Commons Sitting of 24 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Bishop's Sutton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Hornsey, for legislation, to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Deptford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th November, 1908, granting a. Retired Allowance to Mr. William Stead, First Class Officer of Excise, Aberdeen Collection, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement as to Expenditure by Local Education Authorities on the Maintenance (as distinct from administration and loan charges) of Public Elementary Schools for the year ended 31st March 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UGANDA.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Famine in the Busoga District

  81
  of Uganda [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Copy presented, of Order dated 12th November, 1908, entitled the "American Gooseberry Mildew (Prohibition of Importation of Bushes) Amendment Order of 1908" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (PRISONS).
  Copy presented, of Rules and Regulations, dated 29th October, 1908, amending Regulations for Naval Prisons made by the Admiralty under the Naval Discipline Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT, 1876.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary for Scotland by His Majesty's Inspector for Scotland under the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report for Scotland under the Inebriates Acts for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Return ordered, "showing the amount of annual expenditure incurred for the upkeep of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, also the sum contributed by the taxpayers and by the Treasury, respectively, and giving particulars of the number of barracks and men, and cost of salaries and pay, during the past five years."—(Mr. Field.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Persons found in Destitute Condition in Public Places.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest held last week in Westminster on the death of a man found in a dying
  82
  condition on the Victoria Embankment as the result of which the jury returned a verdict of death from starvation; whether anything is known of the movements of the man before he was found by the police; and whether the police can be instructed to take all possible pains to remove persons found in a, destitute condition in public places to the workhouse infirmaries or the hospitals so as to prevent the recurrence of such an occurrence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest, held at Westminster on 13th November, on a man named Trew, which is, I believe, the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The police had no knowledge of this man or his movements until he was found on the Embankment. They already have full instructions to deal with all such cases in a prompt and humane manner. Acting under these instructions, the constable who noticed the man on a seat on the Embankment, apparently ill, sent at once for an ambulance, and removed him to hospital, where he died shortly afterwards. The same action-would be taken by the police in any other similar cases. I should add that the man was not absolutely destitute, as he had 4s. 2d. in his purse.

  Indian Regiments Changing Stations by Road.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state what period has elapsed since British and Native regiments habitually marched by road from one station to another when changing stations; and if it is contemplated to revive the practice during peace time.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) Although the practice of marching British and Native regiments by road from station to station in peace time has become less common with the increase of railway communications, it is by no means: infrequent at the present time. The occasions on which route marching is; adopted are entirely in the discretion of the military authorities.

  Distress Committee for Stoke-on-Trent.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any request from the town council of Stoke-on-Trent to reconsider the recent refusal of his Department to sanction the establishment of a distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Board informed the town council of Stoke-on-Trent on 28th October that, on the information then before them, they doubted whether they would be justified in establishing a distress committee for the borough. No further reply or information has been received from the town council; but I have instructed one of my inspectors to make some investigation.

  Sanction for Loan for Electric Mains at Stoke-on-Trent.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the town council for Stoke-on-Trent have made formal application to his Department for sanction to borrow £7,555 to extend electrical mains to the district of Fenton for the supply of power to manufacturers and others; whether the Local Government lave considered the same and the damage to the trade of the district which will result from unnecessary delay in providing energy; and what action, if any, it is proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The town council have made such an application. A local inquiry has been held, and the town council have been informed that any question of supply to Fenton should be deferred pending a settlement in regard to the question of the federation of the potteries towns. The inspector reported that no evidence was brought forward at the inquiry to show the immediate necessity for a supply of electrical energy in Fenton, and I am advised that it is doubtful whether the capital expenditure contemplated with that object would prove remunerative.

  Burwell Farm, Cambridgeshire.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Crown farm at Burwell, Cambridgeshire, has been let to a tenant since 1905; whether the tenant has farmed it or sub-let it to other tenants; if so, how many subtenants are there, and what is the size and rent of each small holding; and what is the financial result of this new arrangement to the tenants and the Crown.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Crown farm at Burwell was let to my hon. friend the Member for East Cambridgeshire as from Michaelmas, 1906, for the purpose of establishing small holdings and allotments. Full particulars of the letting and sub-letting are given in the First Report (1907) of the President of the Board on the Agricultural Crown Lands, a copy of which I will be pleased to send my hon. friend. As mentioned in that Report there was an actual loss of £690 17s. 3d., without allowing for rent or Crown Receivers' fees for superintendence, during the two years to Michaelmas 1906 while the farm was in hand, whereas by the letting a rental of £700 per annum was secured. The President has no official knowledge of the result of the arrangement to the sub-tenants, but my hon. friend the Member for East Cambridgeshire has been good enough to supply the following interesting particulars. The rent has been paid in full and to time. No smallholder has given up his holding. The amount of stock now on the holdings is two and-a-half times as much as it was in 1906. The small-holders have spent £750 on feeding stuffs and £600 on new implements during the past year, while the amount of outside labour paid for amounts to something over 24s. an acre.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can say whether a tenant held the Crown farm at Burwell, Cambridgeshire, during 1904 and 1905; what amount of rent was paid by such tenant; if there was

  85
  no tenant in possession, what arrangements were made for conducting the farm; and what was the profit or loss during that period.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) For the two years from Michaelmas, 1904, to Michaelmas, 1906, the Crown farm was in hand for want of a tenant. The farm was stocked by the Commissioner of Woods, and was cultivated and managed by a resident bailiff, under the superintendence of the Crown Receivers. Upon the farm being relet as from Michaelmas, 1906, the stock and crops were realised, and the total loss for the two years, without charging rent or Crown Receivers' fees for superintendence amounted to £690 17s. 3d.

  Old-Age Pension Regulations— Opportunity for Discussion.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Prime Minister when an opportunity will be afforded of discussing

  Public Elementary Schools.

  (a) Recognised Accommodation.

  1901–2.

  1906–7.

  Council

  3,003,247

  3,650,503

  Church of England

  2,813,978

  2,681,442

  Roman Catholic

  403,064

  406,137

  Other schools

  506,560

  306,125

  (b) Average Attendance.

  Council

  2,369,980

  2,873,801

  Church of England

  1,927,663

  1,899,965

  Roman Catholic

  269,191

  286,188

  Other schools

  348,583

  231,330

  Education Bill—Regulations under Clause 2.
  LORD E. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education when will the Regulations proposed to be made under Clause 2, subsection (5), of the Education Bill be submitted to the House; and will the same condition apply under the Regulations to the desire of parents for their children to receive undenominational as will apply to denominational teaching.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Regulations will be laid upon the Table
  the Departmental Regulations re the Old-Age Pensions Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am afraid that, unless some special reason for doing so is brought to my notice, it will be difficult to find another opportunity for the discussion of these Regulations.

  Public Elementary Schools.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Education what were the figures of school places in the council, Church of England, Roman Catholic, and other public elementary schools, respectively, of England and Wales during the school years 1901–2 and 1906–7; and what were the figures of children in average attendance in each of these classes of schools during the same years.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—
  before the House enters upon the Committee stage of the Bill. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 applies only to requests on the part of parents for facilities for religious instruction of a character different from that which it is open to the local education authority to give in accordance with Section 14 (2) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.

  Unemployed Distress at Southwick-on-Wear.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that there is great distress in the urban district of

  87
  Southwick-on-Wear, Sunderland, owing to unemployment; and, if so, can he state why the Government, in view of the increased sum of money set apart for work for the unemployed, refuse to make a grant to such areas if the authorities of such areas are prepared to put in operation schemes of work for the relief of the unemployed.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that there is a good deal of unemployment at Southwick-on-Wear. The grant at my disposal was voted for contributions in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, and hence I cannot allot payments from it to local authorities other than the authorities under that Act.

  Board of Trade Examination Fees.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the practice for the Board of Trade to charge a fee of £1 to candidates presenting themselves for examination for first and second mates in the merchant service; whether, in the event of their failing, a further fee of £1 is charged for every subsequent examination; and, if so, whether he can see his way to make the first fee of £1 cover all subsequent examinations of the same candidate for the same grade.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The practice is as stated in the first part of the Question, except that the fee for examination or re-examination for a certificate as first mate is only 10s. when, as is usually the case, the candidate has already obtained a certificate as second mate. In view of the fact that the fees at present charged do not cover the examination expenses I do not see my way to meet the suggestion made by my hon. friend, which would have the effect of encouraging candidates to present themselves insufficiently prepared.

  Appointment to Assistant Surveyorships of Taxes.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether at the examination held in September for assistant surveyorships of taxes the unprecedentedly small number of only six places
  88
  was available for competition; was this caused by filling up nineteen places in the taxes department from candidates at the junior assistants examination held in July; was any notice given to intended candidates for the September examination that almost four-fifths of the vacancies for which they might fairly suppose they were competing were to be filled by the results of an examination for a quite different department; and would he recommend for taxes appointment, say, the first ten of the rejected in September.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total number of six assistant surveyor-ships of taxes offered for competition at the examination held in September was below the average of previous years, owing to the number of retirements under the age limit having this year been unprecedentedly small. The number of vacancies was in no way due to the subsequent appointment of nineteen candidates from the junior assistants examination held in July, who were added to the establishment in view of an increase which was authorised by the Treasury as from 1st October, 1908, but which had not been sanctioned at the time when the September examination was announced. The candidates for the September examination were informed by advertisement and notice from the Civil Service Commissioners that not less than six vacancies would be open to competition, and this number was accordingly filled from the list. I cannot undertake to make any such recommendation as that suggested by the hon. Member in the last sentence of the Question.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. M'Cabe, of Boss.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to reinstate Mrs. M'Cabe, of Ross, the evicted tenant on the Edward O'Connor estate, County Cavan; and when may she and her family expect to get the benefit of The Evicted Tenants Act, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that

  89
  no application for reinstatement appears to have been lodged by Mrs. M'Cabe in respect of a holding on the O'Connor estate.

  Appointment of Miss G. Knox to Ardess National School.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Miss Georgina Knox was in October, 1907, appointed assistant teacher at Ardess national school (Roll No. 11,717, District 3a); had Miss Knox passed the qualifying examination with King's scholarship; did the inspector of the national board several times inspect the school and report favourably on her educational work after her appointment; did she continue to discharge the duty till July, 1908; and on what ground was her appointment then declared invalid by the Board, and is she to receive any remuneration for her nine months' work.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that Miss Georgina Knox was appointed by the manager as assistant teacher in the Ardess national school in October, 1907. The Commissioners, on receiving a notification of the appointment in January, 1908, informed the manager that Miss Knox was ineligible, as she did not possess any of the qualifications prescribed by Rule 76 (a) and (b) of the Commissioners' Code. The fact that she had passed the qualifying examination for admission to a training college did not give her any claim to recognition as an assistant teacher. No special references were made by the inspector to Miss Knox's work. Notwithstanding the intimation that the appointment of Miss Knox could not be sanctioned, the manager retained her services up to the 30th June last. The Commissioners do not propose to make any payment to Miss Knox for the period during which she acted as teacher in this school.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Patrick Dram.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners have received
  90
  an application on behalf of Patrick Drum, the son of the evicted tenant whose holding in Aughrim was evicted by John J. Benison in December, 1881; and is the landlord still in possession of this farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Patrick Drum's application was not lodged within the time specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot therefore be dealt with under that Act. The Commissioners have not inquired into the case, and cannot say who is in possession of the farm in question.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Shipbuilding—Cost of Increased Speed.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Report of the Admiralty Committee on Mercantile Cruisers in 1902 calculated that a vessel of 23 knots ocean speed would cost £575,000 and that a vessel of only 2 knots greater speed, or 25 knots, would cost £1,000,000; and whether he can state, from any calculations in the possession of the Admiralty, what would have been the cost of three "Invincibles," designed for the same armament but of 23 knots speed, as compared with the three existing 25–knot "Invincibles" costing £4,931,000.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): There are no such calculations at present available.

    New Torpedo Destroyers.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to state if the orders for torpedo destroyers have yet been placed, and, if so, where; and whether the lowest tenders were accepted in each case.
    MR. MCKENNA: The orders have been provisionally placed as follows: three to Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Company; three to Messrs. J. Brown

    91
    and Company; three to the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company; one to the Thames Shipbuilding Company; two to Messrs. J. S. White and Company, Limited, Cowes; one to Messrs. Thornycroft and Company; one to Messrs. Denny Brothers; one to Messrs. Hawthorn, Leslie and Company, Limited, one to the London and Glasgow Shipbuilding Company, Limited. The acceptances are provisional, inasmuch as certain modifications in details of design and certain other contract conditions have to be agreed to. In allocating the orders, the lowest tenders were accepted so far as possible, consistent with such questions as suitability of design, experience of the firms, and proper distribution of orders.
    MR. CREAN: Has any of the work been allocated to Irish firms?
    MR. MCKENNA: I do not think any tendered, or, indeed, are capable of doing work of this kind.
    MR. GRETTON: When are the vessels to be completed?
    MR. MCKENNA: I think the contracts range from fifteen to eighteen months.

    Manning of the Navy.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that both the officers and men of the Navy are so often moved from one warship to another that they seldom remain long enough on one ship to get accustomed to each other or their ship; whether he is aware that naval officers consider this system a great disadvantage both to men and officers; and whether, in view of the importance of the matter, he will consider the possibility of making different arrangements.
    MR. MCKENNA: I am not aware that any representation has been made by naval officers that the officers and men are moved so often from one ship to another that they seldom remain long enough in one ship to get accustomed to one another or their ship, and I have no reason to suppose the circumstances to
    92
    be such as are suggested in the hon. Member's Question.
    MR. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the officers and men?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have no opportunity. I get my information from the expert advisers of the Board who inform me no such representations have been made.
    MR. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire among naval officers?
    MR. MCKENNA: If opportunity serves I will do so, but I cannot undertake to do it.
    MR. BELLAIRSinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would have tabulated lists made of the number of times that ships changed their captains and their crews, and whether he was aware that the "Barfleur" changed her captain six times and her crew five times in the course of twenty-four months.
    MR. MCKENNA: My hon. friend will not expect me, without express information, necessarily to accept the figures which he has given me. I will inquire into the matter further.

    Territorial Force—7th Batt Sherwood Foresters.
    MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether permission has been given to the 7th Battalion Sherwood Foresters late Notts. Robin Hoods V.R.C., to retain their old Lincoln green uniforms, or whether the uniform of the battalion will be assimilated to that of the line regiment to which it is attached; and whether the badges, buttons, etc., on the service dress will be those of the Regular battalion, or whether a special pattern may be adopted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): This battalion is permitted, under the instructions issued in Circular Memorandum 49 to the County Associations, to retain as walking-out dress the distinctive uniform which

    93
    it wore as a Volunteer battalion. Applications to introduce changes in the walking-out dress would be submitted by the County Association concerned, and in this case no such submission has been made. The service dress of the Territorial Force must for obvious military reasons correspond to that of the Regular Army. Applications to adopt special badges and buttons are dealt with on their merits.
    MR. RICHARDSON: Will the battalion be allowed to retain the name of the Robin Hoods?
    MR. ACLAND: That is a matter for the Association to make application about.

    Murder of a Dacca Student.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is able to give any official information regarding the murder of a Dacca student by his fellow students and the cause of this occurrence.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): According to the information received by the Secretary of State, the murdered student was the principal witness in respect of a charge of kidnapping brought against the head of a political association, of which he was an ex-member. It is thought that his connection with this charge supplied the motive for the crime.

    Royal Indian Marine.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India is aware of the dissatisfaction on the part of the first, second, and third-grade clerks of the Royal Indian Marine with their conditions of service, and of the fact that during the last ten years their petitions to the Government of India Marine Department and to the Viceroy praying for the provision of a compassionate family pension in the event of loss of life on duty, for an increase of pay, and a set of special leave and pension rules have been refused; that the request of the clerks for the
    94
    provision of a compassionate family pension in the event of their meeting with death in the execution of duty was sent with the recommendation of the director of the Royal Indian Marine in November, 1901, to the Marine Department of the Government of India, which, however, refused to entertain it, although under the provisions of the Indian Marine Act of 1887 these clerks were made subject to the strict discipline, penalties, and risk of combatant service, and that while the pay of the gunners and carpenters in the Royal Indian Marine has recently been raised, the pay of the clerks has remained unchanged, while though in a combatant service they are deprived of the privileges of the Marine regulations, being governed by the Civil Service regulations in the particulars of leave and pension; and whether, having regard to the fact that these clerks are chiefly natives and Catholics from Goa and that the branches of the Indian Marine of similar rank, whose members are in enjoyment of greater privileges, are chiefly composed of Europeans and Protestants, the Secretary of State for India will consider the propriety of the appointment of a commission to inquire into the grievance of these clerks.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject but he will make inquiry.

    Reforms in India.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state the date upon which the Secretary of State will explain the reforms contemplated for India; what opportunity this House will have of becoming acquainted with them; and when they will actually come into force.
    SIR H. COTTON: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, when the Secretary of State makes his statement regarding the reforms in India foreshadowed in His Majesty's gracious proclamation, a simultaneous statement will be made in this House; and whether this House will be afforded an opportunity for discussing the statement made.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I will answer this Question and that of the hon. Member for Nottingham on the same subject together. I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham on Thursday last.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Does that mean that this House will be dependent for information on the debate in another place?
    MR. BUCHANAN: It merely means that I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave last Thursday.
    SIR H. COTTON: Will this House be allowed no opportunity of discussing the question?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I have not said that.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to state whether this House will have an opportunity of hearing the proposals of the Secretary of State?
    MR. BUCHANAN: No, Sir.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are we to understand that we are only to get our information about India from the House of Lords?
    MR. BUCHANAN: No, Sir, you are not to understand that.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am afraid I do understand it.

    British Emigrants.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the names of those Colonies and Dependencies which insist upon an emigrant from Great Britain having in his possession a certain minimum sum in cash; and what are the respective minimum amounts in each case.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): Im-
    96
    migrants into Canada landing before 1st January, 1909, are required to be in possession of at least 25 dollars; immigrants landing between 1st January and 15th February, 1909, must be in possession of at least 50 dollars, immigrants landing after the latter date must be in possession of 25 dollars. Immigrants into the Cape of Good Hope must be in possession of £20. Immigrants into the Transvaal must have a similar sum or a promise in writing from some employer of repute of immediate employment on arrival. In the case of the East African Prtectorate an immigrant must satisfy the authorities that he has visible means of support, or he may be required to deposit £50.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any colony other than Canada compulsorily expropriates immigrants who have been in the Colony nearly two years because they are out of employment?
    COLONEL SEELY: I do not think that arises out of the Question.
    MR. R. DUNCANasked whether there was any difference in the sum required in the case of a British subject and an immigrant of any other nationality.
    COLONEL SEELYasked for notice of the Question.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he will state which Colonies or Dependencies, if any, forbid the entry of British emigrants who are under contracts of service to employers in such Colonies and Dependencies.
    COLONEL SEELY: The entrance of immigrants under a contract to perform manual labour into Autralia is forbidden unless the contract has been approved by the Minister for External Affairs. The circumstances in which such approval must be given, and the penalty imposed on an immigrant landing before approval has been given are laid down in the Commonwealth Act, No. 19, of 1905,

    97
    the text of which is printed on pages 52 and 53 of the "Emigration Statutes and General Handbook," issued by the Emigrants' Information Office.

    California (Trinidad) Water Rate.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether a memorial has been received signed by 104 proprietors, residing at California village, in the ward of Savonetta, Couva, Trinidad, protesting against the action of the Colonial Government in imposing water rates and enforcing the payment of the same upon a section of the taxpayers of the town of Couva and the village of California without giving them, as an equivalent for such payment, any water; and, if so, can he state what action has been taken in the matter.
    COLONEL SEELY: NO, Sir; the Memorial has not been received at the Colonial Office.

    Trinidad Indentured Immigrants.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that nearly all sugar and several cocoa estates in Trinidad keep a special book with the object of evading the clause of the Immigration Ordinance which refuses additional immigrants when 70 per cent. of the adult males indentured have failed to earn 3s. 6d. a week; whether these special books show indentured immigrants as earning considerably more than they really do; whether the inspector of immigrants and his assistants are aware of the existence of these books; and, if so, can he state what action, if any, the Government intend to take to see that the conditions laid down by the Immigration Ordinance are complied with.
    COLONEL SEELY: The section of the Trinidad Ordinance to which my hon. friend refers (Section 70) requires that if 30 per cent. of the adult male immigrants have, during the year, earned a less amount of wages than will give an average for each of sixpence for every day during the twelve months, it shall not be lawful for the protector to accept any applications for immigrants in respect
    98
    of the plantation in question for the year next ensuing, subject to the power of the Governor to give relief for due cause shown. The Secretary of State is unaware that any such special books are kept as my hon. friend indicates, but he will make inquiry on the subject if my hon. friend so desires.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know the result of the investigation?
    COLONEL SEELY: If my hon. friend desires, I will inquire and communicate with him.

    Alleged Flogging of Zulus.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have any information respecting the progress of the investigation which, on 18th September last, Sir M. Nathan reported to be then proceeding into the allegations that had been made by Miss Colenso as to the flogging of Zulus; and has the attention of the Secretary of State been called to the letters which were addressed by her to the Natal officials on this subject, dated 3rd September, 3rd, 5th, and 20th ultimo, in the last of which she represents its urgency to the Attorney-General of Natal, on the ground that the recent thrashings and threatenings of Zulus under martial law have a vital bearing on much of the alleged evidence against Dinizulu.
    COLONEL SEELY: I regret that the reply to our telegraphic inquiry has not yet been received.

    Dinizulu.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state upon what charges Dinizulu has been indicted; and whether any of the charges for which he was arrested and upon which he was committed for trial have not been proceeded with; and, if so, which they are.
    COLONEL SEELY: A copy of the indictment has now been received. It contains twenty-three counts charging

    99
    the prisoner with various treasonable offences, but not with murder. I will lay it with other Papers at once.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Are there no charges beside those of high treason?
    COLONEL SEELY: The hon. Member had better wait until I lay the document, as a lengthy answer is involved.
    MR. MACKARNESS: When will it be laid?
    COLONEL SEELY: I have said at once.

    Expedition against the Nigerian Munshis.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House whether any sanction has been given by the Secretary of State to a suggested military expedition against the Munshis in Nigeria, or whether the policy previously accepted by the Colonial Office on the advice of the chief authorities of Southern and Northern Nigeria is to continue.
    COLONEL SEELY: No military expedition against the Munshis has been suggested or sanctioned. In accordance with settled policy steps are being taken to extend the area of our effective control with a view to ensuring the peace and good government of the country; but there has been no change in policy nor is any in contemplation.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the expedition would receive military support.
    COLONEL SEELY: Certainly. In accordance with what has been done we endeavoured to extend our effective control to prevent internecine warfare, but there is no fresh policy. Of course, if force is used against the expedition, force must be used n reply, but special instructions have been given to avoid the use of force by every possible means.

    Russia and Persia—Colonel Liakhoffs Position.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary
    100
    of State for Foreign Affairs whether Colonel Liakhoff, who led the Cossacks in the destruction of the Parliament buildings, has just been exhorting his Cossacks to destroy the constitution and win the loot of Tabris; and whether in view of the fact that the honour of Great Britain is involved by reason of the Anglo-Russian Convention, he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I do not follow the argument of the last part of the Question; and I cannot see that any obligation rests upon us in consequence of the Convention to interfere in the internal affairs of Persia. But, in any case, as I have received no information which leads me to think that there is any probability of Colonel Liakhoff's having made any such statement, and as I do not credit the report of it, it does not seem necessary for any one to take any steps.
    DR. RUTHERFORDasked whether in view of the fact that Colonel Liakhoff destroyed the Parliamentary buildings his retention of the position of adviser to the Shah was consistent with the dignity of the latter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: For whatever action Colonel Liakhoff took in the summer responsibility rests between him and the Shah. I do not see that any responsibility rests upon any outside Power.
    MR. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that Colonel Liakhoff is an officer in the active service of Russi
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The hon. Member has asked that Question very often before.
    MR. LYNCH: No, no.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, the hon. Member asked it in the summer. Colonel Laikhoff is under the orders of the Shah and not of the Russian Government.

    North German Essen Railway.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any information has now been obtained as to whether the main line from Essen to the North and West Coasts of Germany had for some time past been reserved, exclusively, for the carriage of Government goods, chiefly armaments, so that ordinary trade was sent by a longer route; and, if so, is this rule still in force.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I can learn of no foundation whatever for the rumour alluded to by the hon. Member.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. friend aware that articles have appeared in the German papers and complaints have been made by German manufacturers on account of this monopoly of the line?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not seen those articles. I understood from the Question on the Paper that what my hon. friend wanted was that I should make independent inquiries to ascertain whether the statement was true. I have made such inquiries, and I cannot obtain any information to show that it is true.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Egyptian Provincial Councils.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the draft law amending the constitution of provincial councils in Egypt and enlarging their powers has yet reached the final shape in which it is proposed that it shall be submitted to the Egyptian Legislative Council, in accordance with hopes held out by the British Agent in Cairo on page 4 of his Report for 1907 (Egypt, No. 1, 1908); and whether it is still intended that this step shall be taken in the course of the current year.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The draft decree mentioned by the hon. Member
    102
    was duly passed by the Council of Ministers, and has already been submitted to the Legislative Council.

    The Persian Parliament.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the convocation of the Persian Parliament or as to the nature of the assembly which the Shah proposes to set up.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am informed that the Shah has issued a rescript declaring that he does not intend to convoke a Medjliss at all. I can only repeat that this is entirely contrary to the advice which has been given by both the British and Russian Governments in the interest of the maintenance of order in Persia. It is, therefore, a step for the consequences of which the responsibility must rest entirely upon the Shah.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: Have any representations been made to the Shah as to his responsibility?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I stated in reply to the previous Question that advice has been given.

    Russia and Persian Territory.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have recently issued a declaration to the effect that Russia will in no circumstances occupy the slightest portion of Persian territory, and that no Russian troops will cross the frontier unless, with England's approval, it may be found indispensable to send a small detachment to protect the lives and properties of foreigners; and what was the form of this declaration.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware that any such declaration has been issued, nor do I think it could be expected in the form put in the Question.

    International Naval Conference.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

    103
    Foreign Affairs, in view of the approaching deliberations of an International Naval Conference on the laws of maritime warfare between representatives of this country and those of ten mainly military Powers, whether he can assure the House that this country shall not be committed to the acceptance of any alteration, modification, or new interpretation of any part of those laws except with the consent of Parliament.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot give any pledge except that any conclusions come to by the Conference on points of International Law will be laid before Parliament before it is asked to pass the legislation which will be necessary, as I understand, to enable His Majesty's Government to ratify the Prize Court Convention.
    MR. BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that, in certain conceivable circumstances, this country may find itself committed to a reduction of its maritime power without the knowledge or consent of Parliament?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Of course all responsibility for executive action which does not require legislation rests with the Government.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the nine Powers which have accepted the invitation of His Majesty's Government to take part in the International Naval Conference, meeting in London on 1st December, are the only Powers to which such an invitation has been addressed; and, if not, can he say what other Powers were invited, and with what results in each case.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    International Trade—Professor Marshall's Pamphlet.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Paper on International Trade, by Professor Marshall, just published as a Parliamentary
    104
    Paper, was written at the request of the Treasury in 1903; and, if so, whether he will invite an economist who is opposed to the system of free imports to write a Memorandum on the same subject, so that this country may have the opportunity, with the sanction and at the expense of the Government, of studying a scientific examination of the question from both sides.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): As regards the first part of the Question, I think I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to the letter from Mr. Marshall which appeared in The Times of yesterday, in which Mr. Marshall explained the origin of the Memorandum and the causes which led to its publication. The Memorandum was prepared for the late Government and was only issued owing to the request of the hon. Member, and I think it would be establishing an undesirable precedent if, by inviting another economist to furnish a rejoinder, I were to initiate a controversy at the public expense.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point in regard to which I challenged him is not even referred to in Professor Marshall's Memorandum?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that is so. I only referred to the document to quote from it, and I was bound by the Rules of the House, if requested to do so, to lay it on the Table and publish it.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I made no demand for the document? The right hon. Gentleman made a statement on the subject.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech.
    MR. BONAR LAW: May I put it in this way? If I can convince the right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: That is commencing a hypothetical question.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to that part of his Answer which says that the Paper was prepared at the request of the late Government, whether he is not aware that it was prepared for an individual Member of the late Government, and was not circulated to the late Government, and was not left on record at the Treasury by the Minister for whom it was prepared.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is certainly not my information, and if the Members of the bench opposite want the whole of the record of the transaction I can easily publish it, but I can only do that on their responsibility.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My information is that it is not a record of the late Ministry, and was not circulated to members of the late Government. It was not left on record.

    Pension Officers.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the sections of the Old-Age Pensions Act under which power has been taken to appoint two classes of pension officers for each pension district; whether he is aware that throughout the entire Act the reference is to the pension officer, and not to the pension officers, for each district, and that the same language is not repeated in the definition clause of the Treasury Regulations; and whether, in view of the fact that this duplication of officials must involve expense and delay that might have been avoided, he will take counsel's opinion as to its legality.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Pension officers are appointed by the Treasury under Section 8 (4), which provides that the Treasury may appoint such number of these officers as they think fit to act for such areas as they direct. "Pension officer" is defined in the Regulations to mean the pension officer to whom any claim or question is referred. I see no reason to doubt the legality of these arrangements, nor does it seem to me that any other scheme would prove more economical.

    Pension Applicants' Characters.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that papers are being issued to tradesmen in the South of London from the pension officer of the Inland Revenue Office asking for information concerning the characters of applicants for old-age pensions, and as to whether they always worked according to their ability to support those dependent upon them; is there anything in the instructions to justify such inquiries; and will he see that pension officers are prevented in future from bringing discredit on the Old-Age Pensions Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the statutory duty of the pension officer to satisfy himself that a claimant is not subject to disqualification under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act, and, under Nos. 5 and 6 of the Instructions to pension officers as to investigation of claims, which form the Second Schedule of the Regulations, he is authorised to reduce to writing any question which he desires to put to any person, and is required to take all reasonable steps to obtain the best evidence and information which it is reasonably possible to obtain and to make all such inquiries as appear to him necessary having regard to the circumstances of the case.
    MR. BARNES: Does this instruction apply to women applicants for pensions as to character?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would certainly apply to all applicants for pensions.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that pension officers are inquiring as to the character of applicants for pensions, notwithstanding that such applicants have been members of friendly societies for, in some cases, fifty years; and will he take steps to see that such officers be instructed to keep within the limits of the provisions of the Old-Age Pensions Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have received no complaints as to the way

    107
    in which pension officers are discharging their duties in the matter. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind, I shall be happy to have it looked into if he will give me the particulars.

    Pension Regulations.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the translation of the Regulations with regard to old-age pensions into the Welsh language.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Both the Act and the Regulations have been translated into Welsh and are being printed by the Stationery Office. They will be published in a few days.
    MR. KETTLE: Will the same course be taken with regard to Irish speaking districts in Ireland?
    MR. WATT: And in Scotland also?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have had no application from either Scotland or Ireland. It has not been represented to me as an Irish grievance.

    Dinorwic Quarries.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of men employed at the Dinorwic quarries, in the county of Carnarvon, for the year ending 31st December, 1907; how many were employed inside and outside the quarry, respectively; and what was the number of accidents reported during the same period, distinguishing those to men employed inside and outside the quarry.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The figures asked for are as follows: Employed inside, 1,114; employed outside, 1,711; total employed, 2,825. Fatal accidents reported, 4, all of which occurred to inside workers. Non-fatal accidents reported, 38, of which 32 occurred to inside workers.

    Stray Dogs in London.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
    108
    Home Department whether last year the Metropolitan Police handed over to the veterinary inspectors 12,018 dogs; what orders these veterinary inspectors have as to the disposal of these dogs, and by whose authority the orders are issued; and what precautions are taken to prevent these dogs being used for purposes of vivisection.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The number stated is correct. Detailed instructions to persons taking charge of dogs under the Act of 1906 are issued under the authority of the Commissioner of Police, and are in strict compliance with the Act. Every veterinary surgeon when appointed is required to give a formal undertaking that he will not sell or hand over any dog for the purpose of vivisection.
    MR. SMEATON: Is there any statutory penalty for infringement of this regulation?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure.

    Explosions of Inflammable Liquids.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of deaths and injuries and the amount of damage done to property during the past three years owing to the bursting or exploding of vessels containing inflammable liquids; whether the Government is aware that there are mechanical devices compulsory by law in several countries in Europe which secure complete immunity from such explosions; and whether, in view of the increase in the use of petrol or other inflammable liquids, the Government are willing to amend the Petroleum Act of 1903 to make the use of safety devices compulsory in this country.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no official information as to the number and nature of such accidents, though I have reason to believe that the number of deaths at any rate is extremely small, nor have I any information as to the legal requirement of safety devices in foreign countries. I have had in view for some time the appointment of a small committee to consider what steps can be

    109
    taken to diminish the dangers attendant on the storage and conveyance of petrol. This committee, as I stated yesterday, would consider, inter alia, the use of improved mechanical devices.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Are there no figures as to accidents supplied by reliable authorities?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will inquire.
    MR. P. BARLOW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last three months there have been thirteen deaths and sixteen cases of personal injury?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of it.

    Royal Procession at Oxford Circus.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the occasion of the passage down Oxford Street of the Royal procession on the 18th instant, the arrangements made by the police at Oxford Circus for crossing that thoroughfare were so defective that persons were obliged, with the consent of the police but without their assistance, to push themselves across as best they could; and will he arrange that in future on such occasions passages shall be arranged at convenient intervals for persons on foot and shall be kept open by the police.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. I have received no complaints on the subject, and the Commissioner of Police informs me that the arrangements made were as effective as possible. It is obvious that on such occasions some inconvenience must be caused both to vehicular traffic and pedestrians, which no police arrangements can prevent.

    Treatment of Young Persons.
    SIR GEORGE KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take into consideration the establishment in connection with the Home Office of a consultative committee, similar to the consultative committee at the Board of Education, to which matters relating to children and young persons may be
    110
    referred by him; and whether such a committee can be established without legislation.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have considered my hon. friend's suggestion, but I do not see my way to adopting it. I am always able, without the formal constitution of a Standing Committee, to obtain the friendly advice and assistance of those best qualified to advise on any question relating to children and young persons that may from time to time arise—and in the case of any question of unusual difficulty or complexity, it is always open to me to appoint, ad hoc, a committee of specially qualified persons.

    Bradford Goods Guards, Hours of Duty.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that among the goods guards employed by the Midland Railway Company at Bradford there occurred, from 10th September last to 8th October last, sixty-four cases of men working periods varying from sixty to sixty-five hours per week to eighty-five to ninety hours per week, and that on 15th September last three local goods guards were dismissed; and will he say what action he has taken, or proposes to take, under the Railways Regulation Act, 1893, to deal with these cases.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): In connection with the dismissal of certain goods guards on the Midland Railway my attention was drawn by my hon. friend the Member for Derby to the overtime worked by other goods guards at various places on the railway in September. On inquiry I ascertained that the whole matter was under consideration by the Conciliation Boards, established under the agreement of last November, I am glad to learn that on the 6th instant the Central Conciliation Board on the Midland Railway came to a settlement upon all outstanding questions relating to goods guards, and in view of this settlement no further action on the part of the Board of Trade would seem to be necessary.
    MR. CLYNES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get

    111
    further information regarding the excessive hours of duty?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the matter had been discussed fully, and a satisfactory settlement arrived at, and he had not, therefore, thought it necessary to go into special details.

    Imports of Slates.
    MR. TOMKINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total amount of slates used in this country has been imported from abroad in each of the years 1902 to 1907, inclusive.
    MR. CHURCHILL: If the annual consumption of slates in the United Kingdom be taken as equivalent to the production of each year with the imparts added and the exports deducted, it appears that the proportion of imported slates to the total consumption so ascertained, was about 13 per cent. in 1902, 19 per cent. in 1903, 14 per cent. in 1904, 12 per cent. in 1905, and 8 per cent. in both 1906 and 1907. In making this calculation, account has been taken of the imports and exports of roofing sates only, no separate information being available with regard to any imports or exports of slate in other forms.
    MR. TOMKINSONasked if the marked increase in imports was not in the period of the Penrhyn strike.
    MR. CROOKS: Lock-out.
    MR. CHURCHILL: That probably in the case.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the principle he has adopted in the case of slates to other classes of goods?
    MR. CHURCHILL: That is rather a complicated question, which I should like to study.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: What proportion of the slates was exported to British Colonies?
    MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice.

    Hammersmith Bridge Embankment.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in reference to the number of deaths from accidental drowning on the Surrey side of Hammersmith Bridge, he is aware that the Borough of Hammersmith and the Urban Council of Barnes have each offered to pay one-third of the cost of erecting a protective wall or railing to make the embankment safe; and whether, in view of the refusal of the Thames Conservancy to spend any money for this purpose, he can take any action to procure the consent of the Conservancy and the early undertaking of necessary protective works.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Thames Conservancy Board that they have received and carefully considered a proposal made to them by the Barnes Urban District Council that a fence should be erected at the place referred to, the cost being defrayed in equal shares by the Council, the Corporation of Hammersmith, and the Thames Conservancy Board. This proposal the Conservancy Board have felt themselves unable to accede to, as the execution of protective works on the river banks is not, in their opinion, a duty with which they are charged, though they are ready, as I informed the hon. Member on 15th July last, to give the local authority permission to construct protective works provided these do not interfere with the use of the towpath or navigation. The matter does not appear to be one in regard to which the Board of Trade possess any powers.

    Electric Lighting Companies Accounts.
    MR. G. A. HARDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to his promise carefully to watch the operation of the Board of Trade arrangements for the audit of the accounts of electric lighting companies, he has arrived at the conclusion that it is undesirable in the public interests that the same auditors shall continue to act in the dual capacity of Board of Trade and shareholders' auditors; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade's own Return showed that this practice was pursued in no

    113
    less than forty-nine cases, he will consider the desirability of ending it in the new appointments that are about to be made.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I do not intend to appoint any of the shareholders' auditors to act as official auditors of the accounts of the same electric lighting companies for the present year.

    Welsh Trade Statistics.
    MR. WALTER ROCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can in future in the Board of Trade statistics publish the statistics for Wales separately.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will consider how far it may be possible to meet the views of my hon. friend, and will communicate with him further on the subject.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: Will goods sent from Wales into England be treated as exports?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Old-Age Pensions—Poor Relief Disqualification.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is yet in a position to say whether an old-age pension may be given to a woman who is fully qualified to receive a pension but whose husband is in receipt of outdoor Poor Law relief.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): If the relief were given to the husband solely for his own support, the wife would not, I think, be thereby disqualified.

    Distress in the Cockermouth Union.
    SIR JOHN RANDLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there has been any grant for the relief of distress at Workington or Maryport following applications from these districts; is there any possibility of his taking steps to prevent persons who have accepted test work at the stoneyard from the Cockermouth Board
    114
    of Guardians under special, temporary, and exceptional circumstances due to unemployment being disfranchised; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that the special committee on distress due to unemployment in 1895, of which he was a member, recommended that persons so relieved should not be disfranchised.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. There is no distress committee for either of the places mentioned, so that no payment could be made to them from the grant at the present time. I have, however, given consideration to the circumstances of both places, have made inquiries with regard to them, and I am now in communication with the local authorities as respects the distress in them. Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the suggestion in the second part of the Question. I am aware of the Report of the Committee of 1895, but I am afraid I could not hold out any promise of legislation on the subject at the present time.

    Lancashire Technical School—Work for the Unemployed.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that technical and secondary schools at Earlston, Eccles, Middleton, Morecombe, Lancaster, Waterford, Waterloo-with-Seaforth, and Walkden have been approved by the local education authority for the County of Lancaster at various dates between October, 1906, and May, 1908; whether he is aware that the cost of building these schools with the extensions will amount to upwards of £167,000 but that progress cannot be made until the sanction of the Local Government Board is obtained; and if, in view of the prevailing unemployment in Lancashire and in the interest of education, he can expedite the departmental sanction.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts in this matter. The limitation on the amount which the town or urban district councils can raise for purposes of secondary education prevents their being able to borrow the sums required

    115
    without some assistance from the county council, and considerable, difficulties have arisen in connection with the arrangements to be made for this purpose between the county council and the other councils. I have long been in correspondence with the county council with regard to the matter. I am about to address a further communication to them on the subject, and I trust that this will effect a settlement of the difficulties to which I have referred. I will then at once deal with the applications for sanction to the borrowing of the sums required.
    In reply to a further Question by Lord BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley),
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid they were rapidly approaching a settlement of this rather tangled question.

    Treatment of Remand Prisoners.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of a girl who, having been charged at the Marylebone Police Court with a petty offence was sent to a remand home, where, after being detained for a week, and on the day preceding her liberation by the magistrate under the Probation of Offenders Act, she was taken downstairs by a woman at the Home, who cropped off the girl's hair-close to her head; what and where is this Home; what is the name of the woman who committed the assault; and what does he propose to do in the matter.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have made inquiry as to this case. It occurred at the Pentonville Road Remand Home, established by the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It appears that the girl's hair was cut off by the house mother of the girls branch of the Home by direction of the visiting medical officer on account of its verminous condition. The medical officer explains that he gave the direction as he had been informed that the girl was to go to an Industrial Home. Had he known that this was not correct, he would not have given the order for the hair to be removed. In the circumstances
    116
    it does not seem to me necessary that I should take any further action in the matter.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the authorities of the Home, and specially to the medical officer, that in future no girl's hair shall be cut unless the magistrate has actually made an order?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I will bear the suggestion in mind. Everything that can be done to avoid a repetition of this Rape of the Lock will be done.

    Special Committees for Unemployment
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the Unemployed Workmen Act, by Section 2 (3), peremptorily required all county councils and county borough councils, wherever no distress committee was established, to appoint special committees to obtain information as to the conditions of employment, and to promote or establish labour exchanges, he will state in what counties and county boroughs such special committees have been established; whether the Local Government Board has ever called the attention of county and county borough councils to their obligations under this subsection; and whether he will present a Return giving a summary of the statistical and other information obtained by the special committees thus constituted, and by any labour exchanges which they have promoted.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Shortly after the passing of the Act the Local Government Board called the attention of these councils to the requirements of subsection (3) of Section 2, and they subsequently communicated with them with special reference to labour exchanges and employment registers. Returns have not been received as to these cases. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to give my hon. friend the particulars for which he asks.
    MR. ALDEN: When is it likely we shall have the information?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: If I can bring any pressure to bear on the county councils to hurry it on I will do so.

    Customs and the Coastguard.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether, when the coastguard service is transferred to the Customs, men in the former service will be promoted to higher positions in the Customs waterguard without the usual examination in force for such promotions; and whether he will consider the possibility of recruiting the positions in the upper and lower sections of preventive officers from the existing waterguard staff, with a view to somewhat relieving the existing stagnation of promotion among both the preventive officers and preventive men graders.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): A Bill will be necessary to give effect to any amalgamation, and under these circumstances I would prefer not to make any definite statement on the subject.

    Stationery for Government Offices.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has decided that only ink made in Ireland shall be used in Irish Government Departments; and whether he could arrange that the blotting-paper used for all Government work should all be of either British or Irish manufacture
    MR. HAROLD COX: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange that goose quills shall be substituted for steel pens throughout the service in order to encourage small holders to keep geese?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that only ink made in Ireland is used in Irish Government Departments. The blotting-paper used for all Government work is made in the United Kingdom.

    Small Holdings.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in order to expedite the acquisition of
    118
    land under the Small Holdings Act, the Board will be prepared to specify some reasonable period of time at the expiry of which it will expect the requirements of all suitable applicants, whose applications were made immediately after the passing of the Act, to have been satisfied.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The suggestion will be borne in mind, but the Board do not think the time has yet come to carry it out.
    MR. BENNETT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at a recent conference of the county councils Lord Carrington described it as a most admirable suggestion?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am not aware of that.
    MR. MORRELL: Is the hon. Member aware that under Section 3 of the Act if the Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture were fully to carry out their duties it would be impossible for a county council to delay carrying out a scheme for more than six months?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that inquiries held under the Small Holdings Act have revealed the existence of a large demand for land in places where such demand cannot be satisfied locally owing to the prevalent system of cultivation being already one of small holdings, more particularly in parts of Wales, Lancashire, and Somerset; and whether the Board will consider the desirability of so amending the Act as to give to a central authority power to create opportunities of land holding for persons who are willing to move out of their own districts.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are aware that there are difficulties in acquiring land in those parts

    119
    of the country where a large number of small holdings already exist, but no amendment of the Act is necessary to enable county councils to provide holdings for applicants who are prepared to move outside their own county.

    Organisation of Agricultural Enterprise.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board would urge upon the various county councils the importance of appointing in each county an expert lecturer and organiser for the purpose of establishing co-operation and other methods of agricultural enterprise amongst small holders; and whether the Board of Agriculture could see its way to render financial assistance towards this object from the funds at his disposal.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board fully recognise the importance of this matter and are considering the whole question as to the best means to be adopted to encourage co-operation among small holder?, and the suggestion of the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

    Counties without Small Holding Schemes.
    MR. ROBERT HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what counties in England and Wales have neither acquired land nor submitted schemes under the Small Holdings Act.
    SIR EDWARD STRACKEY: The counties which have neither acquired land nor submitted schemes are:—England: Cumberland, Derby, Hereford, Lancashire. London, Middlesex, Monmouth, Suffolk West, Surrey, Sussex East, Sussex West, Warwick, York (North Riding). Wales: Brecon, Cardigan, Carnarvon, Flint, Glamorgan, Merioneth, Pembroke. I should add, however, that many of them are in active negotiation for the acquisition of land.

    Small Holdings Act—Defaulting Counties.
    MR. ROBERT HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in
    120
    the opinion of the Board, any county councils have failed to make adequate use of their powers under the Small Holdings Act; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take steps to declare them in default.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Every county council has practically completed its preliminary inquiries, and is now in active negotiation for land. Whenever desirable the Board make strong representations in favour of greater expedition and energy, and they will not fail to take any further action that may prove necessary.
    MR. MORRELL: Has any county council yet forwarded a Report to the Commissioners to the effect that it is desirable to proceed?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Whenever the Board thinks that a county council is not taking sufficiently active steps Commissioners are sent down.

    Small Holdings in Hampshire.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many applications for small holdings have been made; how much land has been applied for; and how many small holdings have been created up to date in each division of Hampshire; whether any scheme of small holdings in Hampshire has yet been reported to or approved by the Board of Agriculture; will he state the names of the members of the committee or committees (if any such have been constituted) charged with the administration of the Act in each division of the county; and whether any of the Commissioners have yet visited any of the divisions of Hampshire; and, if so, what Report have they made to the Board as to the way in which the Act is being administered.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Five hundred and thirteen applications have been made for 7,579 acres, but no small holdings have been actually provided as yet. The Board have received and approved one scheme. Six visits to the

    121
    county have been made by the Commissioners and inspectors, and they are satisfied that the county council are doing their best to administer the Act. I shall be pleased to send my hon. friend a list giving the names of the small Holdings Committee.
    MR. SMEATON: Is it not the fact that up to the present time only 15 acres have been actually distributed?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That is so, but I hope more land will soon be distributed.
    MR. MORRELL: And although 513 persons have been waiting for eleven-months, has no Report been made that it is desirable to prepare a scheme?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We are satisfied that up till now the county council has done its utmost; otherwise we should take steps.
    MR. MORRELL: Is it not the duty of the Commissioners as soon as they are aware there is a demand for land to report that fact?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing the matter rather than seeking information.

    Suggested Increase of Inspectorate.
    MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the number of applications which have been received under the Small Holdings Act and the number of those still waiting to be dealt with, the Board will now appoint another Commissioner and as many more inspectors as may be necessary in order to insure a more rapid and vigorous administration of the Act.
    SIR E. STRACHEY: he Board are now considering what additional staff is necessary to cope with the work arising under the Act.
    MR. MORRELL: Is it not the fact that, as now constituted, the Commissioners are really unable to carry
    122
    out the work imposed on them by the Act?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: I do not think so at the present moment. My hon. friend may rely on it that the President of the Board, if he thinks more staff is required, will not fail to make the necessary appointments.
    MR. MACKARNESS: How many inspectors are there now?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: Six.

    Small Holdings in Oxfordshire and Staffordshire.
    MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will obtain from the Oxfordshire County Council full particulars of all approved applications under the Small Holdings Act according to the parishes in which the applicants live, showing name, address, and occupation of applicant, date of application, amount of land applied for, date at which the application was approved, and subsequent proceedings; and also particulars of all rejected applications with the reasons for the rejection in each case.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: At the same time may I ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will obtain from the Staffordshire County Council particulars of all applications approved by them according to the parishes in which the applicants live, showing name, address, and occupation of applicant, date of application, amount of land applied for, date at which application was approved, and subsequent proceedings; and also particulars of all rejected applications, with the reasons for the rejection in each case.
    SIR E. STRACHEY: The Board are not prepared to ask for the Returns suggested. They would involve a great deal of labour without any corresponding advantage. Every applicant is informed whether he is approved or not,

    123
    and the Board are always ready to inquire into any specific complaints. Our experience affords no justification for the suggestion that applicants are, as a rule, rejected on inadequate grounds.
    MR. BENNETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is that some of the applicants in Oxfordshire whose applications have been either ignored or not approved have not been notified of the fact?
    MR. MACKAENESS: And is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Berkshire applications are refused without reasons being given to the applicants?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: If that is so the applicants should complain to the county council.
    MR. MORRELL: Is it not the duty of the Commissioners to ascertain the extent of the demand? Do they do that?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: They do it through the county council, and the Board do not interfere so long as they think the county council are acting in a proper manner.

    Small Holdings—Suggested Appointment of Local Inspectors.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the number of applications received from certain districts and the delay which has already occurred, the Board will consider the advisability of appointing local inspector in all such districts to assist the Commissioners and the county councils in ascertaining and satisfying the demand.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are now considering what additional staff is necessary to cope with the work arising under the Act.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: When are the Board likely to come to a definite conclusion?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: After due consideration.

    Small Holdings.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any case has yet occurred in which the Commissioners have reported to the Board that it is desirable that a scheme should be made and the Board have forwarded that report to the county council, as provided in Section 3 of the Small Holdings Act, so as to enable the Board, if the county council fail to take action, to direct the Commissioners without further delay themselves to prepare a scheme.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No such case has yet arisen.
    MR. MORRELL: Under Section 2, subsection (3), is it not the duty of the Commissioners as soon as they are aware there is a demand for land to at once make a report to the Board?
    AN HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Commissioners instructions on that point?
    MR. SPEAKER: Really hon. Members who have so many Questions to ask should put them on the Paper. They are of a highly technical character, and it is not fair to a Minister who is answering for a Minister in the other House not to give him full notice.

    Small Holdings in Monmouthshire.
    MR. THOMAS RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the county of Monmouth 265 persons have applied for small holdings; that 113 of these have been approved; that is is estimated that 1,484 acres will be required to satisfy them; that none of the applicants have yet been provided for and no land acquired; and what steps he proposes to take.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are aware of the position in Monmouth. One of their inspectors recently inspected a farm for which the

    125
    county council are negotiating, and the Board are satisfied that the county council intend to carry out the Act to the best of their ability.

    Scottish Education Bill.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he would state the various deputations from Scotland that have waited on him in connection with the Education (Scotland) Bill, giving the total number of such.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I have a record of sixteen deputations from Scotland which have waited upon me in connection with the Education (Scotland) Bill. The names of the various authorities represented by these deputations cannot conveniently be narrated in a verbal answer, but I will send the hon. Member a list of them.
    MR. PIRIE: How many of the deputations were due to the somewhat unparalled action of His Majesty's Government in changing the scheme of allocation originally proposed and indeed adopted on the Second Reading of the Bill?
    MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend knows that that is a matter of argument, and we do not take the same views on it.
    MR. PIRIE: I am not asking as to a matter of argument, but as to numbers of the deputation.
    MR. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the cost to the ratepayers of these deputations?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That question should be addressed to the authorities concerned.
    MR. PIRIE: In view of the number of deputations, does the right hon. Gentleman still consider this Bill to be non-contentious?
    MR. SINCLAIR: It certainly is not a highly controversial Bill.
    MR. PIRIE: How many deputations are required to make a Bill contentious?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Scottish Public Meetings.
    MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his Department have issued lantern slides to be used at public meetings in Scotland; and, if so, under what Vote is such expenditure accounted for.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The reply is in the negative, but if the right hon. Member will inform me specifically to what he refers I shall be happy to make inquiries.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that slides have been used at Liberal meetings in the South of Scotland?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish Intermediate Education.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can obtain from the Intermediate Board a precise definition of the meaning they attach to the addition to Rule 49, which states that the exhibitions assigned to the literary course will be allotted equally between Divisions 1 and 2; does this refer to a minimum number of exhibitions only or has it another and, if so, what signification.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that the statement in Rule 49 refers to a minimum number of exhibitions only. There is nothing in the Rule to prevent the Commissioners from allotting additional, exhibitions to either division of the modern literary coarse if the number of students and the standards attained should justify the award of additional exhibitions.

    Mr. Fetherston's Milltown Ranch,
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when Mr. Fetherston's ranch at Mill-town, near Castle-pollard, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, will be distributed.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when the lands referred to will be distributed.

    Irish Land Purchase.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can, by reference to the number of vendors and mortgagees of estates sold and arranged to be sold under the Land Act of 1903 from the 1st November of that year to 1st November, 1908, who reside out of Ireland, estimate approximately the proportions of the aggregate price and bonus going to residents out of Ireland and the proportion going to residents in Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission have no information as to the proportions of the aggregate purchase money and bonus which have gone to residents in and outside Ireland, respectively.

    Pakenham Estate, Westmeath.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the interest of local peace and the success of their scheme for distributing the untenanted land on the Pakenham estate in Westmeath, the Estates Commissioners will reconsider the purpose ascribed to them of planting on that land persons objectionable to the community, such as bailiffs from other estates who should be provided for by their employers; and whether, in a matter affecting the pockets of the local ratepayers, a draft scheme of distribution will be submitted to the representatives of those ratepayers, and their views thereon considered.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners will carefully consider all the circumstances before deciding on the mode in which the untenanted land on this estate is to be dealt with, and will have due regard to any representations that may be submitted on behalf of the people of the locality. The reply to the concluding part of the Question is in the negative.
    MR. MOORE: Are we to understand the Estates Commissioners will give due regard to representations from the people of a locality denouncing
    128
    particular men as being bailiffs and prevent them having an allotment?
    MR. BIRRELL: Nothing of the kind, Sir.

    County Cavan Derelict Lands.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what was the date of the lodgment of objections by J. S. Winter and another and Samuel Saunderson, owners of untenanted land in County Cavan, to the compulsory acquisition of their derelict lands under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; and will he have the hon. Member for West Cavan supplied with a copy of the aforesaid objections.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that objections under Section 2 (1) of the Evicted Tenants Act were lodged against the compulsory acquisition of the lands of J. S. Winter, and another on 25th May and 6th June last. Objections to the acquisition of the lands of Samuel Saunderson were lodged on 25th and 28th of May last. Copies of such objections can be obtained from the Keeper of the Records of the Land Commission in the manner prescribed by the Statutory Rules.
    In reply to a further Question the right hon. Gentleman said copies of the objections could be obtained on making a preliminary payment.

    Martyn Estate, County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the tenants on the Martyn estate, County Clare, are still paying 3½ per cent. on the purchase money, although this money was paid over to the vendor since 1906; and if he can state why the tenants are asked still to pay more than the 3¼ per cent. arranged for under the purchase agreement.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate was purchased by them for purposes of resale, and they hope to vest the holdings in the purchasing tenants at an early

    129
    date. The purchase money was advanced to the vendor in 1907. Until the holdings are vested in the tenants, they are liable for interest in lieu of rent at 3½ per cent., in accordance with the terms of their purchase agreements, and the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Act.

    Curraheen Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in spite of frequent representations on the subject, no proper facilities have been granted by the National Board of Education for the construction of new schools at Curraheen, Glenbeigh, to take the place of the existing Keelnabrack School which has been condemned as unsafe for use; and can he say what steps, if any, will be taken to have the new school built.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that a grant of two-thirds of the estimated cost of providing a new school at Curraheen for the pupils of the Keelnabrack School was sanctioned in April last, but the manager declined the offer upon the ground that, owing to the poverty of the district, he was unable to guarantee the remaining third. The Commissioners were not until recently in a position to consider an application for a larger grant, but they are now making investigations in connection with the manager's representations as to the poverty of the district, in order to determine whether a grant in excess of two-thirds of the cost of the new buildings can be allowed in this case.

    Ireland and the Unemployed Grant.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases have applications been made to the Local Government Board in Ireland for grants from the Parliamentary Vote under the Unemployed Workman Act; what grants have been made; and how many applications have been refused or postponed.
    MR. BIRRELL: Grants from the Parliamentary Vote in aid of expenses
    130
    under the Unemployed Workman Act can only be made to distress committees duly constituted under the Act. Applications have been received by the Local Government Board for such grants from the following districts in which committees have been, or are being, formed: Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Limerick, Drogheda, Kingstown, Ennis. The applications from the Dublin and Belfast Committees have been already acceded to. The Board are at present in correspondence with the other local authorities mentioned, with a view to securing sufficient information to enable them to deal with the applications. The Board have also received applications from districts which contain less than the minimum population prescribed for the establishment of separate distress committees under the Act. These applications cannot be entertained.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Why has not the application from Ennis been granted?
    MR. BIRRELL: We are supplying Ennis with the materials which will enable them to make out a case which I hope will receive ready acceptance.
    MR. KETTLE: Does the responsibility for making the grant rest with the Irish Local Government Board or the Treasury?
    MR. BIRRELL: With the Treasury.

    Pike Farm, North Tipperary.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the total amount of purchase money advanced to Mr. William Carroll, under the Ashbourne Act, to enable him to purchase from Mr. William Trench the lands known as the Pike farm, in Ballingarry, North Tipperary.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that on 8th August, 1890, an advance of £735 was made to Dalton Carroll for the purchase of a holding of 147 acres on the estate of William Thomas Trench, at Ballingarry, County Tipperary.

    Land Purchase in North Tipperary.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total area of the land that Mr. H. Davis Kenny, of Ballingarry, North Tipperary, has purchased with the assistance of the Land Commission, and what is the total amount of purchase-money that has been advanced by the Land Commissioners in favour of Mr. Davis Kenny.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that the total area purchased by Mr. Kenny under the Land Purchase Acts is 211 acres, and that the amount advanced to him was £3,000.
    MR. HOGAN: Did he purchase the interest under the Ashbourne Act?
    MR. BIRRELL: Really, I never heard of Mr. Kenny before.
    MR. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Mr. Kenny has been boycotted and the hunt broken up and he himself assaulted because the right hon. Gentleman would not afford him adequate protection?
    MR. REDDY: And have not the people the right to break up the hunt?
    MR. MOORE: No.
    MR. REDDY: Yes; the farmers have.

    Irish Cottage Industries.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the definition given to the words home and cottage industries, in Section 30 of the Act creating the Department, by the Law Officers in Ireland has operated to prevent the Department assisting some cottage industries within the spirit but outside the letter of the Law; and whether he proposes next session to secure an amending Bill to remedy this defect.
    MR. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affir-
    132
    mative. The second query is under consideration.

    Ireland and the Unemployed Grant.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any allocation has yet been made between Great Britain and Ireland of the Parliamentary Vote available under the Unemployed Workmen Act; and, if so, how much has been allocated to the separate use of Ireland.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not possible at present to allocate any definite sum to Ireland, as the information available with regard to the necessities of the several localities affected in the United Kingdom is not sufficient for the purpose. Every application for assistance is considered on its merits.
    MR. KETTLE: Is the right hon.. Gentleman aware that under the plan of allocation in 1906 Ireland got £11,000 while in 1907 when a different plan was introduced, she only got £4,500.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It looks as if Ireland got more than she was really entitled to in the first year.

    English Historical Monuments Commission.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that while other societies, such as the Royal Archæological Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and the British Archæological Association, were each formally invited to submit names to serve on the English Historical Monuments Commission, no-such invitation has been sent to the Society of Antiquaries of London, which has thus no official representation on the Commission; and whether he can state the reason why the Society of Antiquaries has been ignored.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): As I was unaware who among the members of the societies referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was best suited to assist on the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments, I invited these societies to submit

    133
    names to me. The prominent position of the Society of Antiquaries made it unnecessary for me to follow the same course in their case, and in accordance with the usual practice, I used my own discretion in the selection of members from that body to serve on the Commission. The fact that out of the eleven members of the Commission five are Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries—one of them having been President of the Society for many years—should, to my mind, be sufficient proof that neither in intention nor in practice has the Society of Antiquaries been ignored.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have the names of the five members?
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, they are well-known.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the business will be on Friday?
MR. ASQUITH: On Friday we propose to submit to the House a Resolution for the allocation of time for the later stages of the Education Bill. When that is disposed of, we shall take up some of the smaller Bills.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 379.]
LUNACY BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 380.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Criminal Appeal (Amendment) [Lords] and of the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Bills);
134
Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Halpin; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bills); Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MEAT MARKING (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To identify all imported meat, whether fresh or frozen, and to provide that it shall not be sold as native produce," presented by Mr. Field; supported by Mr. Hayden, Mr. Condon, and Mr. Farrell; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, next, and to be printed. [Bill 381.]

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the Bill which he asked leave to introduce was practically the same measure which had been before Parliament for a good many years. It was introduced on several occasions by Members representing Irish constituencies on behalf of the Irish Party, but he regretted to say that, owing to the difficulty which private Members found in making progress with their measure, hitherto this Bill had never got beyond the introduction stage. He was taking a perhaps somewhat unusual course in asking leave to say a few words in explanation of the Bill, but he thought that course was advisable in view of the fact that it had come to his knowledge that there had been a good deal of misrepresentation with regard to the scope and object of the measure. Its object was plain, simple, and explicit. It was to place the Catholic population on terms of equality with people of other denominations. That was the real object of the Bill. The Catholics claimed for themselves and their religion, equality; they asked for no more, and they certainly would be satisfied with no less. It might be a surprise to many Members of the House—he knew it was a surprise to a number of people outside—to know that people of the Catholic religion at the present time did not as a matter of fact enjoy equality with other denominations. The popular belief, he was sure, was that the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829

  135
  removed all grievances of which the Catholics could legitimately complain, and yet the real fact was that there still remained upon the Statute Book a considerable number of enactments which were not only irritating and unjust, but in their nature grossly insulting to the people of the Catholic faith, in this country. As a matter of fact, the so-called Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 itself contained several sections of the most offensive character with reference to the people of the Catholic religion. He had no time to deal in detail with the various enactments which it was proposed to repeal, which still existed in reference to Catholics, but by way of illustration he would refer the House to one or two sections of the Catholic Emancipation Act itself. From Sections 26 to 38 of the Act of 1829 called the Catholic Relief Act there were provisions of the most offensive character towards Catholics. For instance, there were provisions which made it an absolutely penal offence for Catholic clergymen to celebrate any of the rites or ceremonies of their religion, or even to wear the habits of their orders anywhere outside the Catholic places of worship or private houses; and Section 28 of the Act of 1829 frankly made the following declaration—
  "Whereas Jesuits and members of certain religious orders, convents, and societies of the Church of Rome, bound by monastic or other rules, are resident within the United Kingdom, and it is expedient to make provision for their gradual suppression and final prohibition within the United Kingdom, be it enacted."
  And then there was a series of sections of the most violent and insulting character aiming at the suppression of all these religious orders in the Catholic Church. There were provisions which made it obligatory on members of the Jesuit and other orders highly respected in this country to register themselves, to give notice of their numbers to the clerks of the peace in the various districts, and to send notices of their presence in England, to the Home Secretary, and in Ireland, to the Chief Secretary, in order that they might be registered, very much in the way in which ticket-of-leave men were. He was certain that there were no Members in the Horse belonging to any denomination at all who would refuse to admit that some of the best educational establish-
  136
  ments in this country were conducted by members of these very religious orders against which these penal enactments were in existence, and he was certain that no fair-minded man could feel surprise that a great deal of irritation and resentment was felt at this time of the world's history at the presence upon the Statute-book of England of provisions of this character. The answer might be made to him that, while it was true that these obnoxious and old-time provisions still remained, they were obsolete. They were told that they were dead letters, and were never put in force. Surely that was a greater reason for their removal from the Statute-book, because if they never intended to put these laws into force, there was certainly no reason whatever for retaining them, in view of the irritation which they caused to millions of people of a particular denomination throughout the whole of the Empire. In 1902 an application was made to a magistrate in London to put these laws into operation against certain Jesuit fathers in this city, and the magistrate, Mr. Kennedy, declared and quoted Sir James Stephen's "History of the Criminal Law" to show that these provisions had been treated as a dead letter. The King's Bench was appealed to, and the decision of the magistrate upheld. Mr. Justice Darling, in his judgment, said that whatever might have been the reasons for passing these statutes, which persecuted opinion and not acts, they were against the spirit and the genius of the age. Lord Mansfield said that, properly speaking, they were never designed to be enforced at all; they were made merely in terrorem. Was it, therefore, remarkable that the millions of Catholics of this country should object to have laws of this character held in terrorem over their heads? He passed on to another provision in the Bill, in which he also proposed to include the provisions of the Catholic Removal of Disabilities Bill, introduced by Mr. Gladstone in 1891. The Bill was backed by all the leading members of the Liberal Party; it was supported in eloquent speeches by Mr. Gladstone himself, Sir Henry James, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and the present Prime Minister. The object of that Bill was

  137
  to remove the disqualification of a Catholic for occupying the position of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland or Lord Chancellor of England. In 1867 the prohibition of Catholics filling the position of Lord Chancellor of Ireland was removed. Speaking of this disqualification the present Prime Minister said in 1891—
  "Sixty years ago, the principles of religious exclusion were entrenched in this country behind an imposing fortress of legal safeguards and securities. One after another of the strong places has been captured, and its walls battered down, until all that remains is this paltry little corner, a solitary and belated relic of the past, which can never be rebuilt. The finger of fate is upon it, and although by your votes you may for a few years retard, depend upon it, you cannot evade, its downfall."
  He asked the right hon. Gentleman to act up to the spirit of that very broad-minded declaration. He also proposed in this Bill to deal with the very offensive references which were made to the millions of his Catholic subjects by the King in the Accession Declaration. It was said, he knew not with what truth, that this was a declaration not to the liking of His Majesty himself, but be that as it might, it was admitted a few years ago by all parties in the country and in the House of Lords that the references made to Catholics in the Accession Declaration were grossly and unnecessarily offensive in every way. Unfortunately, no agreement could be come to, although everyone expressed a desire to come to an agreement as to the words to be put in the Declaration in substitution of the offensive phrases, but he proposed in this Bill to endeavour to find words in reference to transubstantiation, and to omit the following words—
  "That the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the celebration of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous."
  He was sure there was not a Member in that House who would refuse to agree that references of that kind were grossly offensive and palpably untrue. No Catholic extended adoration to the Blessed Virgin or any other saint. In the Catholic Church as in other churches adoration was reserved for God. In conclusion, he appealed to Members in all quarters of the House not to regard
  138
  this in any sense as a party matter. He himself represented one of the most Catholic constituencies in the wide world—the constituency which returned O'Connell to this House and had a great deal to do with the emancipation of Catholics, both in this country and in Ireland. He believed he could say of every Catholic in this Empire that they of the Catholic Church had no greater desire or ambition than to live in the utmost friendship and goodwill with their fellow-citizens of every denomination. But that could not be the case so long as laws of an unjust and insulting character were retained upon the Statute-book. It was one of the proudest memories of Ireland to-day that Catholic emancipation was carried forward in an Irish Protestant Parliament, Grattan's Parliament, long before the question was taken up in this country. This Bill was supported by both Catholic and Protestant, and he believed that throughout the country broad-minded men, Catholic and Protestant alike, would welcome this effort to do away with what remained of the bad old times. He asked hon. Members to pass the Bill through the House to promote that good feeling, that spirit of friendship and comradeship among all sections of the community, which could never thoroughly exist so long as the members of one communion were signalled out for unjust, unnecessary, and insulting legislation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain disabilities affecting the Roman Catholic population, and to make certain alterations in the Accession Declaration."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  MR. McARTHURagreed that the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken a very unusual course, as he had truly said in his speech, in introducing a controversial Bill of this nature under the ten minutes rule. That peculiarity was enhanced by the fact that there would be no prospect during this session of taking any further stage of the Bill, and therefore the House must now express approval or disapproval of its principle. The Hon. Member proposed to modify the Oath, which guaranteed the Protestant succession to

  139
  the Crown; and further, in advocating the same measure for Catholics as for Protestants, the hon. Member was really asking for the removal of those disabilities which now attached to the succession to the Crown. The next object of the Bill was to legalise monastic institutions. Why were they illegal at present? Was it not because Parliament in 1829 knew more about the true character of these institutions than we did to-day? The speeches made at that time showed that these orders were excluded because it was believed that the Jesuits in particular advocated doctrines which were dangerous to the State, at variance with public morality, and opposed to civil and religious liberty. The fact that these organisations had been driven out of France, tended to show that they had not changed their character in the intervening years. The number of these institutions in Great Britain had increased from sixteen in 1829 to 1,125 at present, so that the absence of a legal status involved no practical disability. While he was quite willing that the question of the legalisation of monastic orders should be considered by the Government of the day, he held that it should be considered in connection with the need for the inspection of these institutions. As to the third object of the Bill, the legalising of Roman Catholic processions in the streets, he himself would rather see further restrictions applied not only to Roman Catholics but to all religious bodies. The streets were not the place for religious processions and demonstrations.
  In addition to that he would remind his hon. friend that this, after all, was a Protestant country, and that while the carrying of the Host in procession might be desired by Roman Catholics it would be a very offensive proceeding to Protestants. There was one further? reason for which he would ask the House to reject this Bill; it was that the Roman Catholic Church, while it had always been willing to accept toleration; had never been willing to grant it to others. ["Oh."] That was true all the world over. Wherever ecclesiastical power was supreme, whether in Spain, in Malta, or in Ireland, there was persecution. He asserted to-day that the lot of Protestants in Ireland was infinitely worse than the lot of Catholics in Great Britain. They frequently read in the newspapers of the persecution of Protestants in Ireland. For instance, only the other day, at Riversdale, in County Sligo, Protestants, because they refused to join the National League, were subjected to the most severe boycott and intimidation. On its merits he trusted the House would condemn this Bill as one which was not required to deal with any immediate grievance, and as one which would condone lawlessness on a very large scale. He asked those who believed in our Protestant Constitution as the guarantee of civil and religious liberty, for Protestant and Catholic alike, to join him in voting against the introduction of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 412.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bellow, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Agnew, George William

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Boland, John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Brigg, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bright, J. A.

  Cox, Harold

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crean, Eugene

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cullinan, J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Barker, Sir John

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Delany, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Beale, W. P.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dillon, John

  Bell, Richard

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duffy, William J.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Clynes, J. R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Power, Patrick, Joseph

  Erskine, David C.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reddy, M.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Renton, Leslie

  Field, William

  M'Crae, Sir George

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Richardson, A.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Killop, W.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robinson, S.

  Grinnell, L.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Meagher, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Gulland, John W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seely, Colonel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Halpin, J.

  Montague, Hon. E. S.

  Sheehy, David

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Muldoon, John

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murnaghan, George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Summerbell, T.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Grady, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Williamson, A.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Malley, William

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

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Paul, Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Young, Samuel

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pease, Rt Hn J A (Saffron Walden

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Lamont, Norman

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  NOES.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

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

  Gordon, J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Clark, George Smith

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Clough, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  142

  143

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sandys Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Moore.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Redmond, Captain Donelan, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Boland, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Haviland Burke, and Mr. Young.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES (REMOVAL), &c, BILL.
  "To remove certain Disabilities affecting the Roman Catholic population, and to make certain alterations in the Accession Declaration," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read
  a second time upon Monday, 7th December, and to be printed. [Bill 382.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the. Prevention of Crime Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. Asquith.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 272; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 413.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gill, A. H.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

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

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Agnew, George William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cooper, G. J.

Glover, Thomas

Alden, Percy

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ambrose, Robert

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gulland, John W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cowan, W. H.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cox, Harold

Halpin, J.

Barker, Sir John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crean, Eugene

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Barnard, E. B.

Cullinan, J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N)

Delany, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Beale, W. P.

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Beauchamp, E.

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hazleton, Richard

Beck, A. Cecil

Dillon, John

Hedges, A. Paget

Bell, Richard

Donelan, Captain A.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Men., S.)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Duffy, William J.

Higham, John Sharp

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

Duncan, C. (Burrow-in-Furness

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Bennett, E. N.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hodge, John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hogan, Michael

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Holland, Sir William Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Erskine, David C.

Holt, Richard Durning

Boland, John

Essex, R. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hudson, Walter

Brigg, John

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Bright, J. A.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jackson, R. S.

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

Farrell, James Patrick

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Bryce, J. Annan

Fenwick, Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Burke, E. Havilnad-

Ferens, T. R.

Jenkins, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Field, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Chance, Frederick William

Flynn, James Christopher

Jordan, Jeremiah

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jowett, F. W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Joyce, Michael

Clough, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Clynes, J. R.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gilhooly, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Nolan, Joseph

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Laidlaw, Robert

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Nuttall, Harry

Seely, Colonel

Lamont, Norman

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Doherty, Philip

Snowden, P.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stanger, H. Y.

Lyell, Charles Henry

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lynch, H. B.

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

O'Dowd, John

Summerbell, T.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Maclean, Donald

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Macpherson, J. T.

O'Malley, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

O'Shee, James John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Callum, John M.

Paul, Herbert

Vivian, Henry

M'Crae, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walsh, Stephen

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

M'Kean, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wardle, George J.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Pirie, Duncan V.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

M'Killop, W.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

M'Micking, Major G.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Marnham, F. J.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Watt, Henry A.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Massie, J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Weir, James Galloway

Masterman, C. F. G.

Reddy, M.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Meagher, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White, Sir. Luke (York, E. R.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N

Redmond, William (Clare)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Rees, J. D.

Whitley John Henry (Halifax)

Menzies, Walter

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

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P

Micklem, Nathaniel

Richardson, A.

Wiles, Thomas

Middlebrook, William

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Mond, A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Williamson, A.

Mooney, J. J.

Robinson, S.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Morrell, Philip

Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

Muldoon, John

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Murnaghan, George

Rose, Charles Day

Young, Samuel

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Rowlands, J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Murray, Capt Hn A. C. (Kincard.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Napier, T. B.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Dublin, S.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

Moore, William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Percy, Earl

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clark, George Smith

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Hills, J. W.

Renton, Leslie

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Hunt, Rowland

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Craik, Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Law Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

146

147

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Younger, George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said the object of the first Amendment on the Paper was to meet the particular difficulties of the Merchant Company which had established superannuation funds in connection with its schools. It would be wrong, of course, to penalise that company as compared with other educational undertakings, and they wished, therefore, as this superannuation was founded by a central board and not by the governors of each separate school, to provide that they should come under Clause 12.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided further that where, prior to the commencement of this Act, a governing body as aforesaid or any joint or central board on their behalf have established a superannuation fund to which they respectively contribute, directly or indirectly, the superannuation allowance awarded to a teacher to the extent represented by the sum so contributed shall be held to be a retiring allowance within the meaning of this section.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 21, after the word 'boards,' to insert the words 'governing bodies.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CARLILEin moving to omit the words "in Scotland" from Clause 13, said the Amendment dealt with the position of teachers who might have been employed in England for part of their teaching period, and who subsequently, especially in connection with certain denominations in more or less voluntary schools, took up work in Scotland. These teachers, while they had perhaps a longer period of teaching experience, found themselves side by
148
side with teachers who had a much shorter period of work, but who had a claim upon the superannuation scheme, in which they only participated themselves to a very small extent—only for that portion of their experience as teachers which lay within the area of Scotland. In order more or less to obtain an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman, and to bring their case under his attention, he moved the Amendment.
Amendment not seconded.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 10, line 28, after the word 'Department,' to insert the words 'or of a teacher's superannuation allowance from a governing body as aforesaid or any joint or central board on their behalf.' "
"In page 10, line 34, to leave out the word 'or.'"
"In page 10, line 34, after the word 'managers,' to insert the words 'or joint or central board.'"
"In page 10, line 34, at end, to insert the words 'or superannuation.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment† in the name of the hon. Member for Ayrshire would involve a fresh charge.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that it did not involve a fresh charge at all on the Exchequer. The fund to which he referred here was one made up by contributions from the teachers, and they were absolutely entitled to get the benefit of the fund.
†The following is the Amendment referred to—
"In page 10, line 40, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words "Provided that the Treasury shall make payment to any teacher who shall make application, and from whose salary deductions have been made under the said Act, but who has ceased to serve as a teacher before this scheme takes effect, a sum equal to the full amount of such deductions, which payment shall cancel the right of such teacher to any annuity under the said Act; and further.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
MR. SPEAKER: The words are, "the Treasury shall make payment." They do not say the Treasury shall make payment out of any particular fund. It must involve a charge and impose a duty upon the Treasury of making certain payments.
MR. COCHRANE: All I desire is that the Treasury shall repay contributions which have already been made to them and which are allocated to the teachers in certain proportions, not that there shall be any fresh charge, but that they shall simply repay the money paid by the teachers out of their own pocket.
MR. SPEAKER: That does not appear on the face of the Amendment. The only way to construe the Amendment is that the Treasury shall make the payment. It does not say it is to make it out of a fund subscribed to by the teachers, and it does not earmark a particular fund.
MR. COCHRANE: Prom whose salaries deductions have been made.
MR. SPEAKER: It does not say from what fund.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 11, line 16, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"
"In page 11, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'or of an Amendment thereof.'"
"In page 11, line 26, after the word 'boards,' to insert the words 'governing bodies.'"
"In page 11, line 26, after the word 'and,' to insert the word 'other.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. BOLANDmoved to omit subsection (1) of Clause 14. He said he hoped to prove that the announcement made by the Secretary for Scotland that voluntary schools were to benefit to the extent of an extra 2s. was not such a generous gift as it appeared to be. Under subsections (2) and (4) his contention was that there would be brought into the Scottish Education Fund those very amounts out of which State-aided schools had in the past been able to benefit. The probate and estate duties which were brought into the Scottish Education Fund
150
did not, as a matter of fact, form any fixed amount but an anually increasing sum. The actual increase of those duties was more than the increase in the cost of pupils in the schools. As the hon. Member for Sheffield pointed out in a previous debate, there had been an illegal accumulation of funds whilst the duties were being administered. Whilst it might be contended that voluntary schools would benefit under Clauses 15 and. 16, it would be recognised that this was the only opportunity he would have of pointing out in what way the Catholic schools were not getting justice. Briefly, subsections (1) and (4) constituted the fund which gave the extra fee grant of 2s. per child out of purely Scottish money, and it would be found on looking into the Returns already issued that the sum fixed was £40,000. In subsection (4) of Clause 14 the amount was about £69,000, giving a total of £109,000. The average attendance of children in Scotland was 720,000 and that would work out at about 3s. per child. Under Clauses 15 and 16 it might be said that the Catholic schools were going to benefit to the extent of 2s., but 1s. of that amount came out of money which the Catholic schools would have had under the operation of the estate duties. Therefore instead of the voluntary schools of Scotland, equally with the board schools, benefiting by an increase of 2s. or 2s. 6d., as far as he could make out the real increase was not 2s., but really only 1s. 6d. This explained the dissatisfaction with which this measure was regarded by the Catholics in Scotland. He was not taking up this line of argument on account of any settled opposition to the Bill, but in the hope that the reasonable claims of Catholics would be met. He hoped that when they got to the cumulative vote the Secretary for Scotland would see his way to meet them on that point, because if he did a great deal of their opposition would go. He thought it was important to point out that under the two subsections he had mentioned sums of money were being brought in out of which Catholic schools gained a slight benefit and in the new Scottish Education Fund it was not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to substantiate what he had stated, that the voluntary schools were really going to benefit to the extent of 2s. or 2s. 6d. per child.
MR. JORDANseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 26, to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 14."—(Mr. Boland.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he did what he could to answer the hon. Member's arguments the other day on the general position, and on the position of voluntary schools under the Bill. The Amendment was to omit the first subsection of Clause 14, and the hon. Member was quite right in saying that under that subsection the money provided by it, together with the money provided in subsection (4), constituted the security for making up the fee grant in Scotland. It was apprehended that as those sums were no longer available there might be danger that the fee grant in those schools in which the hon. Member for South Kerry was interested might not secure the 12s. per head in the future. He wished to point out that in subsection (6), so far from it being the case that they were weakening the security for the maintenance of the fee grant in voluntary schools or to all schools at 12s., the position would really be strengthened, because hitherto only the particular sum mentioned in subsections (l)and(2) had constituted the security for keeping the fee grant at 12s., whereas now the whole fund formed that security. That was really the position stated as clearly and precisely as he could put it. So far as the precise point raised in the Amendment was concerned he was able to assure the hon. Member that the security they were now taking for the 12s. grant was even greater than it had been in the past. He hoped that so far as this clause was concerned he had been able to reassure the hon. Member that the position of the schools in which he was interested would be safeguarded.
Amendment put, and negatived.
MR. LAMONTsaid that, in moving the Amendment standing in his name,
152
he did so, not from a sentimental point of view, but from a strong conviction of the advantages of bilingualism from a practical and utilitarian point of view, and of the value of Gaelic as a mental exercise.
SIR HENRY CRAIKasked if the subjects referred to in the Amendment were not excluded by the ruling that such matters were dealt with administratively by the Code.
MR. SPEAKER: The point raised is whether the subjects dealt with in this Amendment ought to be dealt with administratively by Code. I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt, and he may proceed with his Amendment.
MR. LAMONTsaid the present position was that Gaelic might be taught in any school in the Highland districts, but that it was rather discouraged by the inspectors. Secondly, there was the so-called Gaelic grant of £10 to each school having Gaelic-speaking children and a Gaelic-speaking teacher, but this money, unfortunately, was often used, not to increase the teachers' salary, but to reduce the rates. Thirdly, provision for Gaelic was nominally made at junior-student centres, but at many of them it was impossible to obtain such instruction. In the fourth place, Gaelic had this year, for the first time, been graded as a higher, as well as a lower, subject in the Department's examniations. Further than this, it was impossible to discover whether anything was being done for Gaelic in the multitude of Blue-Books, Reports, Circulars and Minutes with which the Department, like a cuttle-fish, darkened all around it, and endeavoured to baffle the public. The two most pressing present needs were those dealt with in his Amendment. First, that the bilingual Gaelic child must always first be taught in Gaelic, because it was impossible that general education could ever efficiently be given in a language with which a child was totally unfamiliar. At present a Gaelic child was often in the position of reading only a language which it could not understand, and of understanding only a language which it could not read. Next, that they must create an adequate supply

153
of Gaelic-speaking teachers. The Amendment met these needs by making a better provision for instruction, and by increasing the number of bursaries, so as to increase gradually the supply of teachers. The Amendment had received practically unanimous support throughout the Highlands—even from Inverness, which had opposed the Amendments which he had moved in committee upstairs. Its terms had been arrived at after consultation between "An Cornunn Gaidhealach" and the associations and individuals interested in this question. Aberdeen University had just decided to place Gaelic on an equal footing with French and German in their bursary competitions; and the Provincial Committee of Aberdeen had arranged for Gaelic-speaking students to study Gaelic at their Training College. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not lag behind in a movement for the educational advantage of a part of Scotland where, more than anywhere, education was appreciated; and where, more than anywhere, education was synonymous with success. He begged to move.
MR. AINSWORTH, in seconding the Amendment, explained that it was brought up in Committee, but ruled out of order for a technical reason. He and his friends were therefore obliged to bring it before the House on the Report stage. He regarded this as a most important proposal, the desire being that children who had learned to speak nothing but Gaelic in their homes should receive instruction through the medium of a language which they understood. A point which he wished to urge was that children who were brought up to speak two languages were given an increased advantage in learning a third. He impressed upon the Government that the districts affected by this proposal were in the poorest counties in Scotland. The necessary funds must be got either under Clause 15 from the central fund, or under Clause 16 from the fund at the disposal of the county councils.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 10, at end, to insert the words, '(f) To making payments to school boards in Gaelic-speaking districts of such sums as may be necessary to make adequate provision for instruction in reading and writing the
154
Gaelic language, and also of such sums as may be necessary to increase the number of bursaries available, both before and after the junior student stage, for Gaelic-speaking children intending to become teachers.'"—(Mr. Lamont.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid this question was discussed in Committee to some extent. Hon. Members who had studied the Bill knew that in subsection (9) of Clause 16, the continuance of such grants as were now given to this purpose was provided for. They could be given subject to the discretion of the school boards and the district committees. The question was whether they should upset that or not. The Committee had much sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Argyllshire as to the desirability of giving full permission to those people who wished their children to learn Gaelic and to make use of that language. He did not wish to argue the general question as to the advantage of bilingual teaching and accomplishments of that kind. His hon. friend proposed by this Amendment to lay the charge for Gaelic-teaching as a charge upon the national funds—that was to say, he proposed that the Lowland counties which had no interest whatever in Gaelic-teaching should be obliged perforce to contribute to the cost of such Gaelic-teaching as was desired in the Gaelic counties. That was not a proposal which in the interest of Gaelic-teaching should be accepted by the House. He thought it was far better to adhere to the position taken up in Committee, namely, that this was a matter which could safely be left to the discretion of the local authorities themselves. The local authorities could open the door wide for the teaching of Gaelic. As had been stated by his hon. friend, facilities and encouragement had been given in the last year or two for the increase of this form of teaching. Reference had been made to the poverty of the Highland districts, but it must be remembered that they had already special grants for this and other purposes. The best course for the House to take in the interest of Gaelic-teaching was to leave this matter as it was.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman

155
had not quite done justice to the Amendment. Although it was moved and seconded by Highland Members, he would give some reasons in his capacity as a Lowland Member why this should not be treated as a Highland question. It was a national question, not only in the sentimental sense, but in the sense that it was desirable to encourage the teaching of languages. It would be a matter of interest to the whole of Scotland that French and German should be well taught, which, he might add, was very seldom the case. The Gaelic language would be well taught if adequate provision were made for teaching it. The likelihood was that Gaelic would be very much better taught than French or German. In that sense it was a national question. The teaching of languages under the Code had been unduly discouraged in the case of certain children in favour of science. No doubt the Highlands felt strongly on this point, but it was unlikely that under the present parish board system, the teaching of French or German would be very prevalent. By arranging for the teaching of Gaelic the children of the Highlands would get their one chance of learning another language. He thought the Amendment could be defended on sentimental grounds, but that was not his present purpose.
MR. BOLANDhoped the Government would accept the Amendment. Speaking with a knowledge of what had been done to develop the Irish language, to which Gaelic was closely akin, he strongly supported the view put forward by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs as to the educational value to children in the Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland of learning their own language thoroughly and of having the opportunity of learning another. He knew a young fellow in Kerry who had a knowledge of the Irish language, and at the age of twenty-three he learned to read and write the language. This had created in him a desire to learn foreign languages, but if he had been deprived of the opportunity of learning the Irish language, his desire to learn French or German would probably never have been felt. He very much regretted that this should be regarded as a merely Highland
156
question. It was a national question and it should be so regarded throughout Scotland. If the hon. Member who moved challenged a division, the Irish Party would be delighted to give the Amendment their hearty support.
MR. WEIRsaid he was much disappointed at the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, and at the; attitude he had taken up with regard to the teaching of Gaelic in the Highlands. An hon. Member had said that this was a national question, but he looked upon it as an Imperial question. Nearly all Highlanders in the Western Highlands and Islands spoke Gaelic only in their homes, but in the parish schools English was thrust upon children whose knowledge was limited to Gaelic. In a few schools pupil teachers knew Gaelic, but schools and the Scottish Education Department were opposed, to the teaching of Gaelic. What chance had any Highland boy or girl of learning any language other than English? The parish school boards had not the means to employ teachers to teach French, German, Italian or Spanish. Gaelic was the only language besides English which the children in these schools had a chance of learning. As the Amendment was supported by all the Members representing Gaelic-speaking districts in which there were thousands of old people who were quite unable to speak anything but Gaelic, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. There were Highlanders in all parts of the world—great soldiers, great statesmen, great commercial men, who had attained to their high position, not because they spoke Gaelic, but because it had materially helped them to acquire other languages. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
MR. PIRIEsaid he made no apology whatever for saying a few words on this Amendment. It had been said that no vote had been changed by argument in the House. Well in this case, his was an example of the exception which proved the rule. To tell the truth he had come into the House with a preconceived prejudice

157
against the Amendment, but after listening to the debate the only argument that he had heard against it, if it could be called an argument, was that the Lowland counties would be made to pay for teaching a language which was not their own; Surely that argument cut both ways. Why should the Highland counties be made to pay for the teaching of a language that was not their own, viz., English? He was a Member for a Lowland constituency in which there were not many Gaelic-speaking people; but he was sure that everyone in his constituency would willingly bear the burden of doing justice to a large, a gallant, and a noble section of the community.
MR. SINCLAIRappealed to his hon. friend not to press his Amendment to a division. The hon. Member knew as well as he did that their system in Scotland was to leave such subjects to be taught under the Code as in the discretion of the school board it was thought the children required or desired. There was no dispute amongst them as to the desirability of Gaelic teaching in Gaelic districts. The question was, with whom should the decision lie? Were they to give to all school boards in all Gaelic speaking districts a claim on national funds for teaching Gaelic? If so, the logical corollary of the Amendment was to give the Lowland districts a claim on the national funds for the teaching of French, German or Italian, or any other language. It was not a question as to whether it was to be done, but how it was to be done.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had already made two speeches on this unimportant question, which had been very thoroughly threshed out in the Committee upstairs, when the solution come to was that Gaelic should be taught by Gaelic teachers. He thought the time of the House should be taken up with the discussion of much more important Amendments.
MR. MORTONsaid he was sorry to occupy the time of the House, but he desired to press the fact that their constituents in the Highlands wanted this Amendment to be carried. His right hon. friend said that if the Amendment were carried the Lowlands would have a right to demand that French, German, and Italian should be taught in their schools. But that was not a fair way to put it. What the Highland Members asked was that their native language should be taught to the natives of the Highlands. What they were afraid of was that there were a large number of people who wanted to kill the Gaelic language; they, on the other hand, wanted to preserve it, and to give the Highland children proper opportunities of learning it. He was extremely sorry that his right hon. friend could not see his way to give way, seeing that Parliament did not give too much to the Highland people.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 414.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Jowett, F. W.

Ambrose, Robert

Essex, R. W.

Joyce, Michael

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Farrell, James Patrick

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Barnes, G. N.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ffrench, Peter

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe]

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Flynn, James Christopher

Law, Hugh (Donegal, W.)

Boland, John

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, W.

Bryce, J. Annan

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Glover, Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Grant, Corrie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Clynes, J. R.

Halpin, J.

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Crean, Eugene

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Kean, John

Cullinan, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

M'Killop, W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hodge, John

Meagher, Michael

Delany, William

Hogan, Michael

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Dillon, John

Hudson, Walter

Meehan, Patrick A (Queen's Co.)

Donelan, Captain A

Jenkins, J.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Mooney, J. J.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Muldoon, John

Ponsonby, Arthur W. A. H.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Murnaghan, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walsh, Stephen

Murhpy, John (Kerry, East)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Nannetti, Joseph R.

Reddy, M.

Watt, Henry A.

Nolan, Joseph

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Weir, James Galloway

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Redmond, William (Clare)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

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

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williamson, A.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhougton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Young, Samuel

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Younger, George

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Sheehy, David

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lamont and Mr. Ainsworth.

O'Dowd, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

O'Grady, J.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

O'Shee, James John

Snowden, P.

NOES.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Laidlaw, Robert

Agnew, George William

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Alden, Percy

Erskine, David C.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

Baldwin, Stanley

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fell, Arthur

Lynch, H. B.

Barnard, E. B.

Fenwick, Charles

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N

Ferens, T. R.

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Maclean, Donald

Beale, W. P.

Forster, Henry William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Beauchamp, E.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Arthur, Charles

Bellairs, Carlyon

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

M'Callum, John M.

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, Sir George

Bennett, E. N.

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Menzies, Walter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Glendinning, R. G.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Middlebrook, William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gordon, J.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Brigg, John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bright, J. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mond, A.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gulland, John W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hamilton, Marquess of

Moore, William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morrell, Philip

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Napier, T. B.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Clark, George Smith

Hedges, A. Paget

Nuttall, Harry

Clough, William

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

Partington, Oswald

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Higham, John Sharp

Paul, Herbert

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Cooper, G. J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hunt, Rowland

Pullar, Sir Robert

Cox, Harold

Illingworth, Percy H.

Radford, G. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Craik, Sir Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rose, Charles Day

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rowlands, J.

160

161

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Summerbell, T.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Winterton, Earl

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Thornton, Percy M.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Seely, Colonel

Vivian, Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wardle, George J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

Yoxall, James Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Stanger, H. Y.

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

MR. J. M. MACDONALDrose to move the omission, of subsection (2) in Clause 15.
MR. BOLANDsaid he wished to move an Amendment before that of the hon. Gentleman, viz: in page 14, line 17, at end, to insert the words, "(g) To paying, in respect of all children attending schools other than board schools eligible for grants under the Code, a sum not exceeding ten shilings per head of the children in average attendance at such schools, and such sum shall be in addition to, and not in substitution of, any grants which, before the passing of this Act, were payable to such schools."
MR. SPEAKERsaid that that was the same matter that they discussed a fortnight ago, and the House came to a decision upon it. The wording was almost identically the same, and the hon. Member could not discuss it a second time.
MR. BOLANDinquired whether it would not be possible to have a division on it. He was most anxious that their claim should be made specially at that point.
MR. SPEAKERreplied that the hon. Member had his division the other day. He had no power to take a division without a discussion.
MR. J. M. MACDONALDsaid he wished to move the omission of subsection (2), which laid down the principle upon which the balance of the Education Fund should be allocated. That principle was that the allocation should take place
162
in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Department, and so framed as to give greater aid to those districts with which per head of the population the burden of expenditure on educational purposes, approved by the Department, is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district, which scheme shall be laid before Parliament. He rose to move the rejection of that subsection not because he had any objection to its pro-visions, but because the scheme which the Secretary for Scotland had introduced was not consistent with the subsection. He went further and held that it was not consistent with the views which the Secretary for Scotland himself put forward in support of it. A model scheme had been presented to the Committee upstairs, illustrating the mode of distribution in accordance with the subsection, and giving the ratios of necessity of the several districts. When subsequently the actual allocation of the money was presented to the Committee, it was found not to correspond with the provisions of the subsection; and the Secretary for Scotland justified the alteration on the ground that, if the allocation were made in accordance with the principles laid down in the subsection, certain districts in Scotland would receive less money than they were actually receiving at the present moment, and also on the ground that those districts were relatively poor. As to the first ground no one would object to a sum being taken from the fund and so distributed as to make the amounts to be given to these districts equal to the amounts they now received. The second ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman justified his departure from the model scheme opened up a much larger question, and it was to that part

163
of the proposal that he should like particularly to draw the attention of the House. In the first place, he contested the view that the districts that would be benefited under the second scheme were the poorer districts, and, in the second place, even if these districts were really the poorer districts, the allocation of the funds gave to them a considerably larger sum than they obtained at the present moment, and gave them that sum at the cost of the rest of the country. The districts that benefited under the scheme represented 38 per cent. of the population of Scotland, and only 36 per cent. of the expenditure and 42 per cent. of the valuation, while the districts adversely affected represented 62 per cent. of the population, 64 per cent. of the expenditure, and only 58 per cent. of the valuation. He contended that those figures proved that the principles laid down in the subsection had been entirely departed from in the allocation which his right hon. friend had actually made of the balance of fund. Take, for example, the six school boards which came under the allocation; five, which were prejudiced by the scheme, had rates over the average for the whole of Scotland, while the only one that had a rate under the average was benefited. Turning to the ratios if necessity of the several districts, he showed that the allocation was not only not in accordance with them, but in many instances diametrically opposed to them.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONrose to a point of order. His hon. friend said he did not object to the terms of this section, which provided that the money should be divided according to a scheme to be laid before Parliament. There had been two tentative schemes produced, but neither was before Parliament, and neither formed part of this Bill. He was most anxious for this Bill to go through, and why should they waste an hour in discussing a scheme which was not in the Bill.
MR. PIRIEinquired whether it was in order to say it was waste of time to discuss a matter of this kind.
MR. SPEAKERdid not think there was any point of order raised. It was a question of merits.
MR. PIRIE,on a point of order, said the second Order on the Paper, which was to be taken at 8.15 p.m., was not necessarily bound to come on at that time, the Rule being suspended. It could come on later, at eleven o'clock. Therefore, they had illimitable time to discuss this question.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was wrong there. He would only have up to eleven o'clock. The question of the disposal of the time did not rest with him, but with the House itself.
MR. J. M. MACDONALDsaid he did not wish to detain the House much longer as he had made his point, and he had no doubt his right hon. friend understood it. They did not object to the principle contained in the subsection, but they did object to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had presented to the Committee for the purpose of carrying it out. They recognised that under the principle of the Bill there were certain districts that would suffer, and would receive less money than they received at the present moment. They were willing that these districts should have money temporarily applied to them, so that the amounts they received under this scheme would not be less than those they at present received, but they were not willing that this scheme should be a permanent scheme to be taken as a model for all future schemes. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the scheme was temporary in its provisions, and that he would reconsider it with a feeling favourably disposed towards the districts which were necessitous, and which suffered under it, it would not be necessary for him to divide the House on his Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 18, to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 15."—(Mr. J. M. Macdonald.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'for,' in page 14, line 21, stand part of the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. Member had put clearly before the

165
House a matter of considerable importance to Scotsmen, the division of the spoils. They had fought Education Bills for many years, and now the fight took place over the division of the spoils. The position had been somewhat complicated by the attitude taken up by the Secretary for Scotland. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he issued with it a Memorandum and a draft scheme showing how the money was to be allocated among the various counties. That scheme was examined by the House, and was referred to the various authorities. At the last moment, just before the Bill went to Grand Committee, the scheme was withdrawn, and another substituted for it. Hence these tears. Had the right hon. Gentleman consulted the school boards before instead of after, he might have produced a different scheme altogether. The right hon. Gentleman truly said they could not go on population or valuation alone, that they must be considered together. If to those elements he had added areas he would have done far better, because areas were a very great element of consideration in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, took the two elements of population and valuation, and introduced a scheme, but unfortunately he withdrew that scheme and substituted another in which he entirely departed from those principles, except as to one-third of the fund. He allocated one-third of the fund in proportion to population and valuation, but the other two-thirds he allocated in a purely arbitrary fashion. He himself was quite impartial in this matter, because the constituency which he represented got the same amount under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman as it would get under the scheme shadowed forth by the ton. Member. He was not, therefore, a searcher after illegitimate spoils. When he regarded the reasons which might have influenced the right hon. Gentleman in departing from his original scheme, he noticed some somewhat sinister points. He noticed that particular districts got more under the amended scheme, and that singular favours had been dealt out to Forfarshire, a district not unconnected with the right hon. Gentleman. Taking Forfarshire and Shetland together, he found the ratio of necessity in the former was
166
12,763, and in Shetland 6,604, and it was a curious fact that whereas under the original scheme Forfarshire only got £10,000 and poor Shetland £5,000, under the amended scheme the contribution to Forfarshire rose to £14,441, whilst that of poor Shetland fell to £2,500. Peebles-shire, another county not unrepresented in great circles, also received a considerable increase. He was not going to inquire by what fortunate circumstance these things happened. All he wished to do was to ask the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some definite principle. Population was not enough, and valuation was not enough, and therefore if the right hon. Gentleman adopted areas he would be wise, because some arrangement must be made for those large counties where the expense was very great. Rumour said that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make some statement on this matter, and therefore it would be perhaps better not to move the Amendment he had intended to move. The right hon. Gentleman might find it easier to make that statement to his supporters rather than to the Opposition. All he would say was that he hoped in that statement the right hon. Gentleman would shadow forth some principle which people could understand, and that would be fair to all Scotland. He did not like to think that these schemes were altered from time to time in order to give an unfair share of the spoils to a particular district.
MR. WILKIEpointed out that in the previous week he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter now under discussion. But he was informed that the experts on this matter did not acknowledge the correctness of his reply. In his answer the right hon. Gentleman stated that while the proposal was strongly opposed by some, a greater number supported it. That might be so as far as the number of Boards was concerned, but if they took the number of children and people involved in the districts the balance was entirely the other way. The Government set out in their Bill that their object was to help those districts which most needed help, districts where there was large expenditure for education, poor districts unable to pay high

167
rates, but this proposal did the very opposite. Instead of helping the poor urban authorities and the highly rated districts in Scotland it was helping the rich and high valuation districts. What they felt and what they feared, but what they hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to reassure them upon, was that this provision would take from the elementary schools and give to the secondary schools. It used to be the boast of Scotsmen that in the educational system of Scotland there was the opportunity of going to the University from the elementary school, and that there were teachers in the elementary schools able to prepare the scholar for the University. He hoped before this question was decided the Government would be able to assure the House that this provision would work in the entirely opposite direction to what they feared, and that the first idea of the Government would be carried out, and that greater assistance would be given to those districts which needed it most.
MR. MENZIESalso objected to the subsection. He did not, he said, intend to go into the details of the first and second schemes except to draw attention to the footnote on this question in the Cd. Paper 4051. He asked hon. Members to look at those words. The words of the subsection were not altered in Committee, and remained in the Bill as when it was originally introduced. He therefore apprehended that these words having been used to cover a principle in the Bill still held good. On the other hand they found that a second allocation was proposed which was totally different, though, as he had pointed out, the words of the Bill remained the same. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell them which of these two allocations was, according to the Bill, because they could not both be right, and his second allocation was apparently re-enacting the two grants which were solemnly repealed in Clause 14. Having annulled those grants under Clause 14, it was now proposed to re-enact them, if not for all time, apparently for this time, at any rate. The present allocation said one-third, according to population,
168
multiplied by expenses and divided by valuation. How could that be in accordance with the Bill itself? He held that, from the legal point of view, this could not be correct. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in the kindness of his intention, had sought to give everybody a little more. He sympathised with him in that particular, but he could not admit that this proposal was in consonance with the terms of the Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why they should not reverse the two-thirds according to population and expenses? The position might be reversed by having nine-sixteenths on the one side and seven-sixteenths on the other. The truth was that the method was so arranged as to bring out the desired result. There was no principle here. While he credited the right hon. Gentleman with a kind heart in trying to give everybody a little more, it was not according to the Bill. He desired to call attention to another phase of the matter. The Bill said that this clause was to be "so passed as to give greater aid," etc., he need not trouble to read the terms through again. If they boiled the words down to one phrase, it meant that aid was to be given when expenditure was excessive as compared with valuation. The hon. Member for Ayrshire had referred to Forfarshire; he should like to refer to Perthshire and other counties. In Lanarkshire the expenditure per head from the rates was 9¾d., and in Perthshire it was under 8d. If they compared the valuation they found that in Perthshire it was £9 10s. per head of the population, and in Lanarkshire, £6 10s. Surely, if there was any meaning in the words of the Bill, it should be Lanarkshire which should get more and Perthshire less. The matter appeared to be perfectly clear. By this kind-hearted allocation under which everybody got a little, he would point out that Lanarkshire got £42.000, but if that county got the same allocation per pupil in attendance as Perthshire it would get no less than £49.000 more; if it had the same as Perthshire, it would get £32,000 more; as Forfarshire, £37,000 more; or as Dumfriesshire, £15.000 more. Surely no one could be surprised if they doubted somewhat the legality of the allocation. In

169
answer to a Supplementary Question the other day the right hon. Gentleman said this subject was a complex one. He acknowledged its complexity. He had been studying it for some time, and he thought it more complex than a Chinese puzzle. What with residue grants, secondary school grants, grants under a minute (whatever that might mean), general aid grants, special grants, Gaelic speaking grants, and necessitous school grants, grants according to population, and grants according to school attendance, the whole thing should be put in the melting pot and divided up equally according to the average of scholars in attendance. There were people who were rather amused at those Members who backed up their constituencies, yet they were the people who enlarged on the generosity of the Scottish Education Department to their particular counties. In his humble opinion a great deal of that generosity was at the expense of the industrial communities—at the expense of Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire, Renfrewshire, and other industrial communities. Lanarkshire was the premier county of Scotland. ["Oh, oh."] Well whether it was or not, it had nearly one-eighth of the whole population and it got less than one-tenth of the grant. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that appeared to him to be a fair allocation. Lanarkshire had an average attendance of 88,000 out of a total of 720,000 for the whole of Scotland. In the continuation classes of Lanarkshire, they had 14,310 scholars, and had one-seventh of the whole in that particular. In Lanarkshire they lad 2,000 children attending higher grade schools out of 18,000 for all Scotland; and they spent in rates £5,878, out of a total for Scotland of £37,000. Lanarkshire, therefore, by these details, showed that it was not only in population, in scholars and attendance the premier county of Scotland, but also in the amount it paid for education. In his opinion, the continuation classes were a most important method of education in the community, and ought to be particularly encouraged. He would perhaps be excused for referring to his own constituency. Hon. Members travelling from Glasgow or Edinburgh would remember a long stretch of hill and
170
dale, mountain and valley, between Carstairs and the summit. It was as thinly a populated district as was to be found anywhere in Scotland. Indeed, before this Bill was introduced, he had put before the Education Department a proposal to be allowed to drive children to school in conveyances, so great were the distances they had to go. Though the children had to travel great distances to school in South Lanarkshire, yet they got only 9s. 7d. per pupil in attendance, as compared with 17s. 4d. in a neighbouring county. In his county the highest point was at the village of Leadhills, where they got 9s. 7d., while at the highest point in Dumfries, Wanlockhead, they got 13s. 1d. For twenty or thirty miles Lanarkshire marched with Dumfries; there was no climatic difference, no river, no range of mountains, only an imaginary dividing line, on one side of which they gave 9s. 7d. and on the other, 13s. 1d. On its other side, Lanarkshire marched twenty or thirty miles with Peebleshire, where again there was no climatic difference, no river, no range of mountains, only an imaginary line, on one side of which they paid 9s. 7d. and on the other 20s. 9d. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He did not know; he was asking for information. The right hon. Gentleman said the matter was complex. He had inquired into this subject, and he had read the big report of about 1,000 pages as well as he could, and he could find no reason why Lanarkshire, particularly in the thinly populated portion of it which he represented, should get 9s. 7d., while Peebles got 20s. 9. It might be that he had approached the subject from a personal point of view in. connection with his constituency, but if a man could not speak for his own constituency, whatever constituency was he to speak for? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give this aspect of the question his serious consideration, and give them some reasons why the money was so divided.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Gentleman had given them the particulars and circumstances of his own constituency, and it was, of course, the case that that part of Lanarkshire which he represented was dissimilar in character from the rest of the county in a very marked degree.

171
Under the power which at present existed, and which was given by Parliament, it was quite possible to reconstitute at some later date the district committees which were entrusted with the distribution of these funds, and it would be quite possible to consider whether the special circumstances of a district such as South Lanarkshire were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a special district committee for that special district. In the meantime they had to deal with the machinery at present in operation in Scotland, and he was asked to say a word on a scheme of distribution which had been put forward as likely to be adopted under this Bill. He asked the House to note that the scheme itself did not form part of this clause. They had had a very full discussion of the matter in Committee. He would not quarrel with the narration which had been given of the discussions or of the actions of the Government in this respect in regard to the two different illustrative proposals which had been put before the Scottish Members of the Grand Committee. Let it be noted also, that after a very full examination no new circumstance had been put before the House which was not present to the Committee, except possibly some local characteristics if the hon. Gentleman's own constituency.
MR. J. M. MACDONALD: I think my right hon. friend is wrong. It is our contention that the districts benefited are not necessitous in the sense in which they were said to be necessitous when the scheme was before the Committee.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that might be the hon. Member's contention, but the facts were before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman might not take the view of the facts which the Government did, but the facts were there for him to judge of just as he could judge of them now. After very full discussion the Committee accepted the scheme of the Government unanimously. It was perfectly obvious to the Committee that the distribution of money on the first principle was absolutely impossible, and any scheme which deprived the existing local authorities of their present resources, and obliged them to curtail the education they were
172
giving, possibly to shut up schools or to discontinue classes, was quite impossible of acceptance. Local authorities in the first place had undertaken obligations to provide certain facilities for education. It was quite impossible that Parliament should step in and take away from them the resources upon which those facilities rested. If it was a good thing to do educationally there would be very strong Parliamentary opposition to it, and quite rightly in his opinion, because it would be a very false educational standard. Therefore, any scheme which did not guarantee to existing local authorities the resources which they at present employed for education was out of the question. That obliged them to curtail the application of the principle mentioned in the clause, because that was a full application of the principle to the whole sum at their disposal. Therefore they were obliged to modify, as he thought was the practical commonsense view of it, the application of the principle of the Bill, and instead of applying that principle to the whole sum they applied it to only a part of the sum. They applied the remaining part of the money exactly on the principle which one hon. Member had quoted, and which would be applied in respect of average attendance, or, what was much the same thing, to the population of the district. They went very far to meet their few critics. They still maintained by their scheme the application to a part of this money of the principle contained in the subsection. They were bound to do that. It was proper to do it from an educational point of view to aid the poorer districts. This money was obtained from the Treasury on the understanding that the money was wanted to develop education in the poorer districts of the country. The scheme of distribution had been announced, but it was not in its final form. Provision was made in this very paragraph of the Bill for the publication from time to time of a Minute setting forth the scheme of distribution of money available to this Education (Scotland) Fund. The first Minute would appear as soon as they knew the sums available under these various grants next year. They were obliged to be sure of the amounts which would become due and payable under the grants next year

173
before they could draw up the Minute. That delay gave a margin of time for consideration. He gave the assurance in the most clear and distinct terms that they were perfectly ready to consider any views and suggestions and proposals which were made to them between now and the time when the Minute had to be published provided these proposed modifications secured to each local authority not less money than they got at present, and that they secured for their proposals greater general assent than was secured by the scheme as it at present stood.
MR. PIRIEsaid that to a certain extent perhaps the House might consider the statement of the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory, but he expressed regret that he did not hold out some hope of modification at an earlier stage. At the last moment they were told the scheme was not absolutely final.
MR. SINCLAIR: It never was final in that sense.
MR. PIRIEsaid it was not generally understood so. That just showed the terrible danger, which every Scottish member must realise existed in the proceedings of the Scottish Committee, which were not known or realised in Scotland; so much so, that two deputations had waited on the right hon. Gentleman quite lately from educational authorities in Scotland directly opposed to this allocation, which they considered as intended to be final. He had met a member of the last deputation on its return to Scotland, and heard that all they obtained was a direct refusal, that there was no argument, and that the Secretary for Scotland talked round the question quite apart from meeting it in argument, and they went back more forlorn than when they came. It must be clearly understood that within a reasonable time they should have an opportunity of discussing the Minute which the right hon. Gentleman now promised, and that the Education Vote, not the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, should come on the first of Scottish Estimates next year. He had to regret that the second scheme of the right hon. Gentleman did not secure the desired result, but before passing
174
from it there were peculiarities, some of which had already been referred to, which deserved to be brought before the people of Scotland. It was only in that House on Report that they had any chance at all of speaking to the people of Scotland, and he refused to have his time restricted by threats that the Bill would not be passed. The result of the second allocation was lucky for certain constituencies, but unlucky for others, and though he did not in any way allude to the results as being in any way desired results, as another hon. Member had done, he did characterise them as regrettable and unsatisfactory. The Secretary for War was a great educational authority. He had wanted to discuss his views on Scottish education before now, but he had not had a chance. He hoped to have it on the Third Reading. But anyhow Haddington was to receive under the first allocation, £2,800. Under the second scheme it received £4,300. Perthshire, also represented by a front bench Member, was to receive £8,800, and it now received £14,600. Roxburgh was to receive £2,800 under the first scheme and £5,400 under the second. Edinburgh, which was closely allied by official connection with the hon. and learned Gentleman who represented parts of Roxburghshire, received £6,000 more under the new scheme than under the old. Such a state of things ought never to have been introduced except on a basis of clear principle laid down beforehand, and they were not doing their duty unless they took every opportunity of showing the people of Scotland that such a proposition was wrong. They wanted to have a radical change, and make sure that they would have their rights, and that they would have full discussion, and not a hole-and-corner discussion such as they had had in Committee, with no reporters and half the Members away on other Committees and other official duties. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that they as the House should not reverse the decision of the Scottish Committee. He was a strong advocate of the creation of these Scottish Committees on certain lines, but it was an evil day for Scotland—
MR. SPEAKER: This is quite beside the mark.
MR. PIRIEsaid he only brought it forward in answer to the argument of the Secretary for Scotland that it was settled by the Scottish Committee and that the House should have nothing more to do with it. He did not think it was necessary for his hon. friend to go to a division, because there were only about fifty or sixty Members present, although 200 or 300 hon. Members would come trooping in at the sound of the division bell and would vote according to the order of the Government Whips without knowing what had taken place in the debate. Therefore he would ask the hon. Member who moved this Amendment to be satisfied if he could get an assurance that this matter would be brought up on the Scottish Estimates.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that before the Amendment was withdrawn he should like to have it clearly stated whether he was right in assuming that this was not in any sense of the word a permanent scheme. Were they to understand that, apart from the necessity of safeguarding the various district authorities in regard to spending, no other vested interest was going to be acquired under this scheme?
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that followed from what he had said.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no new matter had been imported since they discussed this question in Committee, and that it was a blessed thing to have a principle to work upon.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he did not say that.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a great deal of advantage in working on a principle. When the Committee came to a decision upon this scheme, it was largely the direct result of the speech which the Lord Advocate made, and in the course of that speech, in advocating the second scheme, he said he did so—
"in order to help densely-populated places where there was not a large valuation. The
176
object was to get hold of the necessitous districts and relieve the populous districts which needed a great deal of money but which could not levy rates because they were so high already."
Since then, hon. Members had had an opportunity of going into the facts, and as regarded the districts which benefited under the scheme, out of twenty-two, eighteen, or 80 per cent. were not necessitous districts but areas where the school rate at the present moment was under the average for Scotland. In only four districts was the rate over the average, and in none was it more than about a halfpenny over the average for Scotland. Taking the districts which were prejudicially affected, of the whole seventeen no less than eleven, or 64 per cent., had got school rates in excess of the average for Scotland, and in some cases the rate was so high that it was something over 4½d. He thought it was time to revise the ideas upon which they arrived at a state of acquiescence in this scheme. If they worked out the figures they would find that these proposals would not hold water. The scheme might be justifiable from the point of view of expediency, but from the point of view of principle it was impossible to justify it. This scheme was so illogical that some districts where they had a high valuation, a low rate, and a small population would get more than districts in which they had a low valuation and a high rate and a large population. Any scheme which gave such results as those was illogical and could not be permanent. In fact, from the point of view of principle the system was entirely indefensible.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONinvited hon. Members whose constituencies would get large grants to exercise a little forbearance with those districts which would suffer under this distribution Although it was quite true that the distribution was not final, everyone admitted that it was one which was very powerfully supported by his right hon. friend and other promoters of the Bill. It seemed difficult to see how it could be modified or altered, so thoroughly had it been considered, and so impossible was it to reduce the allowance already given. He was not at all sure that with respect to the necessitous allowances

177
to some educational authorities there should not be some reduction of the amount given. He did not admit that that was impossible. He had known cases where the education grants were excessive as compared with what other education districts were receiving, and in such cases it was just to reduce those grants. It was indeed one of the things perpetuated under this Bill that there would continue to be an unequal incidence of the education rate. Therefore, this clause dealing with the distribution ought to be recast. The principle laid down was an admirable one, and they were all carried away with it on the Committee, but when it was said that no new facts had been elicited, he did not agree with that statement. Many facts had been elicited, not only since the Bill was in Committee, but since it had entered upon the Report stage. This scheme could never stand. He was not raising the question of his own constituency in comparison with Edinburgh, because the result was sufficiently obvious, but on the general principle laid down, and taking the general results, they were not only entirely antagonistic to the principle, but they would never be accepted by the majority of the people of Scotland. He did not think that much further discussion was required, because the Government had to reckon not with the House of Commons but with the constituencies in this matter, and they would insist upon a fair distribution in consonance with the general principles which had been laid down. Those principles could not be improved upon, but the principle of this distribution might be summed up in the words: "To him that hath shall be given even more abundantly." That was a principle which would not be popular in Scotland, and would not be accepted in this Bill.
MR. J. M. MACDONALDthought it would be for the convenience of the House if he withdrew his Amendment. He accepted the assurances given by the Secretary for Scotland, and he begged leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MENZIESmoved to leave out from the words "the districts" to
178
the end of the clause, and to insert the words "so as to give an equal amount, for every child in average attendance at their respective school or schools, to all school boards and other managers of State-aided schools, but that only after reservation of the sum of £25,000 to be given, at the absolute discretion of the Department, to necessitous schools or schools in thinly populated districts." This Bill proposed an unequal distribution of the money. He had no doubt whatever that the Secretary for Scotland and his draftsmen could draw up something better than the words of his Amendment, but he would be quite satisfied if he could get the substance of his proposal adopted by the Government. He had placed the sum at £25,000 for the necessitous schools, but if the Government suggested £26,000 or £27,000 or even £23,000 he would be quite agreeable to accept such a proposal. They could not change all the anomalies of the distribution which had been going on for years, and they could not abolish those anomalies without hurting somebody. Those districts were treated generously by the Department at the expense of the other districts, which only got about half. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give this scheme of equality some consideration. He was quite willing to accept the words of the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had given notice. He begged to move.
MR. DUNDAS WHITEin seconding the Amendment, said it seemed to him that some clear directions from the House ought to be given as to the principle on which such a large sum of money should be distributed, and that it should not be left to the sweet will of the Department. The Department had put forward a scheme which seemed to rest on no clear principle whatever. He would not quarrel with it if it worked well, but his point was that it did not work well. For example, Kincardineshire got at the rate of 15s. and Peebles-shire over 20s. per child in average attendance, while the industrial counties of Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton got under 10s. per child in average attendance. It seemed to him that these

179
industrial centres, in many places overcrowded, ought to receive much fairer and more generous treatment than they were receiving under the scheme. The scheme which he and his friends were putting forward was that the number of children in average attendance at the schools should be subject to two qualifications. The first was that £25,000 a year should be set aside for specially necessitous districts, and the other was that no district should receive less than it was at present receiving, subject to the general qualification that the arrangement was sound in principle and would work well in practice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 21, to leave out from the word 'district,' to end of clause, and to insert the words, 'so as to give an equal amount, for every child in average attendance at their respective school or schools, to all school boards and other managers of State-aided schools, but that only after reservation of the sum of twenty-five thousand pounds to be given, at the absolute discretion of the Department, to necessitous schools or schools in thinly-populated districts.'"—(Mr. Menzies.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'in,' in line 24, stand part of the Bill.'"
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the local authorities were, under the Bill, to get their share of the grant not as charity but of right. The hon. Member proposed to reserve £25,000. He himself was perfectly confident that such a distribution would not be in accordance with the general desire of the people of Scotland. What the local authorities wanted was to know what they would be sure to get, and not to be under the apprehension that, having the right to certain moneys, they could not depend upon them in future. That was an insuperable objection to accepting the Amendment. All these suggestions were fully examined and considered. He appealed to his hon. friend not to press the Amendment. The views of Members representing various constituencies were before the Government, and they would be carefully considered.
MR. MENZIESsaid that on the understanding that this would receive
180
consideration he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MORTONwho had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words, "in accordance with a scheme of allocation prepared by the Department," and to insert the words, "a fixed grant to be allocated to each county in the first place, the balance to be distributed according to population or in some other equitable manner," said that Sutherland was one of the counties which apparently under all the scales would suffer a diminution of what they at present earned. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Department would not be bound by the scale mentioned and that in no case would they get less money than they were getting this current year, and that in all human probability, they must get more, as there would be more money to distribute. Under those circumstances, and being anxious that the Bill should be passed, he did not desire to move this Amendment.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved an Amendment which, he said, was designed to give something of a safeguard in the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'which scheme shall be laid before Parliament,' and to insert the words 'Provided that such scheme shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament if Parliament be sitting, or, if not, then within three weeks after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within one month, exclusive of any period of prorogation, after a scheme has been laid before it, presents an address praying the King to withhold his assent from such scheme or any part thereof, it shall be lawful for the King in Council by Order to approve the same or any part thereof to which such address does not relate. The presentation of an address as aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the making of a further scheme under the like procedure. (4) A scheme under this section may be amended by a subsequent scheme made under the like procedure. (5) Any scheme approved by Order in Council under this section shall, as from the date prescribed in such Order, be of the same force as if it were enacted in this Act.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 14, line 40, after the word 'parents,' to insert the words 'or guardians.'"
"In page 15, line 9, to leave out from the word 'of,' to end of line 10, and to insert the words 'income from all sources other than from school rate.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONrose to move, in page 15, line 9, to leave out from the word "income," to end of subsection, and insert the words "from fees and from grants made by the Department, which grants shall be paid on the annual average attendance of all scholars enrolled in these schools, provided that a course approved by the Department is followed by the majority of the pupils and that a full and definite course of secondary education is substituted for such as do not follow it."
MR. SINCLAIRasked whether the Amendment was in order. It was an instruction as to the disposal of a Treasury Grant, which did not come out of the Scottish fund at all.
MR. SPEAKER: I think that is so. We cannot deal with that on Report.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONmoved to insert, at the end of line 10, the words "except burghs and parishes which have made provision for their own scholars." He said the Amendment referred to an educational hardship which would result from the clause as it stood. Some Leith children went to Edinburgh High School, at a cost of £10 to £12 per head, and others went to Trinity Academy, at a cost of less than £3 per head. It seemed to him rather hard that the cost of children belonging to parents with social aspirations who attended Edinburgh High School, which had great educational traditions, should fall upon the poorer population of Leith, possibly dock labourers out of employment. Why should they have to contribute towards the cost of the education of the Leith child at the Edinburgh High School, amounting to between £10 and £12 in the course of the year? It was hard that they should have to pay for that child four times what the cost would be at Trinity Academy.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 15, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'except burghs and parishes which have made provision for their own scholars.'"—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that under the whole system of education in Scotland parents could not be compelled to send their children to any particular school. There was no such obligation in any preceding Education Act. The grievance to which reference had been made was not so bad as the hon. Gentleman made out. The cost of secondary education did not fall on the rates; it was provided for from other funds. In the second place, by this Bill, as his hon. friend knew, the burden of secondary education was laid not upon a particular parish, but on the district as a whole by a system of contributions from the school boards of outside districts which sent some children to the secondary school, and by the provision of bursaries. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he would not press the Amendment, but as the people of Leith found that they would have a hard case under the Bill he had brought it up.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 15, line 20, to leave out the word 'fund,' and to insert the word 'board.'"
"In page 15, line 21, after the word 'maintenance,' to insert the words 'after deduction of income from grants made by the Department or from fees, and of any sum paid to the school board under the immediately preceding subsection.'"
"In page 16, line 21, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'or, in circumstances approved by the Department, at a supplementary course of not less than three years duration conducted in accordance with Article 21 of the Code of regulations for day schools of 1908 or under other regulations of the Department that may come in place thereof.'"
"In page 16, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'or training college.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that the Amendment standing in his name

183
to insert in Clause 16, after the word "board" the words "or the managers of any inspected school," was to meet another special case, that of Spier's School at Beith. That school was made a central institution for the training of junior students by the Scottish Education Department. It was governed by a body of el ven managers, of whom seven were elected by the school boards of the district, and these were called upon by the Department to increase their accommodation in order that they might receive the additional grant. The managers spent £4,500 in providing an admirable science and art equipment; and what they desired was that there should be some power by which this school, and others similarly situated, should get back some part of the capital expenditure on equipment in the same way as by subsection (8) of the clause school boards got contributions in aid of capital expenditure for class-rooms, laboratories, etc. He thought an economic way of providing for this class of education should be encouraged, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to add these words to the clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, line 26, after the word 'board,' to insert the words "or the managers of any inspected school.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he had no doubt that Spier's School was doing most excellent work, but the difficulty of accepting the Amendment was that it would give a grant-in-aid of capital expenditure to increase the value of property held by private persons. He was sorry that that was a principle to which it was not possible to assent.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended the case. There were eleven governors of this school, only one of whom was nominated and eleven were elected by school boards.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. There might be a large share of representation
184
in the management of the school, but that did not alter the fact that the Amendment would involve the making of a grant-in-aid of capital expenditure on what was private property.
Amendment negatived.
MR. R. DUNCANmoved to add to the end of subsection (1) of Clause 20 the words: "Provided always that it shall not be competent under this section to annex a school board district having a population of over fifty thousand to an adjacent school board district unless the districts concerned are agreed in desiring such union." The object of this Amendment was to prevent the abuse of the system by which a school board might induce the Department to annex an adjacent school board against the wish of the latter. He represented a school board district with a population of 250,000 which had shown a progressive spirit ever since its establishment in 1872. Their school board was admitted to be one of the best in Scotland and they naturally wished to be safeguarded against a possible arbitrary Order from the Department to be united with the School Board of Glasgow. Unless both the school boards desired to be united it should not be done. He begged to move.
MR. WATTseconded the Amendment, which, he said, limited the power of the Department and made it essential that before one school board could annex another that adjacent board should give its consent. Large districts were apt to swallow up the small fry of neighbouring districts, as the city of Edinburgh had repeatedly endeavoured to swallow up Leith, and Glasgow, Govan.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 19, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided always that it shall not be competent under this section to annex a school board district having a population of over fifty thousand to an adjacent school board district unless the districts concerned are agreed in desiring such union.'"—(Mr. Robert Duncan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that this Amendment really only applied to Govan and he did not think that Govan would like to be called small fry, as had been suggested by the seconder. He could assure the hon. Member for Govan that he need have no apprehension in regard to the Govan School Board being united to the Glasgow district. He thought it would be undesirable specially to safeguard in a Bill of this kind a very large district such as Govan, which was perfectly able to take care of itself.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid as the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had satisfied themselves on this matter, it would be captious on his part not to accept the explanations. He would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. YOUNGERasked whether, in the case of the absorption of one school board by another under this clause, there were any safeguards as to the emoluments, etc., of the officials of the absorbed school board.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid an hon. Member had an Amendment down on that point, and the question had better be discussed upon it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SINCLAIR, speaking in regard to an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Cochrane, safeguarding the interests of the officials of the school boards in the event of an order uniting them being made, said that in the opinion of his advisers these officials were provided for, but he would reconsider the matter, as he desired to act in the spirit of the lines of the Amendment, and if it was necessary he would introduce a further provision.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that, of course, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he should not move the Amendment, but he would rather like the right hon. Gentleman to say how he proposed to give effect to his promise. There was
186
a power in the Bill to unite parishes and officials might be displaced. He had not been able to ascertain whether anything would be done for them, and he, therefore, put down this Amendment, which he had taken from the Local Government Act of 1889, adjusting it to meet the needs of the various classes. He thought some similar clause should be put in to safeguard the rights of the teachers. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly seized of the point, and wished he had been able to put the Amendment down sooner, so that he might have been able to consider it.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he should like to have a free hand as to the way in which he dealt with the question if it was necessary. At present he was advised it was not necessary. Passing from that subject, he wished to move an Amendment omitting subsection (2) and introducing another dealing with the question of audit. A good deal of discussion, he said, had taken place on that subject since the Committee stage of the Bill, and therefore he proposed his Amendment which was now upon the Paper. The first Amendment which appeared on the Paper was that in the name of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. That Amendment was very long, and practically restated the system which they had embodied in the Bill, by transferring a large portion of the Schedule into the actual substance of the Bill, and it provided for an appeal to the Court of Session, which was to be an appeal by a person aggrieved by the surcharge. The Government were very anxious to meet all reasonable criticism to their proposal. The House would see that there were Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs to this Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, and the real substantive portion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs lay in the paragraph which dealt with the question of surcharge. The hon. Member proposed to insert—
"And in the event of any expenditure of the same nature as the payment so disallowed being incurred by the school board in any subsequent year, the Department if they shall be of opinion that the members authorising

187
such expenditure should be surcharged, may present a petition to either division of the Court of Session, craving to have such expenditure declared illegal, and the said members of the school board ordained to refund the amount of such expenditure in the event of it being declared illegal, and the Court shall before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of said proceedings shall be payable by said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just."
His hon. friend proposed that the Government should make it perfectly clear and explicit that there should be a dispensing power in the Department in regard to a first offence, so to speak, or the first illegal expenditure, and, as he himself said in Committee, frequently an expenditure of this kind might be incurred perfectly innocently, without any mala fides in the matter, and it had never been the practice of the Department to disallow any such payment. The hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs made this perfectly explicit in the Amendment which he had introduced to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. That was his first point. His second point was that the Department should not have the power to surcharge itself, but if it wished to surcharge, it must go to the Court of Session, thereby laying the burden of determining upon that Court. The Department would have to go to the Court of Session and get the sanction of that Court to surcharge. He had had opportunities of consulting various bodies of critics of the original proposals of the Government as they were now contained in the Bill, on the subject of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs, and he had received assurances from them that the hon. Gentleman's proposal as amending that of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire met their views sufficiently, and thus bearing in mind the point of view of the Department, and the point of view of Scottish education, he had put down in his own name the Amendment which he now moved. It appeared a very long Amendment, but it was simply an embodiment of what the two hon. Gentleman he had mentioned just now proposed, and made one consistent Amendment, and showed the scheme of audit and surcharge which
188
the Government now proposed to the Committee. He thought he need not say anything more at the moment to explain further that system, but he hoped, as there was good ground for believing, that it met with approval outside the House, it might be equally fortunate to meet with approval inside it. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 21, line 7, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following: (2) The following regulations with respect to audit shall be observed (that is to say) (a) Before each audit the clerk of the school board shall, after receiving from the accountant of the Department the requisite appointment, give at least fourteen days notice in such manner as shall be prescribed from time to time, of the time and place at which the audit will be made, and of the deposit of accounts required by this section, and of the name and address of the accountant of the Department; (b) An abstract in duplicate of the accounts, duly made up, balanced, and signed as aforesaid, shall, together with all assessment books, account books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, and receipts mentioned or referred to in such accounts, be deposited in the offices of the school board and be open between the hours of eleven forenoon and three afternoon to the inspection of all ratepayers within the district of the school board liable to contribute to the school fund, as hereinbefore provided, for seven clear days before the audit, and all such persons shall be at liberty to take copies of or extcrats from the same, without any fee; and any officer of the school board duly appointed in that behalf refusing to allow inspection thereof shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, (c) For the purpose of any audit under this Act the accountant of the Department may, by demand in writing, require the production before him of all books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, receipts, and other documents and papers which he may deem necessary, and may require any person holding the same, or accountable therefor, to appear before him at any such audit, or any adjournment thereof, and to make and sign a declaration as to the correctness of the same; and if such person neglects or refuses so to appear, or to produce any such books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, receipts, documents, or papers, or to make or sign such declaration, he shall incur for every neglect or refusal a penalty not exceeding forty shillings; and if he falsely or corruptly makes or signs any such declaration, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, he shall be liable to the penalties inflicted on persons guilty of perjury. (d) Any ratepayer may make any objection to such accounts or any part thereof, and shall transmit the same and the grounds thereof in writing to the accountant of the Department, and a copy thereof to the officer concerned, two clear days before the time fixed for the audit, and any ratepayer may be present at the audit

189
and may support any objection made as hereinbefore provided either by himself or by any ratepayer, (e) If it shall appear to the accountant of the Department acting in pursuance of this section that any payment is in his opinion contrary to law and should be disallowed, or that any sum which in his opinion ought to have been, is not brought into account by any person, whether such payment or failure to account has been made matter of objection or not, he shall, by an Interim Report under his hand, report thereon to the Department setting forth the grounds of his opinion as aforesaid, and the Department shall cause such Interim Report to be intimated to the objector, if any, and to the officer or other person affected thereby; and after due inquiry the Department shall decide all questions raised by such Interim Report, and shall disallow all illegal payments, and shall allow all sums which ought to have been but have not been brought into account, and, in the event of any expenditure, of the same nature as any payment so disallowed being incurred by the school board in any subsequent year, the Department, if they should be of opinion that the members authorising such expenditure should be surcharged, may present a petition to either Division of the Court of Session craving to have such expenditure declared illegal and the said members of the school board ordained to refund the amount of such expenditure in the event of it being declared illegal; and the Court shall, before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition, consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of the said proceedings shall be payable by the said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just. (f) Within fourteen days after the completion of the audit, or, as the case may be, after any proceedings under the immediately preceding paragraph of this subsection have been disposed of, the accountant of the Department shall report on the accounts audited, and shall certify on each duplicate abstract thereof the amount in words at length of the expenditure so audited and allowed, and further that the regulations with respect to the accounts have been complied with, and that he has ascertained by the audit the correctness of the accounts. He shall forthwith send one duplicate abstract of the accounts hereinbefore mentioned to the school board, who shall cause the same to be deposited in their office, and shall publish such abstract in the form prescribed in some one or more of the newspapers circulating in the district of the school board. The accountant of the Department shall also forthwith send the other duplicate abstract of the accounts so certified by him to the Department. Provided that, if the Secretary for Scotland shall so determine, such abstract may come in place of and render unnecessary a return of the receipts and expenditure of the school board in pursuance of the Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881. (g) Where any surcharge has been made as hereinbefore provided, or the accountant of the Department has made any interim Report or Report respecting the accounts or the receipts and expenses of the school board, the school board shall cause the
190
surcharge and Interim Report or Report to be printed and published together with the abstract of their accounts hereinbefore mentioned, and to be delivered to any ratepayer, as in this section mentioned, who asks for the same, and in case of default in such publication the Department may cause the same to be published, and the cost of such publication, to the amount certified by the Department, shall be a debt due from the school board to His Majesty, and the clerk of the school board shall be liable in case of default in such publication to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds. (h) Notwithstanding any thing in this section the Department may by minute prescribe rules modifying any enactment contained in this subsection as to the time and place of audit.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEsaid that his Amendment had been upon the Paper for some considerable time and he certainly felt somewhat prejudiced by the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment which he had put down would have been very conveniently discussed had it been taken in its original form and the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs could then have been discussed on their merits. But the right hon. Gentleman had taken a course which he occasionally adopted; he had thought fit to adopt his Amendment and put down one of his own which had precedence, and prevented him from discussing his own proposal. That, however, was merely a trifling matter and he had to deal with the substance of the proposal. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, his Amendment was somewhat lengthy, but the same criticism applied to that of the right hon. Gentleman. He put down his proposal because he desired that the Bill should be intelligible to the ordinary person, but the Bill as drafted by the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Local Government Act of 1889, and then other words were substituted for the words of that statute. That was a very clumsy and confusing way of carrying out the proposal, and he thought he would embody a clause in the Bill so that "he who runs may read." That was the only answer he would make to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that his Amendment was somewhat

191
lengthy. When they came to the substance of the two proposals he preferred his solution to that of the right hon. Gentleman's. In the first place they wanted to safeguard the bona fide school board, who would have many difficulties under this Bill. He wanted the House to see that the Department should give them that assistance which they were entitled to claim, so that when some new expenditure arose they would know how to keep in the right path. He had put down another Amendment on line 30 to which he wished to allude as part of his speech. That provided that any particular board or any member who was anxious to know whether they might incur an expenditure might apply to the accountant of the Department, and if he said it was legal no surcharge would arise. That he thought was a commonsense, wise provision. He had not mentioned the Secretary for Scotland as the official of whom the inquiry should be made, because if the right hon. Gentleman was to be the authority to determine the question, and there was an appeal through him to the Court of Session, such a course would have placed him in rather an impossible position, so he was obliged to make the person who would give the opinion whether it was or was not illegal, the accountant of the Department. If he declared that it was illegal it was then provided that the person interested might appeal either to the Court of Session or to the Secretary for Scotland. He thought that was a very complete scheme. What they wanted to prevent was misappropriation and illegal payments, but where a bona fide mistake was made they wished that there should be this dispensing power on the part of the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with this matter by leaving out certain words and saying: "There shall be no surcharge on the first illegal" payment. That seemed to him rather to encourage illegal payments. How did the right hon. Gentleman justify his proposition? The first payment might be for a very large amount, but he condoned that offence. Such a way of dealing with the matter opened the door to a very undesirable state of things, nor was it consistent with the
192
other parts of the clause. Because in Section (d) it said—
"Any ratepayer may make any objection to such accounts or any part thereof."
What object could there be in the objection if there was to be no surcharge?
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the Department had no power to surcharge at present, it had only power to disallow certain expenditure. In future they would have power.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that at present the ratepayers might call attention to illegal payments, and there might be a surcharge but under this proposed clause, they might object to the payments, but could do nothing further. What was to take place after the objection? Here again the right hon. Gentleman had placed his Department in a difficult position. There was no surcharge on the first illegal payment. What was to happen on the second? The accountant of the right hon. Gentleman having already declared a payment to be illegal the right hon. Gentleman had to go to law to see if his accountant's opinion was right or not. The right hon. Gentleman had not improved his Bill by this clause. On the other hand, the Amendment which he himself had placed upon the Paper had the sanction of considerable precedent. It was adopted under the Act of 1902 in England, a most masterly work, which had adopted it from the Public Health Act of 1875. Under that provision any aggrieved persons who considered they had been unjustly surcharged, might appeal to the Queen's Bench Division, or to the Local Government Board. They nearly always appealed to the Local Government Board, because that Department had a power of dispensation. His Amendment would give the appeal to the Court of Session or the Secretary for Scotland, and the only objection he had heard to the appeal was on the ground of expense. But any aggrieved school board that desired to avoid expense had only to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought the payment one that might be justified, he could dispense with the

193
surcharge. He ventured to think his proposal met the situation, and that the right hon. Gentleman's was far from meeting it. He was placed in a somewhat awkward position, because with a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's clause he agreed, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman's method of getting out of the difficulty of the audit was the least possible one that could be devised.
SIR GEORGE MCCRAEdid not, having regard to the compromise offered by the right hon. Gentleman, intend to move his Amendment. At the same time he thought it would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment adopting the Town Council Act of 1900, on the ground of uniformity. He was now laying down a new procedure with regard to audit. The Report of the Committee on Municipal Trading, presided over by Lord Crewe, laid it down that a surcharge was no protection, and in his view it was better to leave the matter to public opinion and the Law Courts than to attempt to enforce it in this way.
MR. YOUNGERsaid the question of the surcharge was one he supposed strongly in Committee, and the school boards with which he was connected had agreed to his supporting the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, subject to there being an appeal of some kind against the autocratic power of the Department. He agreed that there should be an alternative appeal, but at the same time he thought the appeal to the Court of Session was too expensive. He, as a school board manager, would be much more satisfied in ordinary cases to take his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman than to the Court of Session or any other Court. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept some Amendment to provide for an appeal. He had grave doubts as to the dispensing power which the right hon. Gentleman took. He believed it would take away the rights of the ratepayers of taking legal remedies. It was extremely unwise to put a power of this kind into an Act of Parliament and prevent the rights of ratepayers being
194
exercised. Those rights ought to be protected.
MR. SINCLAIR: I am advised it does not take away those rights, and it is the intention of the Government that it shall not do so. It is our intention to affirm that more clearly.
MR. YOUNGERsaid if that was so he would pursue that point no further. There was one other objection. The first offence was condoned, and the second offence was to be surcharged. If the first offence was the supply of luncheons, and the second the supply of dinners, they were not the same offence. Were the first and second offences to be of a like character, or were they not? That was a matter the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having afforded him an opportunity of justifying the action that he had taken, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow an alternative appeal to himself.
MR. SMEATONrose to ask two questions. The right hon. Gentleman desired the appeal to be presented to the Court of Session—a most convenient tribunal for the Department, because the Court held its sittings in Edinburgh, where the Department had its branch offices. At the same time the inconvenience to the school boards, he would imagine, would be great, and the expense of an appeal to the Court of Session would be far greater than an appeal to the Sheriff Court. Why should not the appeal be to the Sheriff Court? The next question he wished to ask was with regard to the payment of costs—
"And the Court shall, before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition, consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of the said proceedings shall be payable by the said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just.'"
What about the expenses incurred by the school board when the Department failed? Was the school board to pay in any event?
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was acceptable as to all the larger boards, but

195
as to the smaller ones, he thought that something was to be said for the modification which had been suggested, because the expense of going to the Court of Session would be considerable. It would be rather hard upon them to have the Court of Session flourished in their face by the Education Department who raised the question of surcharge. While he was quite ready to accept the Secretary for Scotland's proposal as regarded the larger boards he thought that there ought to be some modification in reference to the smaller boards.
THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,)said the point raised was well worthy of consideration, as was that put by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. The cases would not be many and would arise mostly where there had been some error in law. It was most desirable to have such cases dealt with by the highest judicial authority so that their decision would be applicable to every school board in Scotland. He would point out that they might get an excellent decision by the sheriff in one county while in another they might get a sheriff's judgment which would necessitate the whole case being tried over again.
MR. RAINYsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper which he had put down because he had taken into consideration the question of expense, but after the explanation of the Lord-Advocate he did not propose to move it.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that it might be in the power of the Education Board to drag any one of the 972 school boards in Scotland before the Court of Session. If the school board happened to be right, who was to pay the board's expenses?
MR. THOMAS SHAWwas understood to say that in the Scottish Department they were not troubled about the question of costs.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. JAMES HOPEwho had given notice of the following
196
Amendment to Clause 21—"to leave out from 'Department,' to end of subsection, and insert 'and any sum not shown to the Department to have been properly expended in giving instruction required or permitted by minute of the Department in force for the time being shall be deducted from the next grant payable to the school'"—said it raised a drafting point. As he read the words of subsection (3), the result of them was that the unfortunate managers of these schools would not be able to get any money paid to them until it had been shown that it had been properly expended, and the consequence would be that they might have to go on without it for many months. That he submitted was the construction of the words. He thought that if there was any doubt about them at all they ought to be set right When he raised the point in Committee the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider it, and he believed that the alternative words which he now suggested would perfectly carry out the intention which they had in view.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Member's Amendment was not necessary. The words in the Bill would be better left as they were. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no such ill consequences as he anticipated would follow. He had made inquiries on the point and could give him that assurance.
MR. JAMES HOPE: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is assured that there will be no such result as I have suggested?
MR. SINCLAIR: Yes.
MR. JAMES HOPE: In that case I do not move.
MR. COCHRANEin moving an Amendment providing that school boards might apply to the Accountant of the Scottish Education Department for advice as to expenditure to be incurred, said the object which he had in view was that school boards should be entitled to ask the advice of the Accountant of the Department as to whether any

197
item of expenditure which they proposed to incur was legal or illegal. He thought it desirable that a school board, if it was anxious to know whether it could incur any particular expenditure, such, for instance, as the feeding of school children, or any other point, should have the opportunity of applying to the Department for advice and assistance in the matter. Although the Department were undoubtedly very courteous, yet if any one approached them as to a point such as those to which he had referred, they invariably answered that it was a legal question and they were not qualified to give a reply. But the Accountant of the Department would surely have to decide whether an expenditure was legal or not, and if he were asked beforehand, he could give an opinion on the matter. His desire was that the Accountant's power to do so should be expressed in the Bill, thus giving the school boards the right to ask for an opinion before entering upon any expenditure which they had in contemplation, and about which they were in doubt.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 21, line 30, at end, to insert the words '(4) Any school board shall be entitled to make application to the Accountant of the Department respecting any expenditure which they may propose to incur. If such expenditure receives the sanction of the Accountant of the Department it shall not subsequently be regarded as an illegal payment liable to be disallowed or surcharged on the person or persons making such payment.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. It was a common practice for school boards to write asking the Department their view on a particular expenditure about which they had doubt, and the Department gave such answer as was in their power. But the Department could not take the responsibility of interpreting the law in some particular respect. Of course the present practice would continue, for there was no desire on the part of the Department to discourage the applications of school boards for help and guidance such as the Department could give. This Amendment was
198
part of the hon. Gentleman's own scheme, but there was difficulty in accepting it, because neither the Accountant nor the Department could give a decision as to the legality of a payment; that duty rested with the Court, and it would be very difficult for the Accountant or the Department to give advice, however willing they might be to do so, on some point of an intricate nature. Otherwise, they might express an opinion which afterwards proved to be contrary to the decision of the Court. He thought that on the whole the Bill would be better without the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONthought that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the proposal of his hon. friend in view of the fact that it was the Accountant who now set the machinery of surcharge in motion. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the first words of the subsection he would see that they were—
"If it shall appear to the Accountant of the Department acting in pursuance of this section that any payment is, in his opinion, contrary to law, etc—"
He imagined that his hon. friend would really be satisfied if he could get that expression of opinion from the Accountant of the Department, not at the time when he was intervening and setting the machinery in motion for surcharge, but before the proposed expenditure was incurred.
MR. SINCLAIR: The hon. Gentleman attaches too much judicial weight to the Accountant's Department.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he could not agree with his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment, to which the answer was perfectly simple. The Accountant was not really an accountant in the ordinary sense. By the Act of 1872 the word "accountant" was applied to a man who was an auditor. Was it possible for a man who was an auditor as well as accountant to give an opinion beforehand as regarded the accounts? He remembered on one occasion, in connection with a large school, he asked the opinion of the auditor as to certain expenditure, and he received the reply, politely conveyed, that he was to use

199
his own judgment and that he would give his decision on that exercise of judgment afterwards.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that in all his experience he had never known of an Act of Parliament which provided that they should be told beforehand whether what they were doing was right or wrong. That was a thing which they must risk.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that local authorities constantly applied to the Local Government Board in Scotland for advice in similar circumstances to those he had in mind in connection with this proposal, and they always got a reply informing them whether a payment was legal or not. A great many of these 972 school boards were probably anxious to keep within the law, and if they could get advice by application to the Education Department it would make the matter easy for them. He, however, should not press his Amendment at that hour of the night, because there was a general understanding that they were to get the Bill through. He merely wanted the hon. Gentleman to understand that it was quite a sensible Amendment which might well have found a place in the Bill in order to keep small school boards in the right direction. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JAMES HOPEwho had given notice of his intention to move the omission of subsection (1) of Clause 22, said his only object in putting down his Amendment was to call attention to the inconsistency between adopting the loan system for the school board and not adopting it for big national works like Rosyth. He would not press the matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 22, line 31, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'at each election after the election taking place in the year nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrew† is beyond the scope of the Bill. By a side wind it would alter the system of local franchise.
MR. WATTmoved an Amendment which he said would have the effect of postponing the first election until 1911. At the last moment the Government had departed from their original position, and had gone back to the scheme of having the election in the spring of 1909. Preparations for such an election coming on so soon as April or May, 1909, would really be impossible. A roll had to be prepared, which took a very long time. November was the month usually allocated for the beginning of the making of the roll. That month was near its end already, and the Bill was not yet on the Statute-book. The preparation of the roll would be made more elaborate by the fact that under the Bill new electoral districts would be instituted by the Secretary for Scotland. In subsection (4) it was indicated that on the application of a school board the Department might divide a school board district into two or more electoral divisions, define the boundaries of such divisions, and fix the number of members. All these preparations had to be gone into before the rolls were elaborated and the election took place. On that account if on no other, it would be much wiser' to permit the present school boards to continue their existence until 1911, and thus bridge over the time. Under the Government scheme the school boards throughout Scotland would be elected in 1909, and would sit for two years. It was a well-known fact that even under the present law a new school board took at least a year to get into harness, and that with the changes brought about by this Bill the school boards would have much greater difficulty in getting to understand their work. The first year of these new boards would be spent in getting to
† The following is the Amendment referred to:—"In Clause 25, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, a married woman, otherwise possessing the qualification for being registered as an elector may be registered in respect of the same property as her husband; and.'"—(Mr. Laidlaw.)

201
know what they were to do. It was a notorious fact that during the last year of the lives of school boards they were in a condition of terror of the electorate whom they would have to meet, and they initiated very few new schemes. So that they would be deprived of the middle year of their lives when they really did some good for the country.
MR. PIRIE, in seconding, thought the House must be impressed by the reasonableness of the Amendment. Up to that morning it was the scheme in contemplation by the Government, so that there must be a great deal to be said for it. It was most dangerous in view of the new duties which would fall upon school boards that possibly a great number of men new to educational work might be elected to carry out these new regulations. It would be infinitely more judicious, and in the interests of educational efficiency, if the old members of the school boards had been allowed for the first two years to carry out the absolutely new methods which the Bill would bring into effect. He hoped, if the Government persisted in their attitude—
MR. YOUNGER: On a point of order, might I ask whether these words, having been inserted in the Bill on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, do not involve the necessity for an election in 1909?
ME. SPEAKER: I do not think so. Of course, it is a little involved, but the way I read it would be: "The electors in any election after the election taking place if there is one."
MR. YOUNGER: There is one by law now, and it must take place in 1909.
MR. PIRIEhoped, if the Government persisted in their attitude, the ratepayers would weigh the desirability of returning old members of the school boards to carry out entirely new duties. In any case it was desirable that the Amendment should be moved in order to get a full explanation of the extraordinary change of attitude of the Government at the last moment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 22, line 33, to leave out from the word 'district,' to end of subsection, and to insert the words 'Provided that an existing school board holding office at the passing of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, retain office until the first election of school boards under this Act, which election shall take place in the year nineteen hundred and eleven, being the year following the year of a parish council election.'"—(Mr. Watt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'the' in page 22, line 34, stand part of the Bill."
MR. SINCLAIRhoped he should not offend his hon. friends if he asked them to be good enough not to press the Amendment. It was a point of some importance, but not of cardinal importance. It was quite true what they said, and there was a good deal to be "aid on both sides. It had been his duty to endeavour to arrive at a reasonable compromise on points which were not very vital or of essential importance in the interests of the measure as a whole. This measure had to be worked by people in Scotland. It imposed certain conditions and obligations on a large number of people in Scotland. In the ordinary course the present school boards would have exhausted their mandate by next spring. That was an argument of some strength, and it went rather against the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment. After making very careful inquiry, he had found himself in a minority, and he thought it his duty to withdraw from the position which the Government took up in Committee, and to leave the election to take place in its normal way in the spring.
MR. WATT: On that statement I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 22, line 34, to leave out from the word '1872' to end of line 38."
"In page 22, line 39, after the word 'election,' to insert the words 'after the election in the year nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. JAMES HOPE, in moving to leave out subsection (3), said the object of his Amendment was to preserve the cumulative vote which was necessary for the protection of minorities. He had no fear that any conscious or deliberate injustice would be perpetrated by school boards upon any minority, but they would feel it a loss and a deprivation, and indirectly they would be left out of the power of controlling matters which were of great interest and importance to them. Under earlier clauses of the Bill certain powers were given to school boards with regard to schools in their area but not under their control. He did not profess that the cumulative vote was an ideal system and he did not doubt that the system of the hon. Member for Ayr might be better had they time to discuss it. Under the English Education Act there was special provision for minorities in the constitution of the education committees. If the franchise was changed to the ordinary political franchise in Scotland there would be no room for these minorities. Speaking specially for his own coreligionists who did not like the other provisions of this Bill with regard to finance, if this cumulative vote was taken away from them they would feel that they were hardly and harshly treated. He did not believe that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and he would lose nothing by keeping the cumulative vote in.
MR. WATTseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 23, line 5, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Mr. James Hope.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the subsection down to the word 'give,' in line 6, stand part of the clause."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid they approached this clause with two Amendments on the Paper, one to reinstate the cumulative vote and the other introducing the system of proportional representation. For his own part he regretted extremely that it was not possible to abolish the cumulative vote in Scotland. Very strong representations had reached him as to the inconveniences which would arise if
204
the cumulative vote was not passed into law. That being so, and holding the view that, after all, the education system, if it was to be worked for the benefit of the people of Scotland, must work without friction, the Government had been obliged, and thought it well, to re-consider their position in the matter. One alternative held out was contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire dealing with the system of proportional representation, and he thought that Amendment might have gone some way in the direction of satisfying the views of some of those who supported the cumulative vote. On the other hand, it could not be denied that it was a somewhat serious thing to adopt in an Act of Parliament by a side wind the principle of proportional representation, even though its application was confined to local elections. That was a new principle which he did not know that the House of Commons as at present constituted had ever had an opportunity of really discussing. On the whole he thought it was better to take the simpler plan, and as they could not secure unanimity as to the abolition of the cumulative vote the Government had decided to leave it in existence where it was. He was sorry for it, but he thought it was a necessity of the situation, and he advised his hon. friend on the Ministerial side of the House to take that view of the matter. There was other business to come on, and he suggested to the hon. Member for Sheffield who had moved the omission of this subsection—which course the Government agreed to—not to press his Amendment to omit the next subsection which the Government preferred should remain in the Bill. He assented to the Motion to omit subsection 3.
MR. JAMES HOPEthanked the Secretary for Scotland for meeting him so far, and he did not think it would be necessary under the circumstances to move his other Amendment.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONgreatly deplored the decision of the Government on this point. He said that certainly not from any want of consideration for hon. Gentlemen opposite who wished to retain the cumulative vote, but because

205
he thought their object could have been better attained by the proposal of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in favour of proportional representation. The proportional system of representation would have provided them with a good voting system, whereas cumulative voting was a thoroughly bad one. The only really progressive section left in the Bill now was that relating to continuation classes. With that exception this was a reactionary Bill, and to go back on the cumulative vote was the most unfortunate step the Government had taken.
MR. BOLANDcongratulated the Secretary for Scotland on the line he had taken up, because he had tried to meet the views of those who had been contending for the rights of minorities. Subsection (6) of Clause 3 gave power to provide free stationery not only to board schools, but to voluntary schools, and if the cumulative vote had been abolished, it was quite possible in some districts where voluntary schools were not looked upon with favour that the school board might have withdrawn from voluntary schools the right to have free books and stationery, which the supporters of the Bill claimed was one of the great advantages given to voluntary schools by this measure. He thought it was absolutely necessary that the cumulative vote should be retained. The right hon. Gentleman had done the right thing by preserving for minorities the cumulative vote.
MR. BEALEassumed that the course taken by the Government rendered his Amendment in favour of proportional representation impossible because it took out the subsection to which that Amendment related. He might say that so far as the representation of minorities went he was delighted, although he was not satisfied that the course the Government had taken was the right one. After the speech of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs he had some hope that they would get before long a better system than the cumulative vote for attaining the same very desirable object.
MR. GULLANDsaid he was very much surprised at the statement of the right hon.
206
Gentleman, because he had hoped that the clumsy, antiquated, cumbrous and unsatisfactory methods provided by the cumulative vote would have been abolished. He thought the plan adopted in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire provided a real solution of the difficulty of the representation of minorities in a scientific form. The cumulative vote was a most unscientific way of attaining that object.
MR. MORTONexpressed his regret that the Secretary for Scotland had given way on this point. He did not know whom the right hon. Gentleman had taken his orders from, but he had certainly not consulted the Scottish Members. He understood a few days ago that the right hon. Gentleman was going to stick to his Bill, and he regretted that he had not had the courage to do so.
MR. J. MACVEAGHexpressed his gratification at the decision of the Government on this point. His hon. friend opposite said he did not know where the Secretary for Scotland got his authority from. He would remind him that the Scottish Members upstairs were consulted and the Government very narrowly escaped defeat on this very subject. [Cries of "No."] The hon. Member who interrupted him evidently was not present when this subject was debated upstairs. Those who were present, however, were genuine Scotsmen and not Englishmen sitting for Scottish constituencies. He had listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dumfries who had described the cumulative voting system as clumsy and antiquated. That was not the first time that those words had bee, used, because the Opposition had frequently used the same words as applied to free trade. That, however, did not settle the question. The cumulative vote was the only system which could give fair representation to minorities, and the scheme with which the hon. Member opposite had fallen in love, namely, proportional representation, would not give fair representation to minorities. They were contending for a fair representation for minorities, and having regard to the fact that they had at the present

207
moment educational peace in Scotland he claimed that it was largely owing to the cumulative voting system under which representatives of all denominations could obtain seats on the Education Board. That system allowed the representatives of all denominations to sit around a common board, and in that, way they learned to know and respect one another. It was largely on account of that system that they had no religious differences in Scotland, and it would have been absolutely deplorable if the Government, finding that there was no religious controversy in Scotland, had proceeded by this Bill to create an educational difficulty and bitterness where none had existed previously. For those reasons he rejoiced at the decision of the Government, and if hon. Members opposite were only allowed to speak their opinions to-night he felt sure an overwhelming majority of them would declare themselves in favour of the decision at which the Government had arrived. [Cries of "No."] The Scottish Members to-night were not allowed to speak, because they had all been muzzled at the peril of their political existence. He felt sure if they were free and the Government Whips were not put on an overwhelming majority of Scottish Members would declare in favour of this fair representation of minorities in Scotland.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid they had now reached a very important stage of this Bill, because they were called upon to settle the principle upon which the representation of school boards should be based. The present system offered some advantages for the representation of minorities, but they were now considering the whole system de novo. They were putting new provisions on the Statute-book, and surely that was an occasion when they might consider whether cumulative voting was the best means of obtaining results which they all desired. He regretted to find that upon an occasion of this sort, for reasons which he could not understand, the proper discussion of the question at issue was being burked" He was extremely anxious to hear the views of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire upon proportional representation. He
208
was anxious to hear what were the objections to which the cumulative vote was open. [Cries of "Agreed."] If muzzled Members of the Liberal Party below the gangway were agreed, he wished it to be understood that there was no such muzzling on his side of the House. Regret would be largely felt in Scotland that this occasion had been allowed to pass without a discussion of the principle embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
MR. MCCALLUMsaid he desired to join those who had thanked the Government for the course they had taken in this matter. As one who had often taken advantage of the cumulative vote, he thought it was only fair that the minority should be considered. Catholics and Nonconformists had surely some rights as ratepayers, and under the system provided by the cumulative vote they were able to obtain representation which under other methods they would not be able to secure. The Government had acted wisely and with great advantage to the cause of education in making a graceful surrender.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid it had been constantly reiterated that there was very great harmony between Catholics and Protestants in Scotland. The reason for that harmony was that there had been a desire on the part of the people to remember the fundamentals on which they were agreed, and to try to forget those matters on which they were not yet agreed. They would be taking a backward step if by abolishing the cumulative vote they were practically to disfranchise the Catholics in Scotland. Ninety per cent. of the people of Scotland were Protestants and Presbyterians, and he thought nothing need be done to render Catholics less powerful than they were now. He was glad the Government had come to the decision to retain the cumulative vote, which, although in some respects a clumsy method, was a means by which minorities of the ratepayers could obtain representation.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved to insert the words "before granting or refusing the prayer of the petition and complaint" after the word "shall" in line 30. He said this was merely a drafting Amendment designed to clear up the question whether the function of the Court in dealing with defaulting governing bodies was purely ministerial or to a certain extent judicial. The Secretary for Scotland would as a matter of law state whether the words were unnecessary. He wished to get a public assurance on the point from the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 23, line 30, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'before granting or refusing the prayer of the petition and complaint.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRassured the hon. Gentleman that the words were not necessary to obtain the purpose he had in view.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 3, after the second word 'exceeding,' to insert the words 'seven hundred pounds per annum in the case of endowments the revenues of which before the passing of this Act might be applied to purposes in two or more counties, or in any other case not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Watt.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs communicated with him on the subject of this Amendment. He was sorry that he was not able to accept the Amendment. The clause was very carefully considered and the protection of endowment authorities was sufficiently provided for. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 12, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the governing body of any intermediate or secondary school administered under a scheme approved in terms of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, or under any Act or any Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any scheme,. Act, or Order, have power, with the sanction of the Department, to administer that part of their annual revenue, presently applicable to the granting of bursaries, in conformity with the requirements of Section twenty-eight thereof without the necessity of applying to the Court of Session or to Parliament.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRreferred the hon. Member to page 25, lines 5 to 8, where there were the words—
"Notwithstanding any provision of the scheme hitherto regulating the number, amount, conditions of tenure, or method of award of the bursaries, be applied by the governing body to the granting of bursaries in conformity with the general scheme for the district as aforesaid."
He was advised that these words fully met the point of the hon. Member's Amendment. He would give the hon. Member the undertaking that if they did not fully cover it the words would be accepted.
MR. COCHRANEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 40, after the word 'council,' to insert the words 'or county education committee.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the Amendment had been moved no doubt because of an apprehension that the interests of servants were in danger under the Bill That was not so. They would be in the same position under the secondary education committee as under a county council. The same protection would be extended to them, and there was no need for the Amendment.
MR. COCHRANEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GULLANDmoved to insert in Clause 32—the interpretation clause—after the word "Department," the words "which in future shall be called the Scottish Education Department." As between the words "Scotch" and "Scottish," one word was wrong and the other right both officially and unofficially. He would call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the fact that the Scotch Education Department was housed in the Scottish office, that it had charge of the Royal Scottish Museum, and that this Bill was considered and amended by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. That was a sufficient reason for his Amendment. He had consulted the Edinburgh Directory and found that there were in that city 123 Scottish societies and three Scotch; while in the Glasgow Directory there were 122 Scottish Societies and three Scotch. They ought to use the word "Scottish" where it ought to be used. He begged to move.
AN HON. MEMBERseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 26, line 10, after the word 'Department, to insert the words 'which in future shall be called the Scottish Education Department.'"—(Mr. Gulland.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he wished that they had a little time to discuss this Amendment. As a temperance reformer, the mover of the Amendment had an objection to the word "Scotch." He did not agree with those people who wanted to call themselves Scottish. The real authority on all things Scotch was Robert Burns, and one of his best poems was about an "Auld Scotch drink." Then there was Byron's poem about "English bards, and Scotch reviewers." Every author of eminence—Burns, Byron, Scott—would have been affronted at the idea of their attempting to get the word "Scottish" in two syllables when they
212
had the strong, sensible, and suggestive word "Scotch" in one syllable.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 20, line 25, to leave out the word 'Third,' and to insert the word 'Second.'"
"In page 27, line 17, to leave out the word 'Fourth,' and to insert the word 'Third.'"
"In page 29, to leave out Schedule 2.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. PIRIEsaid that some of the features in connection with this Bill were unparalleled in the annals of Scottish legislation. It might be said that he was exceeding his rights in saying a word on the Third Reading, but he did not think so. He asked the House to consider the time given to this Scottish Education Bill as compared with the time given to the English education measure. When the Scottish Members asked for time to discuss the Bill on Report and on the Third Reading stage, they were told a fortnight ago that it was a non-contentious Bill, and that it should go through the House in the course of one sitting including the Third Reading. On the first day of the Report stage it was discussed from four o'clock in the afternoon to two o'clock in the morning. Since that time a great number of new Amendments had been placed upon the notice paper by the Government, making changes in the Bill, and most of them were good. What would have happened to the new Amendments had the original idea been carried out? Those Scottish Members who had revolted against the treatment meted out to Scotland had surely been justified in their attitude from the fact that many of the Amendments which had been put down had been accepted. He had had twelve years' service in the House, and in all that long experience he did not think he had ever known Scottish business to be so treated as it had been during this session and the last. It was becoming more and more apparent as time went on that this House was not the proper place to manage Scottish business. [Cries of "Home Rule."] In

213
another statement the Prime Minister said that the Bill was non-contentious. Were the Scottish Members under the Party system not like a poor starving dog which must take what was thrown to it without complaint? That was why Scotland was anxious to get this Bill. It had been said that the Bill was closely connected with the old-age pension scheme for teachers, and that it was important from a Treasury point of view that the Bill should pass that day. That brought him to a matter the like of which he trusted would never happen again. The rumour had been sedulously circulated in the Lobby yesterday that unless the Bill was passed by 8.15 that night, it would be dropped, and he had had a letter written to him saying that it was necessary that the Bill should be passed by a certain time. That was holding a pistol at the head of the Scottish Members telling them to pass the Bill, or else they were not doing their duty. He hoped such a thing would never be repeated. He did not know who was to blame, but it was clear that the party whips had regarded party alone; and not the interests of Scottish legislation. The Scottish Members had every right in doing their duty, indignantly to repudiate such treatment, and to declare that they would have none of it. There was one other feature to which he would like to call the attention of the House. The Bill had been before the Standing Committee for fourteen or fifteen sittings. Scotland, at the present moment, had the advantage of possessing ten or twelve Members who sat on the Treasury Bench. Those Members were naturally among the ablest of the Scottish representatives. They were men whose opinion would be of some value in shaping Scottish legislation, but by the system of Scottish Grand Committees they were debarred from and had not actually taken any part at all in the discussions of this measure in Committee. That meant to say that ten or twelve Scottish constituencies were practically disfranchised. [An HON. MEMBER: Shame.] Some of those hon. Members were eminent authorities on Scottish education, including the Secretary for War who, when this Bill was before the last Parliament had taken a prominent part in the discussions in Committee. There was one great blot
214
on the measure—it was a matter which he had brought up on the Second Reading stage—and that was, that the opportunity had been lost of transferring the Scottish Education Department from London to Edinburgh. He had always thought that was a most vital point, and that the people of Scotland had a right to manage their own educational affairs in their own country. In his preface to a valuable work on Scottish educational reform, the Secretary of State, who had been a Scottish Member for upwards of twenty-two years and who was a member of the Education Committee of Scotland, expressed the view that the administration ought to be centred in Scotland and not at Dover House, many hundreds of miles away. Having written that, it was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman to support in Committee an Amendment to that effect, and to forward his views in the House of Commons. Until this change was effected the administration could not be effectively carried on. There were fifty Scottish officials of the Scottish Education Department in London and 118 in Scotland, and it stood to reason that where the latter number was the headquarters of the Department ought to be. The amount of the salaries of the Scottish officials in London was £13,000, and in Scotland £40,000, and it stood to reason that where the salaries of the officials were the most numerous, the head of the Department ought to be. All the other Scottish boards, eight in number, were practically centred in Scotland. Surely it was a strong argument that the Education Department should be in Scotland that the Local Government Board was carried on there, because the latter had more administrative work to do than the Education Department, and that Board was both legislative and administrative. What would his hon. friends from Ireland say if the Irish Education Department were to be situated in London, and surely Scotland had a right to ask that she should have the same advantages as Ireland. Take the question of the legal officers. Parliament did not sit during a great part of the year, and during that period at least they ought to be in Edinburgh to control the legal work. It was not treating the Scottish school boards fairly in the

215
management of their business, unless they were given a close personal association with the Department, and if the office was in Edinburgh it would lesser the number of deputations from Scotland to England, and also reduce the correspondence. As to the ostensible reasons given against the change by those who professed to wish for it, it was a case of "save me from my friends." They said they were in favour of it, if they were given a Parliament in Scotland, and had Home Rule first. He said that if they transferred the Education Board to Scotland, Home Rule would necessarily follow. The Secretary for Scotland said they would transfer the Department to-morrow if they could also transfer the power of Parliament to control it, but Parliament did not do so. It had been the curse of Scotland—this alleged control of the Education Department by Scottish Members, and the influence of Scottish Members in the House was a myth and an illusion. The control of Parliament was wholly illusory, and the Department was dominated by the officials. It was said by the Secretary for Scotland that the Scottish Education Department being one of the largest spending Departments should be located close to the Treasury in order that negotiations to get more money might proceed. He never heard of such an argument being put forward by a Minister. They did not want to get any money by back door influences, but they wanted what they were entitled to, and no more. Then they were told that the officials of the Department had established themselves in London, and had long leases of their houses, and it would be rather unfair to disturb them. He was perfectly ready that the change should only take place in five years time. There was one thing they had gained by discussion, however, because they now knew that this change could be brought about by administrative action. He could assure the Secretary for Scotland that they would leave no stone unturned until the Scottish people realised the importance of this matter. He asked hon. Members to put the question firmly and straightforwardly before the democracy, and it would not be long before the change was brought about. They had had thirty-six years
216
of this Department; for that period no great educational reform had been carried out in Scotland, and he thought that such a state of things was lamentable. He was pleading not only with the members of the House, but with the Scottish people to say that as it was the inviolable right of a private individual that he should be able to take an active interest in the education of his own off-spring, so it was the great duty of a nation to take an active interest in the education of its own children. In insisting upon that they were fulfilling one of the most sacred duties that could fall upon any nation. He pleaded for this change as he had never pleaded for anything in the House before, and he held that it was in the highest interests of Scotland and its education that she should have the right which he advocated. The result of this Bill, he was sorry to say, had not been to free Scotland from the Education Department, but to rivet the fetters upon her, but he looked forward to the time when the many obstacles which prevented Scotland from controlling her own education and her own affairs would be removed.
MR. BOLANDsaid the members of the Irish Party for whom he and the hon. Member for South Down had been acting had hoped that before the Bill emerged from the Report stage the financial arrangements would have been settled satisfactorily, and it was with great regret that they came to the Third Reading, and found that they were practically in the same position as they were when they started. The House would remember how, when the Report stage was under discussion, they moved that the Bill should be re-committed so that Clause 15 might be discussed again, and that the Catholic, and in fact, all the voluntary schools in Scotland should have some opportunity of competing, not on level terms, but on fair terms with the school boards in Scotland, and the House would remember how after three hours discussion it was disclosed to them that there would be a residue of 2s. per child for voluntary schools in Scotland. He willingly conceded that the Secretary for Scotland had met their claim about the cumulative vote in a generous manner,

217
but he did not consider that the financial arrangements of the Bill were satisfactory, and consequently they must take a division against the Bill. Under the English education scheme which was now before the country the Catholic schools would get a minimum of 46s., rising to a maximum of 55s. per head. The utmost the Catholic schools in Scotland received was 40s. 5¾d. per head, and even though they got the additional 2s. which was promised them recently, the grant would not reach even the minimum proposed in England. The grant of free books might mean another small amount, but it did not give the minimum grant which was given in England to contracting-out schools. He mentioned this to show that the Roman Catholics of Scotland for whom he had the honour of speaking did not think they had been fairly treated, and he would only say in conclusion that as the financial clauses of the Bill were unsatisfactory, for that and for no other reason it was necessary to divide on the Third Reading.
MR. MORTONagreed with his hon. friend the Member for the Northern Division of the City of Aberdeen that Scotland had not had fair play, so far as legislation in this House was concerned. It was useless to complain, however, because a Liberal Government, largely composed of Scottish Members, was against them and utterly neglected Scotland. This was the only Bill which they had got through or nearly through, except the Tobacco Act, which the Government had opposed. He regretted that the religious question had been raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He thought that in Scotland they had got beyond that, yet Irish Members unfortunately, notwithstanding the support Scottish Members had given them on
Irish affairs, interfered in the purely local affairs of Scotland. Ireland perhaps was not in as good a position as Scotland, and not so well-governed; but that was their own fault. If they had given England a Bannockburn 100 or 200 years ago they would not now be in the position of a conquered country—which Scotland never was—and be governed as such. He hoped that the Bill would be passed, and that Scotland would get something, if not all that she ought to have. In this matter he noticed that the Members of the Treasury Bench—with one exception—had got for their constituencies the larger share of the money, but that as usual they had neglected the poorer constituencies However, he was thankful that the people of Scotland were to get something, as much as the front bench would allow; and he had no doubt without the help of the Irish Members they would be able to show the people of the United Kingdom how to carry on the education of the Scottish people, and he hoped that the Irish Members would profit by it. Surely Scottish affairs should be managed by and in the interest of the Scottish people.
MR. BELLOCsaid that if the hon. Member opposite would put himself in the position of a Protestant minority in a practically self-governed Ireland, and assume that the Protestant children there were compelled either to go to a Catholic school or contract out, and that if they contracted-out they had to find something like 25s. a head, he would see that the humanitarian point of view was rather at fault.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 415.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bright, J. A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barnard, E. B.

Brodie, H. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, J. Annan

Alden, Percy

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Beale, W. P.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Atherley-Jones, L.

Beck, A. Cecil

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Clark, George Smith

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Clough, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brigg, John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Renton, Leslie

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

Hodge, John

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

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

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Cowan, W. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cox, Harold

Jardine, Sir J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Jenkins, J.

Rowlands, J.

Craik, Sir Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Samuel, Rt. Hn H. L. (Cleveland)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Scott, A H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Kekewich, Sir George

Sears, J. E.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Laidlaw, Robert

Seely, Colonel

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Delany, William

Lamont, Norman

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

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Simon, John Allsebrook

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lupton, Arnold

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lynch, H. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Erskine, David C.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summerbell, T.

Essex, R. W.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Fenwick, Charles

Macpherson, J. T.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Callum, John M.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Crae, Sir George

Thompson, J. WH. (Somerset, E)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Findlay, Alexander

Marnham, F. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Foster, Henry William

Massie, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Fuller, John Michael F.

Menzies, Walter

Wardle, George J.

Gill, A. H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Middlebrook, William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Waterlow, D. S.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mond, A.

Watt, Henry A.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Montgomery, H. G.

Weir, James Galloway

Gordon, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Grant, Corrie

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Myer, Horatio

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gulland, John W.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wilkie, Alexander

Gurdon, Rt. HnSir W. Brampton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williamson, A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nuttall, Harry

Wills, Arthur Walters

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Partington, Oswald

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Paul, Herbert

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Harvey, WE. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Younger, George

Haworth, Arthur A.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedges, A. Paget

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

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

Radford, G. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Higham, John Sharp

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Hills, J. W

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, W.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Gretton, John

Meagher, Michael

Boland, John

Halpin, J.

Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen's Co.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayden, John Patrick

Muldoon, John

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hogan, Michael

Murnaghan, George

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jordan, Jeremiah

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Cross, Alexander

Joyce, Michael

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Cullinan, J.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Nolan, Joseph

Dillon John

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Farrell, James Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Fell, Arthur

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

O'Dowd, John

220

221

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Reddy, M.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford

Young, Samuel

Question put, and agreed to.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL.
As amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The proposed new clause† in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green is beyond the scope of the Bill.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he would like to draw attention to the title of the Bill. It was "to make better provision for the prevention of crime and for that purpose to provide for the reformation of young offenders and the prolonged detention of habitual criminals and for other purposes incidental thereto."
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the words "other purposes incidental thereto" did not mean any Amendment of the Prisons Acts the hon. Member might desire to move. The proposed new clause was an Amendment of the Prisons Acts, not of this Bill.
MR. RENTONsaid the Amendment he rose to move referred to the treatment of persons under the Borstal system. It would be a great pity to lay down any hard and fast rule such as was laid down in the Bill as to the discretion of the Judges, and he wanted to urge that the Court should be given unlimited discretion as to those whom they might sentence to undergo imprisonment under the Borstal system. Such discretion was already given under Clause 3 to the Home Secretary. Surely the Judge who tried the case, saw the prisoner and heard what he had to say, and who had all the facts before him and could ascertain the antecedents of the prisoner, was as good
† The following is the clause referred to:—
"On the occurrence of the next vacancy in the office of Prison Commissioner and Director of Convict Prisons a woman shall be appointed to the office, and thenceforward one Prison Commissioner and Director of Convict Prisons at least shall always be a woman."
222
a judge as to who should or should not be sent to a Borstal institution as any official could be. Under the Bill, no person over twenty-one years of age could be sentenced for detention under the Borstal system, but he thought it would be recognised that in some cases a lad of eighteen might be a more hardened criminal than some lad of maturer age fresh from the country. It might be said that unless they had a hard and fast rule as to age of Borstal prisoners, administrative difficulties would ensue, but it would not be difficult to send elder prisoners to one institution, others to a second, and the younger prisoners to a third institution. The Home Secretary had power to create more Borstal institutions if they were needed. He failed, therefore, to see that any administrative difficulties would ensue. If the system was good for boys, surely it was good for young men. He thought it would be a disaster if they laid down a hard and fast rule that no young criminal over the age of twenty-one should be sent to a Borstal institution and they should not leave it to the discretion of the Judge as to who should or who should not go to a Borstal institution. The system had been more or less of a success and he anticipated that in future years it would have far greater success. A good many people said it was a failure, that it was only urged by sentimentalists, and that it would not have had its even present success had it not been for the splendid committee who administer it. 189 prisoners were discharged from Borstal institutions in the last year for which they had figures, twenty-three of them were recommitted, and twenty-seven were reported as not doing well. He would venture, however, to point out that out of the 189 dealt with, no less than 151 had an average of four previous convictions. The system should be given a good chance. If it were, he was convinced they would have no need whatsoever for Part II. of the Bill. Supposing Judges found that it was a failure, they need not sentence any more to detention under the Borstal system. They could re-

223
vert to the old system and sentence prisoners to hard labour or penal servitude. If the system, however, was good, as they had every reason to believe it was, it should be extended. The penal system in this country was, he believed, the most rigorous of any civilised nation, and by the second part of this Bill it was admitted to be a failure. It neither reformed nor did it deter. He begged the House, therefore, to give the Court every discretion in the trial of prisoners so that, if a Judge thought any man would be reformed by being sent to a Borstal institution, he might so order. He firmly believed, from his own knowledge, that the Borstal system would be far cheaper in the end, and at all events it would be far more humane than the system of punishments which obtained in the country at the present moment.
MR. RAWLINSONseconded, not for the reasons given by his hon. friend, but rather for the peculiarity of the regulation drawn up in the section. The Judge who tried the case had the simple power to send a person between sixteen and twenty-one to a Borstal institution, but by the latter part of the section the most extravagant power was given to the Home Secretary to extend the age if he thought fit to twenty-three. He rather objected to that system of legislation. If they wanted to make the limit twenty-one, let them, say so, and if they wanted to make the limit twenty-three let them make that limit. Again, the Home Secretary was to have power to deal with anybody up to any age. Though a Judge had not power to send a man to a Borstal institution, and, therefore, sentenced him to a year's imprisonment, the Home Secretary, in exercise of his extraordinary power under Clause 3, might come in and, if satisfied that the person sentenced might with advantage be detained in a Borstal institution, authorise the Prison Commissioners to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution. It was perfectly clear the Home Secretary was to have unlimited discretion to send anybody of any age to a Borstal institution. That was, on the whole, right, but surely the Judge who tried the case ought to have
224
the same discretion. It was a monstrous thing to give absolute power to the Secretary of State to send any person of any age to a Borstal institution whilst tying the discretion of a Judge to the cases of persons between sixteen and twenty-one years of age. He, therefore, seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 1."—(Major Renton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,)said the hon. and learned Member objected to the discretion which was left to the Home Secretary.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he distinctly stated that on the whole he thought it was a good thing that the Secretary of State should have discretion, but the Judge who tried the case certainly ought to have an equal discretion.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not quite understand the hon. and learned Member. He had great sympathy with both the mover and the seconder of the Amendment, but he must point out what the effect of it would be. They had found in the working of the present informal Borstal system a great difficulty in inducing the Courts to send to the Borstal institutions in all cages the right kind of persons. Many Courts were cognisant of the working of that system, but for one reason or another mistakes were being constantly made and the wrong kind of persons were being sent to the institutions. He would read from the Home Office Circular the description of the kind of person they thought might go to a Borstal institution. It was as follows—
"The class of persons for whom the Borstal system is devised is not first offenders or novices in crime, but young recidivists guilty for the most part of acts of larceny, and rough, undisciplined lads, of the lounging and hooligan types, who are apparently drifting towards a career of crime."
Those were the persons they wished to get hold of. He would point out that the first part of the Bill related to young offenders, so that in a sense the Amendment was out of order having regard to the

225
title of the Bill. He understood the hon. Member wished to remove the restrictions.
MR. RENTON: No; surely youth is not limited to twenty-one years. Many people are youthful after twenty-one.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he understood the hon. Member wanted to remove the restriction on the age of sixteen as well as twenty-one.
MR. RENTONsaid he imagined a Judge would not sentence anybody under sixteen to three years in a Borstal institution. He would send him to a reformatory or somewhere else.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid his point was that it was not desirable in any case to send to the Borstal institution lads under sixteen. They ought to be dealt with either under the Children Act or the Reformatory Act. It was desirable to give reasonable directions to the Courts as to the kind of person who ought to be sent to Borstal. They said sixteen was the lowest age at which he ought to go. Then why not insert the limit of sixteen? Then they came to the limit of twenty-one. All he could say was that this matter was very carefully discussed. They considered whether they ought to give the Court free discretion to send to a Borstal institution persons above the age of twenty-one, and had come to the conclusion that on the whole it was not desirable, because if they mixed up different classes of men and juvenile adults the result must necessarily be harmful to their training and the general discipline of the institutions. Therefore, they thought there ought to be a definite limit imposed upon magistrates who perhaps did not quite know the working of the system, to keep them from the error of committing to Borstal institutions persons so far above the age of twenty-one that they were totally unsuitable for the institution. On the whole twenty-one was a reasonable age to fix. Then why, he might be asked, did they take power to raise it to twenty-three? For one reason they did not with to plunge too far into this matter at first. This was a new system. They did not know to what extent the Courts would avail themselves of it, and if they were to make it higher than twenty-one
226
they might have too many cases to deal with before they were ready to receive them. As it was they would have largely to extend the Borstal prison.
MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid his reason for supporting the Amendment was that he thought discretionary power should be done away with. At any rate, if any discretionary power were given at all the same power should be given to the Judge or person who tried the prisoner as was given to the Home Secretary, for this very obvious reason—that if there was anyone who was capable of exercising a discretion it was the Judge who saw the prisoner, tried him, and knew all the facts of the case. The Home Secretary had said that under this Borstal system the wrong prisoners were sent, or that he never got the right prisoners.
MR. GLADSTONE: I never said that. I never said that we never got the right prisoners. I said sometimes the Court sent the wrong prisoners.
MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid it amounted very much to the same thing. But that was not the point. Apparently, the difficulty was to get the right prisoners. It was far more likely that the right persons would be sent to the institutions if the age were fixed at twenty-three or twenty-five. It often happened that when the Judges were trying prisoners who were suitable in every way for the Borstal system the age-limit crept in and the Judges said that their discretionary power had ceased. Often between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-three these young men were suited to that particular treatment, and he suggested that the Home Secretary should make one age of twenty-three and give no discretionary power to the Secretary of State. That would meet the objection of his hon. friend and make the system much better and more workable than it was.
SIR F. BANBURYthought the right hon. Gentleman did not quite understand the motive which had induced his hon. friend to move the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said it was almost out of order, because it would deal with any age, whereas this section was only

227
for the reformation of the young offender. Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State might send a man of eighty to a Borstal institution, so that if the Amendment was out of order this clause was out of order. There might be an explanation, but he could not see it. The right hon. Gentleman said under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the age could not be increased to twenty-three unless the Home Secretary laid an Order upon the Table for thirty days, and the House could move an Address to His Majesty objecting to the Order. But why was it limited to twenty-three? The two things were absolutely incompatible. Under this clause, unless the Amendment was carried and subsection (2) left out, the result would be that the Judge could only send a person to a Borstal institution provided he was between sixteen and twenty-one, but the Home Secretary could send him there if under twenty-three, provided he got an Order not objected to by the House of Commons. The difference, he supposed, was that this particular person must have been sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment. He could see no other difference. In the first case, he might not have been sentenced. In the second, he must. The object of the Amendment was to give the Judge the same power that the Home Secretary possessed. He understood the right hon. Gentleman thought the Home Secretary's power should not be greater than the Judges'.
MR. GLADSTONE: The object of Clause 3 is to give the Home Secretary power to correct a possible mistake by a Judge or magistrate from want of full knowledge of the particular man with whom he is dealing, and to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution. The object obviously is that only persons of the same classes and ages who are admitted to Borstal institutions shall be so transferred from prison. We are perfectly ready to put in an Amendment in another place to meet that point.
SIR F. BANBURY: Then I will not press the point, beyond saying I think the Amendment should be put in in this place.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid the hon. and learned Member for
228
Cambridge had advanced the very best reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted, because he had pointed to those sections in the Bill which provided the elasticity that was desired by the mover of the Amendment. When the matter was being considered upstairs they had all these suggestions and arguments put before them and they adhered to the clause because they knew they were at the same time going to preserve that elasticity which would be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary. They had considered very closely whether it would be desirable that men over twenty-one indiscriminately chosen by Judges who had not the proper opportunities of considering the characters of these men should be thrown in under the Borstal system amongst a lot of young persons of immature age and upon whose minds there might be a very bad impression made. They decided, therefore, that it was better to have some limit but at the same time that there should be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary a discretion to be exercised according to his judgment upon full consideration. Therefore the subsection was introduced raising the age of twenty-three. But that was not all. Clause 3 said the Secretary of State might, if satisfied that the person sentenced either before or after the passing of the Act to penal servitude or imprisonment might with advantage be detained in a Borstal institution, authorise the Prison Commissioners to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution. Here were two methods of exercising judgment on the part of the Minister, who would have ample time and opportunity under circumstances not open to the Judge, of seeing whether the man could be with advantage transferred. The Amendment would unquestionably have his support if this elasticity were not contained in the Bill, because from his own experience he was in favour of anything which would extend the discretion, either on the part of the Judge or of the Minister, in favour of the prisoner. At the same time, he was restrained from supporting the Amendment by the fact, that under the hasty judgments that came to his own observation day by day in Courts of Law, most undesirable men might be

229
thrown in amongst young people whom it was the intention of the Bill to reclaim. For that reason he was constrained to support a humane Amendment—the principle of which they had discussed upstairs. He was sorry he could not follow his hon. friend into the Lobby if he went to a division.
MR. CARLILEregretted that the right hon. Gentleman, in giving the grounds on which he refused to accept this Amendment, should have given as his last reason for its rejection that the Bill as drafted would provide the authorities with all the cases they anticipated being able to deal with. That, of course, was a reason which it was extremely difficult, without a great deal of technical knowledge of the details and circumstances of the criminal classes in the country, for anyone to estimate. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there would be within the ages of sixteen to twenty-one as many cases as he thought the authorities were likely to deal with.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not want to extend the area too much, in case there might be too many.
MR. CARLILEthought that was a very good ground. In moving this Amendment his hon. friend had in mind a desire to see the system extended, not as something which had not been tested, but as an institution which had been tested and had shown excellent results. Consequently, the Home Secretary was not now entering upon an undertaking which was purely experimental. Surely the authorities who had to deal with the imprisoning of a large number of criminals would, in any case, keep them in confinement in some sort of prison, and they might so adapt some of the convict stations and prisons that they might be able to take in a very considerable number largely in excess of what the right hon. Gentleman now proposed. Why should an application have to be made to the Home Secretary in every case, and why was it necessary to go through all that machinery? Surely the Judge might receive instructions from the Home Secretary to guide him in the selection of likely persons. Men changed in their tendency even among criminals at
230
different periods of their lives. It did not follow that because a man was not reclaimable between sixteen and twenty-one he would be irreclaimable after that. It was often found in practice that prisoners were reclaimable at all periods of life. Why should this system, which was well known to be efficient and good, not be made applicable to persons above twenty-three years of age? He hoped his hon. and gallant friend would go to a division on this Amendment. He was sure that many hon. Members would feel that it was the right thing that this principle should be extended, and that the powers now given to the Home Secretary should permit of a considerable extension of the system. If this were done, the result would be that a vast amount of good would be done, and many men, whose lives would otherwise become permanently criminal, would be set upon the right path, and make good, healthy sound citizens. He begged to support the Amendment.
MR. LUPTONurged, in regard to the objection that sending older people to the institution would interfere with the treatment of the younger, that the two classes might be received in different departments or prisons.
Amendment negatived.
SIR P. BANBURYmoved to leave out the words "apparently under such age." This was really a drafting Amendment. He thought that was a simpler way of putting into the English language the desire of the Home Secretary. If this Amendment were adopted the right hon. Gentleman would have power to extend the system to people under the age of twenty-three. Why it was necessary to put in the words "apparently under such age," he did not know. He begged to move.
MR. CARLILEformally seconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words 'apparently under such age.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that cases could be dealt with if a person

231
appeared to be under the age of twenty-one.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Home Secretary could not do anything if they were under the age of twenty-three.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the provision was intended to give the power to the Court if a person appeared to be under the age of twenty-one.
SIR F. BANBURYasked what would happen supposing a person was over twenty-one when he was convicted.
MR. GLADSTONEreplied that the Court had to decide whether a person appeared to be under twenty-one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONEmoved an Amendment in Clause 3 (power to transfer from prison to Borstal institution) providing that the Secretary of State may, in the case of a person sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment "being within the limits of age within which persons may be detained in a Borstal institution," authorise the Prison Commissioners to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 31, after the word 'imprisonment,' to insert the words 'being within the limits of age within which persons may be detained in a Borstal institution.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Home Secretary's Amendment answered his point, and he should support it with his whole heart.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that Clause 4 gave power to the Home Secretary to establish Borstal Institutions in different parts of the country. The Amendment he proposed would limit those establishments to three in number. He thought the Home Secretary would be ready to admit that Borstal institutions were still in the experimental stage, for they had dealt with only about 200 cases, and, therefore, they had not gone very far up to the present. He thought they ought to proceed gently in giving a boundless
232
discretion to the Home Office to extend and build a large number of these institutions before the experiment had been carried through satisfactorily. When one was pleased with a new work it was so easy to run into unnecessary expense in bricks and mortar, and his object in inserting this Amendment was that the Home Secretary should be allowed to build only three Borstal institutions. Of course the existing prisons could be used for this purpose, but the object of this Amendment was simply to limit the powers of the Home Secretary in regard to the creation of
SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He said it was no consolation to the taxpayers when asked to find a large sum of money to be told that the Home Office had not spent much. He thought some limit should be put to the reckless expenditure which was going on. This was a new system, and it might be all right, but if it was found to work satisfactorily, it would be easy to bring a Bill to authorise the building of more institutions.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 40, after the word 'establish,' to insert the words 'three.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'three' be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. If the Borstal institutions were limited to three, what would be the result? Naturally that they would be abnormally large, and if they were, the very evil which the hon. Member anticipated would have to be faced. If this movement was to succeed, it would be a pity to limit it in any way. If it was to fail, the Amendment was unnecessary.
MR. RAWLINSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RAWLINSONmoved to leave out Clause 7, for the purpose of getting an explanation from the Home Secretary. It was a somewhat new departure that the Home Secretary with the approval of the Treasury should be allowed to give

233
unlimited subscriptions to any private society, however desirable it might be. He was aware that grants were sometimes mysteriously made to private societies, and he had wondered under what power it was done.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 29, to leave out Clause 7."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the clause proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid there was a precedent for what was proposed here. In this particular case he would remind the House that the most essential part of the Borstal system was what was known as the "after-care system," in connection with which immense labour was bestowed by those most excellent workers who looked after the class with whom they were dealing. The Treasury had sanctioned an annual grant of £500, which, recently had been raised to £1,000 for this excellent purpose. It would hardly be worth while going on with the work unless some provision was made for a financial subsidy. He asked the House to pass the clause.
MR. RAWLINSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESmoved to omit Part II. of the Bill, which deals with the detention of habitual criminals. He said he perfectly recognised that this was a futile task, because even if he were able to persuade hon. Members present—a number inconsiderable as compared with the number elsewhere—he knew that when the division bell rang those who were now absent would come in and overwhelm the votes of those who had heard the debate. He much regretted that the benches opposite were vacant when they were discussing this matter affecting the liberty of the subject. He could conceive no more grave invasion of what had been the unbroken constitutional practice in this country, with regard to the trial and sentencing of prisoners, than that which now emanated from a Liberal Government. With the details of the Bill he would
234
not concern himself. What he was concerned with was the question of the inspiration of the measure. He did not know on what authority it was inspired. There was a proposal that it should be in the power of a chairman of quarter sessions to sentence to an indeterminate period of imprisonment, dependent on the good will of a prison warder, a man convicted three times of, possibly, a trivial offence over an almost unlimited period. That was a most startling-proposition, and had no warranty in the criminal jurisprudence of this or any other country. Moreover, this indeterminate period of imprisonment could not be inflicted unless, as a condition precedent, a sentence of penal servitude was passed. The Bill, therefore, compelled the presiding Judge to pass a sentence of penal servitude which, but for his desire to inflict the indeterminate period, he would probably not pass. Certain preliminary safeguards had to be taken before a man could be charged with being an habitual criminal, and an absolute right of appeal was conceded. He had to be found to be an habitual criminal, and he was to be so found on evidence of reputation given by police officers, gaolers, and persons of that description—the most dangerous kind of evidence known to lawyers. He spoke from long experience, and he did not wish the House to understand that he regarded that evidence of no moment at all, but it was certainly not evidence which should have much, if any, weight attached to it for the purpose of imposing a sentence which was to entail such grave consequences as this part of the Bill contemplated. Assuming that the tribunal had not made a mistake, but had got hold of a goal-bird—in his comparatively small experience he had seen many persons who had alternated between the prison and the dock—he quite admitted that if human justice were infallible, and if human nature were capable of unerring judgment, it would be justifiable that such persons should be separated from their fellow creatures; but it was because he did not believe that human judgment was infallible that he objected to this proposal in the Bill. Assuming that the man had been rightly sentenced, where did he go to? He went

235
to penal servitude for three, tour, or five years or more, and after that penal servitude was over he still remained in penal servitude, although another name was given to it. Although the Home Secretary had chosen to say that the man might be confined in another part of the prison and under modified conditions, yet this man was to be kept in prison for ever—[An HON. MEMBER: Oh!]—Yes, for ever, except that after a period of ten years it would be obligatory upon the Home Secretary to make a special report to Parliament. These reports to Parliament—he spoke from experience—were not worth the paper they were written upon; they were absolutely ineffective to assist Parliament to action. Assuming that the Home Secretary did his duty—he did not think any human being would suggest that the present Home Secretary, and he said this without any desire to flatter the right hon. Gentleman, did not do his duty—assuming that the Home Secretary strove his best to do his duty, this unhappy man would, while in prison, be subjected every six months to the torture of being brought before the board of visiting justices, inspired with the hope of the opportunity to escape being afforded him. On whose guidance, counsel and advice would the Home Secretary act? On the report of the Committee and the gaol authorities. The board of visitors would go to the prison, would talk to the prisoner, would accept or reject what they thought fit in his statements; but the real people who would give advice which would influence a decision would be the warders, the subordinate officials of the gaol, and upon their advice the Home Secretary might on licence discharge a prisoner undergoing preventive detention if satisfied that there was reasonable probability that he would not again engage in crime. That was sheer irony. All experienced prison, officials would agree that the man most likely to be releated from prison under this provision was not the sincerely contrite and penitent prisoner, but the hardened hypocrite, who was cunning enough to escape prison discipline, and was able to ingratiate himself with the warders. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, did he really believe that there was any
236
effective means available by which they could test whether a man was a reformed character or not? He noticed with some amusement some time ago a list of the marks for good conduct which had been obtained in a certain convict prison by certain notorious criminals-and most dangerous ruffians, in the sense of their being the greatest danger and pests of society—men convicted as fraudulent trustees and directors of public companies. These were the men to ingratiate themselves with the prison officials, and who made themselves agreeable to the warders. They were removed into the hospital, or put playing-the organ if they had musical ability, as many of them had. These were the men who earned the full number of marks, and of whom the Home Secretary would get good reports as well deserving to be let out on licence. He objected to giving to any human being, however high a judicial officer he might be—he should shrink from exercising any such function himself, and would regard it as a grievous burden—the right to confine another human being for the rest of his days on the arbitrament of the Home Secretary, acting on the initiative of prison warders. He maintained that the system embodied in this Bill was a new departure in the science of penology; it was an invasion on the principles of punishment which had been applied in any other civilised country. He felt very strongly on this matter, and although he did not anticipate that he should succeed in getting official support from that side of the House, he was sure that he would have the support of some hon. Members who considered that after all the good of the State was not the only thing to be taken into account, but justice to the individual. He begged to move.
MR. BELLOCseconded the Amendment. Those who thought with his hon. and learned friend and himself wished, he said, to get rid of the principle underlying the second part of the Bill, and if possible expunged from other legislation. They considered it to be immoral and fraught with much serious danger in, this and other departments of legislation. If he were asked why a Member of Parliament should oppose the second

237
part of the Bill, he should reply—although many people might regard it as somewhat doctrinaire—it was because that without doubt if the provisions of the measure were clearly put before the English people they would be almost unanimously rejected. If the measure were made a first-class Bill it would be even more unpopular than was the Licensing Bill. In considering a measure of this kind, what was called a criminal class had to be pre-supposed. Whatever set of laws was made by the State, there was certainly a type of man likely to break these laws. The offences dealt with in this Bill were mainly offences against property, or minor offences which were morally petty, but the method of dealing with them imposed what the poor regarded as the worst pain which could be inflicted. He remembered during the Second Reading of the Bill that a Member of this House, who was also a member of what were called the governing families of this country, made some jokes about an old lady who stole some bacon, and he wondered what the noble Lord thought of those countries where they punished those who stole land? The noble Lord appeared to think that because an old lady who stole bacon was a nuisance, therefore there should be an arbitrary right to put her in confinement for a period which might perfectly well, if she were guilty of any violence, extend throughout her life. Then there was another point, so general that he was not sure how far it would carry conviction, though it was very plain and real to him. In this proposal they were cutting themselves apart, and for the first time, from the whole traditions of legislation, morals, and jurisprudence of civilised Europe. It was not an unimportant thing that for the first time, even in a small measure of this kind, they were turning their back upon what had been the theory of jurisprudence of this and every other civilised country. It seemed to him a matter of considerable doubt. There was a phrase as old as the Romans which said that a man "purged" his sin. A due punishment was weighed against his offence, and, after enduring it, he was free again, and a responsible citizen again. That conception had run through the whole of our morals and jurisprudence for 3,000 years, and it was at the bidding
238
of pseudo-scientists with broken-down reputations like Lombroso's that they were going to turn their backs on the whole of that tradition. When he heard appeals to new countries—America, and the Colonies, and heaven knew where—he feared that the Members who used them had lost their sense of things European and traditional. The Bill would probably become law because there was not a single Member in this House, and not even in the other House, who could by any conceivable set of circumstances be inconvenienced by its proposals. Would any man who regarded these things lightly ask himself how his conscience stood in the matter of right and wrong? They of the well-to-do classes knew that they stood in little danger from the laws, If they could apply the indeterminate sentence to the type of evil which well-to-do men commit, there would be no chance of its passing into law in this House, and still less in the other. It was almost certain to pass into law, and that was why he spoke with violence. When it was passed into law they would have entered for the first time into that path which all modern pseudo-sociology was trying to force them into, at the end of which they had the tyranny of bureaucrats. He begged to second.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, lice 6, to leave out Part II of the Bill."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'whether' in page 5, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he made no apology to lawyers as a layman for taking part in a debate of this kind, because the Home Secretary, on the First Reading, said it was not for lawyers only but every layman was entitled to have a full voice in the new policy of this Bill. He gave the Second Reading of the Bill his support because of Part I. and he had hoped that Part II. would disappear or be modified. It would be remembered that this measure was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, read a second time at a Friday sitting, and then it went to the Standing Committee, where

239
he gathered from The Times newspaper that there was great difficulty in keeping a quorum, as there were many interruptions by counts. Therefore, he thought this House ought to discuss fully this grave and important change which it was proposed to make in the criminal procedure of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had distinguished between Part I. and Part II.; he said it—
"undoubtedly raises new questions upon which there may be serious and, perhaps, strong differences of opinion."
He (Sir W. J. Collin) claimed to have had some experience in these matters, because he was on the board of visitors of a convict prison for five years, and became acquainted with the interior of such places. Under the Act of 1898 he opened the first certified inebriate reformatory of the London County Council, and he also visited the Aylesbury State Reformatory and the asylums of the London County Council for ten years or more. He, therefore, had had some opportunity of studying this question of recidivism in criminals, and he would give the House his experience as a humble student of criminology. He agreed with the mover of the Amendment that it was desirable to know whence had come the proposal which they were now discussing. What was the genesis and origin of this Part II. of this Prevention of Crimes Bill? It had been stated in previous debates that the origin of this Part II. was the result of the Report of a certain Committee which sat in 1894, but he would ask the House to compare what it recommended with the provisions of this measure. The recommendation of the Committee of 1894 contemplated the—
"Segregation of habituals for long periods of detention, during which they would not be treated with the severity of hard labour or penal servitude, but would be forced to work under less onerous conditions."
They did not advocate penal servitude first, with detention afterwards, but less one ous can i ions from the first; in other words they regarded these criminals, not as incorrigibles, but as having some hope of redemption. They did not recommend eternal damnation or indefinite detention at the pleasure of the Home Secretary. The right hon.
240
Gentleman said, with regard to these criminals, that hope and not fear was the best antidote to criminal habits, and he was bound to say from what he had observed of those undergoing penal servitude, that their eager hope was to get release, but if they were to have the penal servitude to expiate the crime first and an additional indeterminate detention at the end of it, he thought it would engender not hope but despair, and the words of Coleridge would apply—
"Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve,
And hope without an object cannot live."
He thought that this would be the result of this additional preventive detention which they too would have to forward to. He should have thought it was a case of—
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here."
What was the origin of this plan? It would be found, not in the Reports of any independent Committee, but it emanated from prison officials, and would be found in the Report of the Prison Commission of 1901–1902. He knew what good work the Chairman of that Commission had done, but he thought he was undoing it by the Amendments he had pressed upon the Home Office. These were the results of the Reports of a bureaucratic Commission, and not of any independent inquiry. It was said to be easy to draw the line between the mad and the bad, but he ventured to submit that it was exceedingly difficult to do so. Those who took cognisance of these matters recognised a large class of borderland cases where it was difficult to say if the people were mad or bad. He recalled the case of a woman who had had numerous short sentences in Holloway and graduated thence to a certified reformatory and thence to the State Reformatory where, after repeated confinement in the punishment cell, diet punishment and straight waistcoat, she was reported to be insane and sent to an asylum where the medical officer reported—
"She has been extremely morose since her admission here, and puts one in mind of a wild animal at bay. Last night she attempted suicide in a very determined manner by tying some thread tightly round her throat. If asked to give a name to her mental condition, I should be inclined to describe it as moral

241
Insanity and suicidal impulse, and I think the prognosis is very unfavourable."
These cases of moral insanity he thought our system failed entirely or very largely to weed out from our prisons. In all cases of reclamation or in any system of the allotment of rewards and punishments, they must postulate the existence of a will amenable to such influences as were brought to bear in the process of reclamation, amenable, that is, to the ordinary motives of conduct. Unless one had the co-operation of the individual one was really fishing in fishless waters in attempting to get any man or woman to improve. He was not surprised to hear the Home Secretary say that anything was better than the present system, because in the Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman said—
"The prison authorities now had no responsibility for the prisoner's moral condition or future welfare put upon them by law, and they were not bound to turn him out a better man than he went in."
Under these circumstances one was not surprised that 50 per cent. returned again, when no effort was made to turn a man out better than when he went in. But a far more important matter was the aspect of the mental condition of these persons. The Home Secretary himself said, when this question was raised on Second Reading, that many of these persons were mentally deficient.
MR. GLADSTONE: Not the class we are dealing with in this Bill.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid the right hon. Gentleman said they made a distinction between "habituals" and "professionals."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he quite agreed. They made a distinction, but they distinguished, not as regarded their state of mind, but with regard to the class of crime committed. The class his hon. friend designated committed mostly the small offences, petty larceny, small depredation and were generally vagrants. He particularly said that that was not the class they were dealing with under this Bill.
SIR W. J. COLLINSreferred the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Prisons Commission, which stated
242
that with regard to Parkhurst Prison many persons had been found insane, after many months of imprisonment, against whom every class of crime was recorded. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said on the Second Reading, that this question of mental deficiency was a great problem, and ought to be dealt with; but, continued the right hon. Gentleman, they could not deal with it under this Bill. They would have to await the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded before they could deal with it. Since the Second Reading, that Commission had reported, and he found in the pages of that Report ample corroboration of what he had been saying. That Report teemed with evidence that showed that even under the pro sent system there were many cases besides those who were certified as insane who were mentally defective and not amenable to prison discipline. They say—
"At the house of detention a large proportion are feeble-minded or lunatic. Of these weak mindeds (according to Dr. Scott) a number are sent to prison. … Many who are only partially responsible are punished … this complicates the administration of justice."
The same is true at Pentonville—
"Dr. Parker Wilson said that in that prison about 100 prisoners a year were so far mentally afflicted as to be quite unfit for prison discipline. … Besides these there are not leas than 20 per cent. of the prisoners who show signs of mental inefficiency."
And again, as Dr. Smalley says—
"Though the less grave forms of crime predominate, there is a potentiality in the feebleminded class for crimes of a more serious character; many are eventually sent into penal servitude."
He could quote page after page to the same effect, but he would only give one more quotation. The authors of the Report were perfectly familiar with the Home Office Rules, and the Report said—
"These regulations, good as they are, do not suffice. The conditions of committal and discharge will have to be altered if remedial reforms are to be made. …In regard to those committed to convict prisons the same evils obtain … here they are treated as this reiterated evidence shows, without hope and without purpose. … This is an evil of the very greatest magnitude."
And they recommend that Courts of Justice should be empowered—
"To order the detention of a convicted mentally defective person in a suitable insti-

243
tution instead of pronouncing a sentence of imprisonment."
That justified the statement that he had made, that very little discrimination took place to find out those who were bad and those who were mad. He deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have associated his honoured name with this portion of the Bill. It was not an advance in the direction of ameliorating prison conditions, but was tending to undo the great work done by John Howard and Sir Samuel Romilly, and he should go into the lobby against it.
MR. DILLONsaid as he had been in his past life an habitual criminal he took some interest in this question, and he was bound to say he could not understand how any English House of Commons could for a moment entertain such a proposal to leave the liberty of these unfortunate people at the mercy of the Judge. The proposal that they should be detained for an unlimited period was a scandalous and retrograde one and absolutely inconsistent with the trend of modern legislation. He had often noticed the want of due appreciation among people generally as to the punishment it was for a human being to be deprived of his liberty. It was often regarded as a very slight matter in this House, whereas it was in fact a terrible punishment. No matter how humanely they might treat the prisoners, the very fact that they were not at liberty but were locked in cells under the orders of warders and were compelled to forfeit the sunlight and air, the freedom which the poorest tramp enjoyed, was a very great punishment indeed. He had known people in England and Ireland express surprise that the poor preferred to sleep out in the open rather than submit to the restraint of workhouses, and he did not wonder at that, because of all the privileges that man enjoyed in this world the dearest was that of liberty. He said, having endured it himself, that there were few punishments more severe than that of living under the direction of other men, unable to leave a room 8 feet by 4 feet for hours in the day without getting
244
permission to do so. It was a terrible thing to invite a Judge to deprive a human being of his liberty for an indefinite period, not only on account of the offence for which he was charged, but because of some police record of his past—a record which was often exceedingly false, because those unfortunate people, who were more or less outcasts of society, were in a most indefensible position with regard to the record of their past lives and very much at the mercy of the police. When one was imprisoned, his-mind naturally fixed itself upon the hope of release. The one redeeming consideration in the term of imprisonment was that there was a term to it and that the prisoner's mind was always working in the consideration that he might get out; and the most humane provision was the power given to the prisoner to earn a shortening of his sentence. It was now proposed, lightly and without grounds, to take away that one gleam of hope. It was proposed that there should be indefinite preventive detention after the sentence of penal servitude or imprisonment. Of course, he might hope sooner or later, before he died, that the Home Secretary would let him out if he behaved well; but there was no definite time at which he had the right to get out. That appeared to him to be a most extraordinary exacerbation and increase of the punishment of imprisonment. He would point out also the crimes for which a man or woman might be sentenced to this preventive detention. The expression "crime," the Bill said, meant in England and Ireland any felony, or offence of uttering counterfeit coin, or getting goods or money by false pretences, or offences of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under Section 58 of the Larceny Act. That-extended, he presumed, to petty larceny and small offences; and for these small, petty offences an unfortunate wretch might be sentenced to this preventive system, during which time he was to be subjected to the same treatment as under penal servitude or ordinary imprisonment. There was nothing at any rate to ensure that he would not be. He was bound to say that the present treatment in the gaols of this country was, in his opinion, a great reproach to the

245
Government of the country. They were accustomed to find fault, and be extremely critical of Russia, France, and other foreign countries; but it was his deliberate conviction—and at one period of his life he had opportunities of obtaining information on the subject—that, on the who le, the prisoners of most European countries, including Russia, were far better treated than the prisoners of this country. He did not say that in most cases the prisons were so sanitary, because he would say that the prisons of England and Ireland were kept in an extremely sanitary condition and that the death-rate had been reduced to an exceedingly low point; but, so far as the mental sufferings of the inmates was concerned, he believed the Russian system was infinitely superior. There was more association and less of that awful system of shutting a man up for a year and not allowing him to speak to his fellow men—a system which, in his opinion, was largely responsible for those cases of semi-lunacy. It took a very strong mind to undergo imprisonment in this country for a prolonged period and remain sane. There were many men who had gone into prison perfectly sane and who had emerged from it semi-insane after some years of this suffering. This was, therefore, in his opinion, a retrograde clause which ought not to have been introduced into a Bill which had for its main object the reform of the prison system. He was a great believer in the possibility of so reforming the prison system—and he believed it was the duty of everybody to endeavour so to reform it—that it might not only be punitive but curative. The main object of prisons ought to be curative rather than punitive. He did not go so far as great thinkers such as Tolstoi who held it a great crime to imprison any man. He believed it was sometimes a duty to society to do so, but society owed prisoners a duty scientifically to adjust the system so that as far as possible it might be curative. The system at present was not curative; it was a maddening system. The first thing they ought to do was, not to give their invitation to Judges to pass indefinite sentences, but to humanise the whole system and turn the prisons into some-
246
thing more than places of restraint. He remembered once going into the great prison of New York. There were more than a thousand prisoners there. They were engaged in useful labour, associated together like rational human beings, though no doubt they were watched by armed guards and every precaution was taken to prevent any outbreak of violence. If anyone offended he was quite properly removed to the disciplinary prison. They were all leading rational and human lives, associated and working together during many hours of the day. He came away from that prison without the impression of horror which was left after an investigation of our solitary confinement system. It was a pity that in a Bill of this character such a retrograde clause should be inserted.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had listened with great interest to the speeches that had been made. With regard to the hon. and learned Member for Durham, his speech was in all respects a travesty of what was proposed by the Bill. He had drawn a picture of a retired grocer as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, without any check, ruthlessly sending one prisoner after another for indeterminate detention, but he omitted to tell the House how many restrictions there were upon that. The hon. Member for Salford did not leave him much to answer, because, as he said, he did not concern himself with details. He said only criminals were competent to deal with great subjects of criminal jurisprudence.
MR. BELLOC: I do not think I ever said anything as silly as that in my life.
MR. GLADSTONEwas sorry if he had misrepresented the hon. Member, but he understood him to say that no Member of that House or of another place was in the least competent to deal with the question, seeing that not a single Member in either House had any chance of personal experience of what was provided. He thought that was the disqualification in the hon. Member's mind, but he passed from that. The last two speeches that they had heard had been distinguished for one thing above all others, and that was that they had denounced and criticised in the most ruthless terms the

247
present system of penal servitude and imprisonment. He agreed with them to a considerable extent, and it was because he agreed with his hon. friends that the Government had brought in this Bill. He maintained that the Bill was in no sense what the hon. Member for East Mayo described it to be. It was right enough to say that the one great element of hope in the mind of the prisoner was the thought of release. That was why the Government had brought in the Bill in the form in which it was, and also because they wished to see the man who was committed to this indeterminate detention have constantly in his mind the prospect of release as soon as he gave satisfactory assurance that he was ready to lead an honest life, and that he had in his own hand the key of his own release. He was afraid the hon. Member had not read the Bill all through, and hoped he had not altogether made up his mind. He maintained, in the first instance, that the policy of long, fixed sentences had absolutely broken down in this country. That was his first position. He would give a few typical cases of the kind of man they had in their mind, and with whom the system would deal. A., thirty-eight years of age, received his first conviction at twenty-five; had served sentences of two and six years penal servitude for forgery; now undergoing ten years for the same offence; time actually spent in prison, seven and a half years; a well-educated man, a professional forger. B., forty-five years of age, received his first conviction at twenty-nine; served three terms of penal servitude and eleven sentences for stealing; now undergoing three years penal servitude for stealing and receiving; eleven and a half years in prison. C., forty years of age, received first conviction at twenty-seven; served thirteen sentences for stealing and housebreaking; now serving five years for larceny; nine years actually in prison. D., thirty-one years of age; first conviction, eighteen; served nineteen sentences for stealing and shopbreaking; now serving three years penal servitude for stealing; seven and a half years in prison. These were no ordinary cases. They were not men who had fallen into crime in their youth, who were bred up among evil surroundings. Except the last man, they began
248
their criminal career when nearly thirty years old, and then took to it professionally. As they took to it, so, if they chose, they could leave it. How were they to deal with them? Were they going to continue the ridiculous system as it existed now, founded on retaliation, to which the hon. Member for Salford seemed wedded—the long fixed sentence of ten, fifteen or twenty years, the slow dragging time that crushed a man, body and soul, with no prospect of release, till the end of the fixed period with no hope in him but dull savage determination when he came out to have his revenge, so far as he could, on society? He agreed that they ought to fight against the notion that there was a class of stereotyped criminal who must exist whatever they did; and what they had to do was to try to stop crime at its source, as they had done in the Probation Act and in the Children Act, and as they proposed to do in part of this Bill. But as things were, they had a large number of men who were professional criminals, with no intention of being anything else unless proper coercion, or proper reformation, was applied. What was the present system? How could there be any true relation between the measure of a man's guilt and the measure of the suffering and the punishment which he endured under a fixed sentence? What justice was there in it? It was tragic in its effect on prisoners. If they came to short sentences—he was speaking now of this distinct class—what good did it do? These men laughed at it. The present system was cruel and dangerous—cruel because under these fixed sentences it gave no hope to a man, and it gave no incentive to the prison authorities to use the best means to reclaim them. It was dangerous because it was ineffective. Recidivism was increasing notwithstanding the spread of education. In 1903, out of 2,041 prisoners, 73·9 per cent. were previously convicted; in 1908, out of 2,376 prisoners, 82 per cent. were previously convicted. This class was increasing. In dealing with this class the present system was a failure. It did not reform them, and was cruel. It was important the House should bear in mind that this new institution—he would not call it a prison—was to be different and distinct from prisons as they now

249
existed. Technically it would be a prison in that prison rules and forcible detention would apply, but in its working it would be essentially different. It would be built in a different and selected type on a site specially suitable, on a design carefully and specially thought out, and its inmates were to be treated in a special manner. It was urged against the Bill that its worst part was that it proposed that a man should first go through a sentence of penal servitude. The reason for the preliminary sentence was that this new institution was to be different in its whole spirit from the ordinary prison. His design was that it should be a place for reformation as well as of detention. If a place of that sort was organised, it was necessary it should be kept from some of the characteristics of the ordinary prison life. If there was no preliminary sentence, and a man taken in some horrible or disgusting offence, some brutal robbery with violence were sent straight into it, it would ruin the whole conception of the place. He would go in red hot from crime, without any period for reflection, and, perhaps, with the determination to make things as unpleasant as possible. It was necessary, therefore, that these men should go first for a period of detention in prison. The man. would have to be punished for the crime of which he was convicted. It was necessary that a man should first undergo a period of penal servitude. That had been the opinion in the Colonies where the indeterminate system had been adopted. Three of the Australian Colonies had adopted the indeterminate sentences preceded by a period of imprisonment. It was necessary that the man should recognise clearly the distinction between the punitive period in a convict prison and detention in the reforming institution. This period of detention would last as long as the man persisted in his intention to lead a criminal life. If he gave reasonable undertaking that he meant to turn over a new life and lead a life of honest work, he would have a chance of carrying out his intention at the end of one, two, or three years; that he could settle for himself. And it was important to remember that the preliminary period of imprisonment would have an important bearing on the man's
250
future. During that period he might by his conduct earn remission, the Home Secretary could shorten the period and by good behaviour he would have an earlier transfer to the detention institution. That was to take the place of the present system—doing time, that hateful phrase, with reversion to crime ta the end of it. Under the Bill the man would know when he entered prison that he would afterwards go into detention and would be detained until he gave reasonable guarantee that he would turn over a new leaf.
MR. DILLON: How can the man give a guarantee?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would deal with that point later. At the moment he was trying to link up the two forms of detention. In the convict prison the offender would recognise facts, he would understand that the State, having got hold of him, would not allow him to revert to his life of crime, he would recognise his position, and though it could not be said that all would do so, certainly a great number would see, either through awakening of conscience or working of reason, that it would be to their interest, that it would pay them better to give up crime and try to settle to honest ways of life. Therefore, he hoped he had made clear that the period of preliminary imprisonment and the period of the indeterminate detention must be taken together and worked together. It might be said: "How do you deal with the criminal who has been sentenced to a long term of penal servitude? It is a monstrous thing that a man who may have been sentenced to ten or fifteen years penal servitude should have to undergo an indeterminate term of detention after that." He agreed there might be a danger. He did not for a moment think that such a harsh sentence would be imposed. If such an extreme case happened it would be perfectly easy for the Home Secretary to adjust the matter if it required adjustment. But what would the Judges do? The Judges, he was sure, would administer the Act wisely and well. In the case of a man who had three records against him and was convicted of the fourth qualifying offence, the Judge would not proceed to sentence

251
him forthwith; the prisoner would be further charged with recidivism, and if he were found guilty of that by the jury the Judge would then pronounce Sentence. The Judge in imposing that sentence would obviously have regard to the whole case and to the prisoner's character and record. If he thought the man were more sinned against than sinning the Judge would make his penal servitude short, so that he might soon reach the indeterminate period, and so obtain an early release. Safeguards were provided against the harsh working of the Bill. In the first place the Public Prosecutor had to sanction any proceedings, and to that provision he attached great importance. He would tell the House why. That provision would avoid the danger to the individual which might result from a zealous policeman who was too eager to proceed against some inconvenient person in the locality, and who did not take enough trouble to find out whether he was a man who ought to be treated in the way proposed. The duty of finding out would be put on the Public Prosecutor who would have to satisfy himself carefully as to previous records and as to whether the person concerned was a proper subject for being dealt with in this way. His hon. friend the Member for West St. Pancras seemed to think that half-witted people, those on the road to insanity, would be put into these places without any restrictions. That would not be so at all. Precautions would be taken against prisoners who were mentally deficient being dealt with under this part of the Bill as habitual offenders.
SIR W. J. COLLINSasked if the measure provided for any improvement in the present arrangements for ascertaining whether a prisoner was mentally deficient.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was impossible to provide in set terms for the particular medical examination that each individual should receive; but his hon. friend might take it from him—and he spoke, not only for himself, but for the Office which he represented and for the Prison Commissioners—that all engaged in the administration of the Act would in each case of the indictment
252
of a person for being an habitual offender carefully look into it from the point of view of the character of the man. The personality and the circumstances of the accused man would be considered. No mentally-deficient person would be placed in the category of the habitual offenders. Such cases would at once be brought to the notice of the proper officials, who would take care that they received the best treatment that could be given in the circumstances. Let the House also remember that in addition to the safeguard through the Public Prosecutor, the jury had to be satisfied that the man was an habitual offender. The Judge had to be satisfied, likewise, and in the background there was the Home Secretary who would exercise in this, as in other cases, the prerogative of mercy. The man had also an unqualided right of appeal. Then if Clauses 12 to 14 were carefully looked at, it would be seen that it was the duty of all concerned so to treat these people that they should be discharged as soon as they were capable of earning an honest livelihood; and that when they were discharged on licence they were put under supervision, personal or of some society, so that when they left prison they would get a lift which would induce them not to go back to criminal associations, as now happened. Subsection (2) of Clause 12 made it mandatory on the Secretary of State to discharge a prisoner at the expiration of ten years unless he had definite reason to believe, on information given by the police, that the prisoner would relapse into crime. He would remind the House that if they were going to undertake a work of this kind they should make it complete. He maintained on the authority of many criminologists in America and elsewhere, that the fact of there being an indeterminate period of detention was of great assistance in steadying down hardened offenders Some men if they knew there was a fixed date for release would persist in defiance of reformatory influences. They should know from the first that persistency in criminal intent can be of no avail. He wished to hasten the process of reformation. He did not suppose that this power of enforcing an indeterminate sentence would be used except in rare and exceptional

253
circumstances. He did not believe that these men would stay in prison for more than three or four years, hut, supposing that there were some prisoners who knew that they must go out at the end of ten years, and who pretended that if they were allowed to go free, that they would live an honest life and not go back to their old game of forgery or housebreaking, they might only do so in order to have six months or a year of the old life which they thought was much greater fun than being honest. Suppose that was known—and such things did get known in prison—there ought to be some power to detain these men in prison instead of allowing them to go free. The House would remember that when special cases arose these would be laid before Parliament. He had every reason to know from personal experience that these cases were taken notice of in Parliament. Having regard to the practical necessity of keeping these men in prison, this one small reservation was advisable. The House could be satisfied that in fact the Act would compel them to release these men as soon as they possibly could. It had been said that there was no guarantee for milder treatment under this new system. All he could say was that they bound themselves to what he had said in the House; and he called attention to the Amendments which he had put on the Paper to insert at the end of Clause 11 to the following effect: "Persons undergoing preventive detention shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge." They were going to establish a different system. His hon. friend the Member for West St. Pancras had quoted words which he had used upstairs in Committee, with regard to our present prison system and the responsibility upon prison warders and officials. Their obligation now was to keep the prisoners under detention, but there was no obligation upon them to reform them, and the average man shapes his conduct according to that duties and responsibilities put upon him. These officials were very often very kind friends to the prisoner; many a kindly act even of a warder
254
had been of great use to a prisoner, but there was no system in it at all. It was a system of rigid detention modified by the recent provision of progressive stages and remission for good conduct. They intended that the higher responsible staff in this new institution should be specially trained to new work, and their work would not only be judged by their success in keeping people under detention, but by their success in discharging them week by week, month by month, and year by year. Active work would be done by the special committee and others concerned for training and reforming the prisoners, so that at the earliest moment these men, trained to work, might be found capable of having their discharge and, under proper supervision, having every opportunity of becoming honest men. That was the great and vital distinction between the two institutions. Passing to the question of how they would know when to discharge these men, he said that the prison authorities often did know when a man ought to be discharged. He knew cases of men in regard to whom the prison governor could say: "That man will never commit another offence." He had heard that from them himself.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that in quite a number of cases it was a mistake.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was so, for they were all liable to mistakes, but they had to exercise the best judgment they could. There we e many cases of doubt, and as regards these they had to take their chance.
MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman really defended this proposition that the liberty of a man was left at the mercy of another man's opinion of his acts.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that, put in that way, of course the question did not admit of an affirmative answer, but he might point out that the Home Secretary on the advice of a single individual under the present system could release a man.
MR. DILLONpointed out that he could release a man, but he could not prolong his imprisonment.
MR. GLADSTONEurged that surely this was a merciful provision, this power of release, and the fact that they could release on licence enabled them to release earlier. If they could not release on licence they would not be able to release if they were in a state of doubt. Supposing one was in a state of doubt, was it not perfectly fair to say to a man who had been an outlaw against society: "If you will give me this guarantee, I will let you out on licence earlier than I would if I had not the power to release you on licence"? Was it not fair, and was it not a merciful way of acting? He should think it was better than fixed imprisonment, of which hon. Members were so much in favour. They were adopting a merciful system which would enable a man to turn over a new leaf, and setting up machinery to keep him straight in any path that he had chosen. He apologised to the House for occupying them so long They proposed to put the process of regeneration within the power of these men. They were to have the key of their own release. If they would consent to become honest men they would be let out on licence. Was that wrong, harsh, or cruel, or a reactionary step? If this was what an hon. Member called a reactionary step, he would take it, but it was not reactionary. It was, he said, a step in the right direction, and he believed that this method of dealing with criminals would be found the chief secret of prison reform. They did not attempt to deal with the whole of prison reform in this Bill; this was an instalment, and the experiment would be watched carefully by the whole of the world wherever interest was taken in these matters. It was because he believed that the Bill was merciful to criminals many of whom would reform if given an opportunity, that he asked this House to reject the Amendment.
MR. FORSTERsaid the House had listened with very great interest to the exhaustive speech of the right hon. Gentleman and he thought it had done so with a good deal of sympathy with what he said, but at that late hour he did not intend to give a detailed criticism of the measure or to examine
256
the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in support of it. What he rose to do was to suggest that in view of the lateness of the hour the debate might be now adjourned, because it was obviously not a proper time of the night to enter upon a detailed discussion of so important a measure. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that they only began discussion of the Bill at a late hour, 9.30, whereas it was hoped to have taken it at an earlier hour of the evening, and he thought it was not at all the fault of those Members on the Opposition side of the House that they were prevented from carrying out the arrangement which had been arrived at. He did not think it was necessary for him to labour the point any further, and he would simply move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Henry Forster.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he of course recognised the fact that the beginning of the debate was made later than was anticipated by the prolongation of discussion of the Scottish Education Bill, but he might point out that there was full discussion on the Second Reading, when all these matters were discussed at very considerable length, whilst he would respectfully suggest that not much more time was necessary to discuss the particular Amendment under consideration. But having regard to the feeling expressed by the hon. Member opposite, and to the fact that he himself had taken up a very considerable portion of time, he should not like to press the House to sit longer, and therefore accepted the Motion.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.