who tell us of the improvement which they note year after year in the various counties of Ireland, and despite the fact that the Attorney-General, who is, in a great way, responsible for the administration of the law in Ireland, has been able in

  153
  his most remarkable, clear, and convincing speech to put before the House and the country a state of facts which I should have thought would have caused hon. Gentlemen opposite to rejoice—notwithstanding all this they have felt it their duty to maintain that Ireland is still not only disfigured with crime, but that that crime is increasing in such a manner as to render it absolutely necessary, if law and order is to be secured and maintained, that this Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, of 1887, should remain part of the Statute law of the land. I think that was a, melancholy obligation imposed upon them. I am sure I condole with them that they should find it necessary, almost alone, to bring accusations of that sort against a country the evidence of whose, improvement has been so clearly and so well established by the reports of the police and by the speech of the Attorney-General. There can be no sort of difference of opinion as to the course to be pursued by His Majesty's Ministers with regard to the Motion. We have no doubt or hesitation as to what we ought to do. I do not believe there is a single individual member of the Administration, and there can be but few of the Party who support that Administration who are not already fully pledged, both by their voices and on several occasions by their votes, to avail themselves of every reasonable opportunity that is afforded them of removing this Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, which is really a code of tyrannical laws, from the Statute-book. We have had some ingenious defences of the Act. We have been told that no innocent man need mind it. But all arguments of that kind proceed on the assumption that anybody who is accused under that Act is guilty. That is a queer notion of the criminal law. Why it has taken centuries to evolve protection for men who are accused of crime in order that they should not bear the penalty of it until they had received justice at the hands of their fellow-countrymen and been tried by experienced and competent Judges! If you are to say that no man need worry about the criminal law unless he is disposed to be a criminal himself we might try a man for murder without a jury because, if he is a quiet, reasonable individual, he never is likely to be accused of crime. That, at all events, is not the
  154
  view which His Majesty's Ministers take. Ever since the present Administration came in it has relied upon the ordinary law, and with most satisfactory results. Serious boycotting is, I quite agree, a most cruel and oppressive thing, but what we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite in is that they believe that you will find in the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887, the means of putting boycotting down in Ireland. We believe honestly that we have discovered a better way, and we are at all events justified by the experience of time in believing that our best chance of making Ireland as free from this kind of offence as happily it is from what is called ordinary crime is to endeavour to make the people of Ireland have confidence in the law and not regard it as something manufactured by their enemies. That, at all events, is the desire we have, and I say without hesitation that His Majesty's Ministers support this Motion. It is only in accordance with our pledges. Happily we have not merely pledges made when we were in opposition to support our position, but we have the experience behind us since we came into office of the righteous administration of the law, which has been attended with the most satisfactory results. With reference to the time when we should give effect to that Resolution, that is very much a matter for ourselves and for Gentlemen from Ireland. We have this session made many promises. We propose after Easter to introduce a measure which is intended to associate the people of Ireland more closely with the administration of the law, and we hope that we shall thereby remove from the administration of the law that black and ugly cloud of suspicion that now hangs over almost everything that an Irish administration does. I hope also to be able to introduce a measure which will effect the restoration of the evicted tenants. We also indicated in the King's Speech that we intend to introduce a measure for the higher education of the people of Ireland. These will necessarily occupy a great deal of time, and I do not think it would be wise for the Irish people at this time to enter into the conflict with another Chamber which would possibly arise in attempting to repeal this Statute. But let it be understood that to-night, at all events, we shall express our fixed determination so to do when the earliest

  155
  opportunity affords itself, and it is only because I believe that we can devote the time of this session to better and more effective purposes that we adopt this attitude. As long as the present Administration remains in power this Act is, to all intents and purposes, dead and buried, and so far as this Resolution is concerned, His Majesty's Ministers not only offer it no opposition, but certainly wish it well and give it their support.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It was quite unnecessary for the Chief Secretary to drag in a reference to another place, for the programme of Irish legislation which the right hon. Gentleman has disclosed is likely to occupy a longer period of Parliamentary time than the Government will be able to give to Irish business this session. We, on this side of the House, were not surprised at the declaration which the Chief Secretary has made. It accords with the view of Ministers when they sat on the Opposition benches and voted in favour of the repeal of this Act. Therefore their action is consistent. None the less, it is profoundly to be regretted. It is remarkable that the Attorney-General for Ireland adopted the line taken by the Chief Secretary and has told us that as Attorney-General he could not be trusted fairly to administer an Act of Parliament. I am reluctant to follow the Attorney-General for Ireland on a point of law, but I am informed that on two points in reference to criminal law procedure the Attorney-General for Ireland is quite wrong. He said it was an unfair Act because it gave the Crown or the Attorney-General, when an order for change of venue was made, the right to select the place of trial. That is inaccurate.
  MR. CHERRY: What I explained was that I thought it an unfair thing in the administration of the law for the Crown or the Attorney-General to have the absolute right of change of venue. The law ought to be equal, and the same privilege given to the prisoner as to the Crown.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I will not argue the point. My right hon. and learned friend near me, who is as good an authority on law as the learned Attorney-General, holds that the prisoner has power to apply to vary or alter the order, and such an applicant
  156
  is covered in regard to his costs. It is obvious that, if the opinion of my right hon. and learned friend is accurate, the Attorney-General's declaration is inaccurate. Then the Attorney-General said the Act ought to apply to the country at large, and added, "Fancy applying it to all the trade unions!" But he forgot that there was a section which expressly provided that it should not apply to trade unions. But it is with the latter part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that we feel the greatest dissatisfaction. My hon. and learned friend the Member for South Derry has gone carefully and exhaustively into the evidence afforded by the charges of certain Judges, including the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and he has referred specifically to cases which showed the kind of boycotting which is in existence in Ireland. The Attorney-General passed over all those references, and dealt with them by producing evidence of a different kind. We ought to have had from the Irish Government some more complete answer to these charges than eloquent declarations by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General that they are as much opposed to boycotting as we on this side. The Attorney-General has assured us that we do not differ in aims, only in methods. The Chief Secretary unfairly, unjustly, and unnecessarily attacked my hon. friends behind me for the part they have taken in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman said it is regrettable that they should have made the case they have made. Why? Are their statements incorrect? Can they be disproved? If so, I will admit that the censure is justified; but, if not, my hon. friends have done no more than their duty, not only to their constituents, but to thousands of men and women in Ireland who take a very different view of the extent to which boycotting prevails, and regard it as not only cruel and tyrannical, but as something which the Government can if they choose lessen, if not get rid of. The Attorney-General has told us that when he took office he made up his mind to depart from the practice he found in existence and to conduct what he himself described as an experiment; but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that it has already proved to be a success, he did

  157
  not think it necessary to deal with the remarkable charges of the Judges, or with the specific cases which have been quoted. Of these cases the Government, must have cognisance, and they cannot be disposed of by the sentimental declarations of a disapproval of boycotting. The matter has been dismissed to-night in a few sentences. The House has been told that boycotting throughout Ireland is diminishing. The Opposition has never said it existed over the whole of Ireland. Their case is that in parts of Ireland boycotting is deplorably rife, and that the Government ought not to deprive themselves of any powers by which it may be got rid of. The Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General are too sanguine as to the results of their policy. The Oppo-
  sition take no delight in narrating these cases of intimidation and boycotting; they have no wish to make Party capital or to blacken the character of Irishmen. We have simply acted in the discharge of a duty to our constituents. We have spoken in the name of a number of people who are suffering bitterly, and who feel that the Government does not at present appreciate the gravity of their case, and who have charged hon. Members to see that before any rash or ill-judged action is arrived at a statement of their case shall be put before the House and the country.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 252; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 43.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Agnew, George William

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Alden, Percy

  Cremer, William Randal

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Crossley, William J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cullinan, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hodge, John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dillon, John

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duffy, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jackson, R. S

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jenkins, J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bell, Richard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Benn, W.(T'w'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Bertram, Julius

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, R'mf'd

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Billson, Alfred

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Flynn, James Christopher

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Boland, John

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Bright, J. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ginnell, L.

  Levy, Maurice

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lough, Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lundon, W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Causton, Rt. Hn.RichardKnight

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hall, Frederick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Halpin, J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Clough, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Crae, George

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Kean, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  M'Killop, W.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Radford. G. H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Marnham, F. J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Massie, J.

  Reddy, M.

  Tomkinson, James

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Menzies, Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Verney, F. W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rees, J. D.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Richardson, A.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Wardle, George J.

  Morse, L. L.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Waring, Walter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robinson, S.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Murphy, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Nicholls, George

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'r)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Nuttall, Harry

  Runciman, Walter

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seddon, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shackleton, David James

  Williamson, A.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

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

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Grady, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Malley, William

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Young, Samuel

  O'Mara, James

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Tellers for the Ayes—Sir

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  Thomas Esmonde and Capt.

  Partington, Oswald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Donelan.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Cross, Alexander

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Ashley, W. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Liddell, Henry

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

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

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Craig,Captain James (Down, E.

  Moore, William

  Viscount Valentia.

  HARBOUR, ETC., BILLS (HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th March; Mr. Lloyd-George],
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 78.]
  Adjourned at eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock.