Lords Sitting of 31 July 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Post Office Sites.
Also a certificate that in the case of the following Bill (referred to them by order of the House of the 14th instant),the provisions of the Bill have been approved of at a meeting of the members of the Clogher Valley Railway Company, held in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order No.64. Ulster and Connaught Light Railways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester southern Tramways Bill[H.L.]; Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments
Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Read 3a, and passed
Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement Bill, now Ebbw Vale Improvement Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Erith Tramways and improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Moved, That Standing Order No 143a be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 3a; agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and -sent to the Commons.
Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and improvements Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Gosport and Fareham Tramway's Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Western Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  General reports of His Majesty's Inspectors on elementary schools and training colleges, for the year 1902.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Thirty-ninth annual report of the Registrar-General, for the year 1902.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the sea and inland fisheries of Ireland, for the year 1902 (Part I. General Report).
  QUEEN'S C'OLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Annual Report of the President, for the year 1902–3.
  Directory of Industrial Associations in the United Kingdom in 1903.
  LIGHT LOAD LINE, 1903.
  Papers showing the action taken by the Board of Trade with regard to certain recommendations made by the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Light Load Line.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Returns of the capital, traffic, receipts, and working expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1902; with a General Report thereon and Summary Tables for a series of years.
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Statistical Report of the health of the Navy, for the year 1902.

  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Report on the administration and working of Indian railways, by Thomas Robertson, C.V.O., Special Commissioner for Indian Railways.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account showing the receipt and expenditure of naval prize, bounty, and salvage, and other moneys between 1st April, 1902, and 31st March, 1903. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE MILITIA BALLOT.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have so often spoken upon this subject that I do not propose to make any remarks in putting the Question which stands in my name to the noble Duke, and which reads as follows:— "To ask the President of the Council of Imperial Defence whether the question of the Militia ballot has engaged the attention of the Council, and further, inasmuch as Lord Lansdowne when Secretary for War, brought in an amending Bill bringing the present Militia Ballot Act up to date, and proceeded no further with it; is it the intention of His Majesty's Government, at any time, to proceed with this Bill and to pass it into law; and if so, when." If your Lordships will look at the paper you will see that I have a Militia Ballot Bill down for Second Reading, and that will enable me, if anything is said by the noble Duke in answer to this Question which appears to me to require a reply, to say what I have to say then. At present I confine myself to putting the Question standing in my name.
  The LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I think it must be clear to your Lordships that the proceedings of the Committee of Defence are, and must be, of an extremely confidential character, and that it is my duty, as President of the Committee, to be extremely cautions in giving any reply to the Question of the noble Earl which might in any way be drawn into a precedent for further inquiries on matters under the consideration of the Committee. I believe that it is quite true that a statement was made the other day in the other House of Parliament relating to a force being maintained in South Africa, in which, reference was made to the fact that the question had been under the consideration of the Defence Committee, and that the proposals of the Government were founded upon the recommendations of the Committee Well, my Lords, that statements related to a subject which it was prepared on its own responsibility to make a proposal and the fact, therefore, that it had been considered, before the Government made a definite proposal, by the Committee could be stated, no doubt, without any inconvenience. But the matters with which this Committee has had, and may have, in the future to deal are, as I have stated, of so confidential a character, that I think it will be well in the future to err rather on the side of prudence and caution, and to refrain as far as possible from any reference to the proceedings of a Committee which are necessarily of so confidential a character. What Parliament has, I conceive, to deal with, are the decisions which are arrived at by the Government, necessarily on its own responsibility; and I am quite sure that the Government had no desire, neither would it be justified in sheltering itself in regard to any decision behind the decision of a Committee of this character. I must, therefore, decline to give any further answer to the first part of the noble Earl's Question. The noble Earl, however, asks in the latter part of the Question whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government at any time to proceed with the Bill which was introduced some sessions ago by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, when Secretary of State for War, and to pass it into law, and, if so, when. I think in putting that Question

  1033
  the noble Earl must have forgotten that at an earlier period of the session the Government recommended the appointment of a Commission, the reference to which was:
  "To inquirer into the organisation, numbers, and terms of service of our Militia and Volunteer forces, and to report whether any, and if any what, changes are required in order to secure that those forces should be maintained in a condition of military efficiency, and at an adequate strength."
  I think it must be quite clear to the House, and I trust also to the noble Earl, that a time when this Commission has been appointed and is conducting its investigations, would be the very last at which it would occur to the Government to proceed with a Bill dealing with part of the very subject under the consideration of the Commission. Therefore the only answer which I can give to the noble Earl is that it certainly is not the intention of the Government at the present time to proceed with the measures, and its action as to the future must depend, at all events, in part upon the Report which it may obtain from the Commission which has been appointed.

  MILITIA BALLOT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL Of WEMYSS:: My Lords, the Bill which I hold in my hand is the measure referred to in the latter part of the Question to which the noble Duke has just replied. I thank my noble friend the President of the Committee of Imperial Defence for his courteous statement, and I quite admit the soundness of his arguments for not giving an answer. But it seemed to me that it was desirable to keep this Question, which deals with the very foundation of military defence, alive. The Bill is, in fact, Lord Lansdowne's Bill, introduced when he was Secretary of State for War; and when the noble Marquess presented the Bill he admitted that the present law with regard to the Militia Ballot is obsolete and requires to be amended, and he stated that this Bill was for the purpose of bringing the Militia Ballot up to date. It is an absurd position for any nation to occupy to have
  1034
  a military system which rests as its sure foundation on the Militia Ballot, on compulsory home service, and then to allow a measure of this kind, brought in by the Minister for War, to meet an emergency that may at any rate arise, to be on the Table. I have simply put this Bill down, as I have said, to keep the matter alive; and I formally move the Second Reading in case any noble Lord wishes to say anything on the subject. It is a matter which should be dealt with by the Government. I should like to quote from a preface to a pamphlet on the Militia and Volunteers which was issued in February of this year, because it expresses exactly the present situation with regard to military matters:—
  "In these days, when so much is said and written re Army re-organisation; when so-called re-organisation is being attempted by building on the 'bed rock' of thinnest air, to the ignoring and neglect of our existing military system which rests absolutely in principle—aye, and in law, annually suspended—on the Crown's immemorial right to call upon its subjects to serve compulsorily for Home Defence; and when the possibility of our Navy failing to ensure our food supply in time of war has led to the formation of the Food Supply in Time of War Association—it seems to me useful to republish some matter bearing upon Home Defence and our existing military system. Further, I would point out, when it is said that our Navy is an all-sufficient security against invasion, that the coracles, or navy, of the period did not keep the Vikings from our shores, nor prevent the successful occupation of Britain by the Romans for 400 years; also that the navy of the day did not save us from the Norman invasion and conquest; nor prevent the landing of William of Orange in England, nor of the Pretender in Scotland, nor of General Hoche in Ireland. The fact is that no nation in the world has been so variously and successfully subjected to invasion as the British people, in whose veins now runs the mixed blood resulting therefrom, plus in some quarters, a Spanish infusion due to the Armada wreckage on our coasts. And well would it he for us now if we had a good Queen Bess ruling at the Admiralty and War Office, for, not satisfied with her fleets and sea power under the Howards, Drakes, and Frobishers of the period, she had our Home Land Defences so completely organised that it was even laid down how many horse shoes and nails each company should carry as part of its equipment. Since then 300 years and more have come and gone. Let the War Office say whether or no our means of land defence are in the days of Edward the VII., relatively equivalent to those of the Elizabethan period of our history. If not, let the nation insist on their being made so, without an hour's delay, by putting in force our existing military system, and by casting all novel, costly, vain, military imaginings to the winds."

  1035
  You are going to take 25,000 men out of England and station them in South Africa, therefore the defensive power of England will be 25,000 men short. General Peel introduced a Militia Army Reserve under which the Militia gave voluntarily a certain number of men—30,000ߞto the Army. He intended that for every one so given another should be raised, but that has not been done and the Militia Reserve has been abolished; therefore the Army is 30,000 men short on that head alone. I think this state of things requires very serious consideration on the part of the Government. Ministers should do their duty by the nation and put in force the Act which they annually suspend. There is no nation, civilised or uncivilised, that has a military system where those who are responsible for its administration and for the safety of the nation have not the courage to enforce it. I do not think the public would object, but the Government fear that votes might be lost if they enforced compulsory home defence. I have some right to speak on this subject with knowledge, because two or three years ago I issued a circular to all lords-lieutenant, chairmen of County Councils, chairmen of quarter sessions, mayors, provosts and other officials throughout the country, asking them whether they were satisfied with our present state of national defence, and seventy-five per cent. replied that they were not satisfied. The second question I put to them was whether they believed that the people of this country would accept ballot for the Militia in an amended and simple form. At present ballot for the Militia means that every man from eighteen to forty-five years of age is liable. All that is needed is that every man who attains the age of twenty and is not serving the State in the Army, the Navy, the Volunteers, the Police, or in some other form, should be liable to ballot for the Militia. The replies I received to the effect that the writers thought the nation would accept such a modification were two to one of the total.
  It is, of course, folly to think of proceeding at this time with this Bill, and I have only moved it in order to draw attention to the present state of things.
  1036
  I do not ask that the Government should enforce the ballot, but that they should bring it to that state at which it is available if needed. At present it is of no value at all. I hope this subject will be considered by the Commission to which the question of the Militia and Volunteer forces has been referred, and that they will take a sensible view of it and recommend the adoption of this Bill. I resigned my commission in the Volunteers because I felt that that force was being used by the Government in order to save them from doing what they would have to do if the Volunteers did not exist, namely, pass this Bill and put the Militia Ballot into force. The new policy adopted by the Government in regard to the Volunteers has reduced the number of that force by 100,000 men. Instead of having a small force highly trained, the right idea should be to have a large body of Volunteers sufficiently trained, so that when the alarm came they would, by a little drilling, be efficient to take their place in home defence. I think the view that has been taken by the War Office of the place in our defensive position of the Volunteers is an entirely wrong one. The whole spirit of the Volunteer force is that it is for home defence, and for home defence only; and yet the Government are encouraging them to go abroad. I know as regards my own regiment that they sent out one or two gallant companies to South Africa, but I contend that before they went out they should have resigned, their positions in the Volunteer regiments, because otherwise you have the "stay-at-homes" and the "go-and fights," which is contrary to the whole spirit of the force. Let us hope that through the action of the Commission to which my noble friend has referred some good may be done. I formally move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved—
  "That the Bill be now read 2a."—( The Earl of wemyss.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE For WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose, of following the noble Earl

  1037
  in the remarks he has addressed to the House, because I think that the noble Duke behind me has given a sufficient reason for not consenting to the Second Reading of this Bill. I only rise to repeat to the noble Earl what I stated earlier in this session, that it is really not quite fair to His Majesty's Government, or to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who introduced this Bill when Minister for War, to say that having introduced the Bill the noble Marquess then left it on the Table without making any effort to induce the Government to proceed with it. The noble Marquess stated distinctly on introducing the Bill that it was a tentative measure, that he did not intend to proceed with it, and could not. hold out any hope that it would be proceeded with that session, or in any subsequent session. If the noble Earl supposes that this Bill will remedy the present chaotic and discordant series of Acts of Parliament which have to do with the Militia Ballot and the Militia, he is very much mistaken. All that this Bill does is to show prominently certain lines on which it will be necessary, if it is ever intended to put the Militia Ballot into force, to prepare a further Bill, which will have to take the form of a consolidating Bill. Since I have been at the War Office this subject has been very thoroughly gone into, and if such a Bill is to be brought in it will have to be one of about ninety clauses, and containing some sixty or seventy pages.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg to withdraw the Bill, but I think the noble Earl's explanation makes the Government case much worse.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that marriage with the sister or niece of a deceased wife has been recently legalised in the British East African Protectorate; and if so, upon what grounds this step has been taken.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, in the absence of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is in Ireland in attendance on His Majesty, I have been asked to reply to the Question of the noble Duke. It is perfectly correct to say that an ordinance is in existence in the British East African Protectorate which enables a man to marry his deceased wife's sister or niece. The noble Duke asks upon what grounds it was passed. It has been in existence in South Nigeria for some years, and when the Foreign Office were framing marriage laws for East Africa they took as their model the South Nigerian marriage law. The law in South Nigeria is taken from ordinances which were in existence in Lagos and the Gold Coast territory. Those laws were sanctioned by the late Lord Derby, who allowed the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister to be settled by local opinion and local considerations. In that way the law in Africa, both East and West, has grown up, and is similar on both sides of the continent.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a word in connection with the answer which has just been given. I venture to hope that this matter will be further looked into, and that care will be taken that we do not inadvertently drift into a condition of marriage-law legislation as regards the Protectorates in Africa, which would affect very much larger and more far-reaching questions than marriage with a deceased wife's sister. I have had the advantage, by the courtesy of the noble Earl, of looking at the ordinance, which is now, I understand, the law in the East African Protectorate. I understand that it was only in consequence of a protest which has reached the Commissioner in Uganda that the ordinance is not also enforced there; and that both in Uganda and in the East African Protectorate those who are most conversant with the whole question of civilisation for these people feel that the ordinances, as at present drafted, are almost absurdly inapplicable to the circumstances. This is quite apart

  1039
  from any mere question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. True, there are some 80,000 Christians in the Protectorate of Uganda consisting entirely of converts to the Anglican Church or to the Roman Catholic Church, and they are at this moment practically unanimous in disapproving of and disliking this particular provision. But the question is a much larger one. The new Marriage Law is, I am told, absolutely contrary to a treaty which had been made with the native chiefs to the effect that no additional tax should be imposed upon them except under certain peculiar circumstances therein described. This ordinance does impose an additional tax upon them, and, in short, the matter seems to have been enacted originally in one place and to meet one condition of things, and afterwards applied to quite a different sort of region and to another condition of things altogether. All I would ask is, that the matter should be most carefully looked into, so that before the law is made operative over a wider region than at present, we may, at least, understand that every inquiry has been made among those most cognisant of the position of affairs.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether there is the smallest hope of recalling this ordinance in the East African Protectorate, and whether he will give some pledge to the House, on behalf of the Government, that such ordinances will not be enacted in the future for other protectorates without Parliament having, at any rate, some opportunity of expressing its opinion. It seems to me that the answer which my noble friend has given makes the matter a good deal more serious. We are told that this legislation was inaugurated in Lagos because of local feeling and local consideration. I should like to know what the local considerations in regard to Lagos are. As to local feeling, in most of these parts of Africa they are very strongly in favour of a good many things which are un-desirable. Probably local feeling is in favour of polygamy and other divers things which I will not specify. If you are to legislate by local feeling for protectorates in which the population
  1040
  is to a large extent savage, I think it will carry you a considerable way. As the most reverend Prelate has pointed out, this is not merely a question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister or niece; but I venture to think it is a most serious thing that the Marriage Law should be altered in this way without giving Parliament any opportunity of becoming aware of the fact or of expressing its opinion upon it. Although it may be argued that many Colonial Legislatures have sanctioned marriage with a deceased wife's sister, I would point out that marriage with a deceased wife's niece is going a considerable step further than even many Colonial Legislatures have dared to go. Surely, in the absence of any definite expression from Parliament of its will in this matter, common sense would insist on the advisability of maintaining the English Law in protectorates under the Foreign Office.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I should like to ask whether it is not the fact that every self-governing colony, without exception, has rendered marriage with a deceased wife's sister legal, and that these laws have been approved by Home Government. I should have thought marriage with a deceased wife's niece was one step. further off and was even preferable to legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Although all the self-governing colonies have passed this law, and although the House of Commons over and over again by majorities of two to one have passed a Bill effect that object, the noble Duke asks that the Government should come to Parliament before legalising such a marriage in any British protectorate. That would be casting a burden on Parliament which no one would desire unless it be to prevent particular legislation to which they object, but which, according to the view of the majority of our fellow subjects abroad and in this country, is regarded as wise and beneficent legislation.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In reply to the noble Duke, I believe the Foreign Office are considering at this moment the question of the uniformity of the

  1041
  marriage laws in all protectorates under their charge. The noble Duke also asked that before ordinances are passed there should be an opportunity given for the Imperial Parliament to consider them and rectify them. That would be an entirely new departure; but the noble Duke is well aware that opportunities always occur, both in this House and the other House of Parliament, for criticising the policy adopted in the protectorate States and the Crown colonies; and no doubt if the noble Duke, or any other noble Lord, wishes to raise the question he will have ample opportunity of doing so. With regard to the Question put to me by Lord James, I have not looked up the matter carefully, but I believe he is substantially correct in saying that in all the self-governing colonies marriage with a deceased wife's sister is permissible. But that legislation, of course, is passed by the responsible governments of the colonies, and although it, is subject to the approval of the Crown, it is in a different position from the ordinances which are passed in Crown colonies.
  THE LORD BISHOP or HEREFORD: What is the date of the ordinance?
  THE EARL or ONSLOW: January 1, 1903.
  The subject then dropped.

  THE DOUAI BENEDICTINES
  LORD HERRIESwho had given notice of the following Question:—"To ask His Majesty's Government it they are aware that a college for the education of British students at Douai has recently been suppressed and its property sequestrated, although large sums of money have been expended within the last few years by British subjects for the enlargement and improvement of the college buildings; and if they are prepared to make friendly representations to the French Government, with a view to obtaining some compensation for the great loss which has been sustained by British subjects" said: My Lords, since I put this Question on the Paper a similar Question has been asked in the other House and Papers promised on the subject, but, notwithstanding that, I think
  1042
  I may as well put the Question here, in order to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to consider the representations which have been made to them to secure some sort of compensation to the Benedictines who have been turned out of Douai.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the circumstances of the case. This particular college at Douai has been in existence for about 300 years. It was one of those educational establishments which were started in the time of Queen Elizabeth, as in those days the Roman Catholics of this country were not allowed to have their families educated in this country, and therefore several establishments were started on the Continent in order that these children might be sent there for their education. The one in Douai itself was started in 1615, and since that time it has been the property of the Benedictines, but it has always been considered English property. The Benedictines are devoted to educational work and also to literary pursuits, and therefore I do not see why there should be any objection at all to their being protected, as far as they can be protected, by the law of this country. I daresay your Lordships will remember that when the Benedictine monasteries were suppressed in Italy, Mr Gladstone interceded specially on behalf of two, on account of their historical associations and the literary character of their teaching. The result was that those two monasteries were saved, whereas all the others were confiscated; and I think that when that very distinguished Sovereign the Emperor of Germany went to Italy recently, his principal object was to visit one of those two monasteries.
  But to return to Douai. The college at Douai was saved in 1790, because at that time the National Assembly considered it an English institution. In its decree it said—
  "The Benedictines may he allowed to enjoy their property secured by them out of their resources and of others of their nation."
  Again, in the spring of 1793, it was recognised as English when, by the decree of the National Assembly, all the property of the educational institutions in France was confiscated. What Robespierre declined to do in 1793 has

  1043
  been done in the last few months by the French Government. I should also like to point out that at the end of 1793 the school at Douai was confiscated because France was at war with England and this school was the property of English subjects, showing that up to that time it was always recognised as English property. The house and property were taken possession of, and the inmates, numbering, I think, about twenty or thirty at that time, were sent to prison.
  This state of things continued for some time. In 1803–5, the Emperor Napoleon recognised that this property which had been confiscated was, properly speaking, British property, and he ordered it, with one or two other English institutions which existed in France at that time, to be placed under one administration, known as the Burean des Fondations Anglaises. Distinction was made, then, between what was French and what was English property. For example, at Douai, the church and part of the house was considered French property, because it had originally belonged to a suppressed Abbey in France. The remainder of the building was considered English property, and was therefore put under the management of this Bureau, to whom was given the administration of all English property. In 1826 a certain sum of money was paid over by the French Government as compensation to those English subjects who had sustained loss during the war between France and England, and claims were made by the Benedictines for a portion of that money to be repaid to them. The English Government of the day refused to pay this money over, and the question came before the Privy Council in 1826. Lord Gifford decided against these claims because, although the members of these establishments were British subjects, the aims and objects of the establishments were not authorised by, but were directly opposed to, British law. That was before the Emancipation Act.
  I maintain that since the Emancipation Act the giving of such education abroad is not opposed to English law, and surely therefore if these establishments are closed the property belonging to them ought to be recognised as English
  1044
  property, and some claim should be made on the French Government for compensation for their confiscation Since 1826 large sums of money have been spent on these buildings. I know one gentleman who has spent £10,000 on this building at Douai within the last few years, and what I ask His Majesty's Government to do is to represent to the French Government that, on the understanding and on the supposition that the buildings were English property, this English gentleman has spent £10,000 upon them, and that some compensation at least might be given to him. I put it to His Majesty's Government that this is a case similar to that of a company managing a commercial undertaking. If an English company managing a commercial undertaking had settled in France, and for some reason or other the French Government thought it necessary to do away with it, I think in all probability the company would come to the English Government, and we should recognise their claims to some sort of compensation, and should make strong representations to the French Government with a view of obtaining that compensation. I am quite sure that if any similar case happened in Venezuela, or in any such country, the claim would be urged very strongly.
  We are now on the most friendly terms with France, and I cannot help thinking that if remonstrances were made to the French Government they would be prepared to consider the special circumstances of the case and give some sort of compensation. It may be true, indeed, that in this particular establishment at Douai students were taught to believe in the existence of Almighty God and in a future life—doctrines which I believe are not now allowed to be taught in the schools of France according to the principles of the French Government. But it is not the case that any French students have been taught there. They are entirely English, and the principles that have been taught, I am happy to say, are the principles of the English nation. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider this matter
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne to reply to

  1045
  the Question of the noble Lord, and I would like to assure him at once that His Majesty's Government sympathise very deeply with the English citizens who have been turned out of their seminary; but they have chosen to establish themselves in a foreign country, and, like everyone else, they must he prepared to bow to the law of the land in which they are domiciled. The French Government have acted throughout in this matter with an evident desire to meet the wishes of the British Government as far as they are compatible with the law of France. M. Delcasse has informed the British Ambassador that if there were any binding treaty to which he could point, it would be received with the greatest possible consideration by the French Government.
  The noble Lord talked a great deal about the "confiscation" of the property of the Benedictines. As to that, I rather doubt whether, in the right sense of the word, there has been, or is likely to be, any such thing. At the present moment there is a liquidator in possession of the premises, but he is dealing only with the movable property of the Benedictines, which amounts to £1,000 or £1,500, and which will not much more than cover the debts of the Benedictines to the local tradesmen, which will be discharged out of the realisation of that property. As to the real property, that is held under the Bureau des Fondations Anglaises, to which the noble Lord has referred, but the Benedictines are not the owners in fee, but merely the tenants, and the Association law does not touch such property in any way, nor is there any reason to believe that the liquidator will sell it. On the contrary, I am assured that they are prepared to pay over the revenues to the Benedictines provided they are devoted to the maintenance of students in France. The noble Lord will find upon inquiry that there is no intention to confiscate the property on the wholesale scale he suggests. But I cannot hold out any hope that His Majesty's Government will press the French Government to do more for these English subjects who have settled in France than they would do for Frenchmen living in their own country.
  LORD HERRIES: What does the noble Lord propose to do in the case of the house bought by students at Douai?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It still belongs to the students, but they are not allowed to inhabit it.
  The subject then dropped.

  THE PRICE OF BREAD AND THE CORN DUTY.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the price of bread during the last three months, and to move for Papers. It is hardly necessary to point out to your Lordships that this question has an intimate connection with the shilling registration duty on corn, which has been abolished, and the effect of the abolition of which came into operation on 1st July. I waited until the 1st July, because I wished to see whether up to that time any effect, and, if so, what, was produced upon the price of bread, and I have now in my hand, through the courtesy of the Department of Agriculture, the Returns of the Board of Trade for the month of July this year, which I imagine must be as recent information as they are able to give. These Returns relate to London and twenty-five large provincial towns, and I find that for the last three months—that is, for May, June, and July—no variation whatever of any sort or kind has taken place in the price of bread. I find further, going back as far as 1st July last year, that only one change has taken place in any one of those twenty-five towns during that time, and that was in the Potteries district, where from February of the present year the price has been 4½d., and where in the month of October, 1902, and from then back to the month of July, 1902, the price had been 4d. I think that these figures are very important as bearing upon this registration duty, which has recently been abolished.
  It is hardly necessary that I should remind your Lordships of the history of that tax. Most of your Lordships must be familiar with it, but perhaps I may, in a word or two, recall what has happened. After the Corn Laws were abolished that duty existed up to the year 1869, when it was abolished by Mr. Lowe. In those days, fortunately, surpluses were a continual event, and Mr. Lowe, with that logical mind for which he was so well known, thought it desirable to reduce the last vestige of anything that could be called a tax on corn, and he abolished it. At that time the price of bread was not

  1047
  affected; the consumer got nothing by it, delivered most enthusiastic and animated but the tax, which produced £900,000 at time, was gone. Things remained they persuaded people that this tax was so until 1902, when Sir Michael Hicks Beach re-imposed the tax. He was in search, he said of some new tax which would produce a large revenue and interfere as little as possible with consumer with trade; and he re-imposed the duty, the result far exceeding his expectations. The duty itself amounted, I think, to about £ 2,400,000. The price of bread, expect in few instances, did not in any way rise, and even the volume of imports of wheat from foreign countries in ten months up to June 30 amounted to 67,000,000 cwts., in round numbers, compared with 60,000,000 cwts. In the corresponding ten months of 1901–2, while the imports of wheat, meal, and flour amounted to nearly 16,000,000 cwts., compared with very nearly the same number of cwts. In the preceding ten months. At the same time there was no effect produced, except in certain temporary instances, on the price of bread to the consumer.
  So pleased. was Sir Michael Hicks Beach with the result of the tax that he afterwards told us that he intended, when the war had ceased, not to interfere with it but to make it a part of the permanent taxation of the country. It was quite certain, of course, that there would be an outery against this tax. There are two sorts of politicians who are not likely to lose such an opportunity. In the first place there are the philosophic politicians, to whom the mention of the word "corn" is very much what the showing of a red rag is to a bull, and who appear to lose all their reasoning powers. They go back to the days precedings 1846. They decline to think what the effects of the tax may be on the consumer or anybody else, but they immediately lay down as a rule which must not be transgressed that a tax on corn, whatever may be its effect, must be an abominable thing. There is another set of politicians—more worldly minded men—who are well aware of the value of a cry, or of anything that can he elevated into a cry at a time when they are in Opposition: and both these sets of politicians did their best during the antumn of last year. Some of my noble friends on the from Opposition Bench.
  1048
  delivered most enthusiastic and animated speeches, and I daresay in certain cases they persuaded people that this tax was one which pressed hardly upon them and ought to be removed Their curse was probably as terrible a curse as ever was uttered; but the prosaic result was that the price of bread remained unaltered. I think that that cry was made the most of but I respectfully venture to doubt whether any practical advantage was obtained by all their endeavours. But, however that may be, the important fact is that the price of bread remained the same.
  Now, my Lords, that brings us to the present year, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I much regret to say, has abolished this tax; and his reasons for doing so, to one person at all events who heard him, did not appear to be very strong. He said that corn was an article of very large consumption indeed, which was quite true; he said that the duty was inelastic, which was true also; and I think he said that corn was a raw material. But the most important thing he said was that it lends itself very readily to "misreprersentation." That arguments, I am afraid was the strongest the right hon. Gentleman could produce, but it was a most unfortunate arguments to use. It was quite certain that the imposition of any tax upon corn would be resented by a certain number of the community, and that the Government of the day which imposed it would incur a certain amount of unpopularity; but all that had been found a very beneficial one, and had not resulted in an increase in the price of bread. Notwithstanding this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with, I humbly suggest, insufficient reason, abolished the tax.
  Does the consumer benefit in any way whatever by the abolition of this tax? It has been contended with regard to others articles—for instance, in the case of sugar—that although British colonies may be destroyed by bounties given on sugar, yet nevertheless over here the consumer benefits, and that therefore we have no right to object to these bounties, and things ought to be allowed to go on as best they may. In this case, however, this argument will not apply. The consumer suffered nothing when the tax was originally in force, gained nothing when it was abolished for the first time, suffered.

  1049
  nothing when put on a second time, and the experience of the last few months shows that he will gain nothing by its abolition for the second time. Who has profited? That is just what no one can say. Some people say it is the American railways and the other modes of transportation on the other side of the Atlantic. Some say that in some mysterious manner the consumer over here gains, but how they are unable to show; but the practical result is that the price of bread remains absolutely the same. It is, of course, possible that in some infinitesimal degree the bakers may gain, but, apart from the bakers, I do not know of any other gainer who can be suggested.
  All taxes, of course, are bad, but this tax had several merits so far as a tax can have merits. In the first place, it was a new tax, an addition to the number of taxes—a thing which every Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in search of for years. It produced a large revenue not felt in any way by the consumer, and it fulfilled the object of meeting increased expenditure. Do any of your Lordships think that we are likely to see any diminution of expenditure? I would remind the House of the new measures of public education, one of which we have passed, and the other of which we are now passing. It is as certain as anything can be that those Education Acts will mean a large and considerable increase of expenditure. I am not speaking without some experience in this matter, because I happen to be on one of the County Education Committees, and I can see very deafly indeed, even at this early stage, in what direction the operation of that Act is tending. There is another great source of expenditure—namely, the Navy. The expenditure on the Navy is now between £33,000,000 and £34,000,000, and Lord Selborne rather alarmed me, for one, by telling us, as he did not long ago, that we must expect a very considerable increase in that expenditure.
  Now, my Lords, what is the purpose of the Navy? Its main and principal purpose is to act as an insurance upon food. A Royal Commission is at the present time sitting to inquire into our food supply in time of war. None of us know. of course, what they may report,
  1050
  but of one thing I am convinced, that public granaries or any expedients of that sort would not be of the slightest possible value. If that be so, and if no I better expedients can be devised, we have to fall back on the Navy and take our chance; and one of its principal objects is to provide, so far as a Navy can provide, for the security of the' food supply of this country. Public education is given in the interests of the whole body of the nation, and for-securing our supplies of food the Navy is kept up in the interests of the whole body of the nation. Is it, therefore, unfair and unreasonable that to some slight extent, at all events—which was the fact under this shilling registration duty—the body of the nation should pay for better education as well as for the insurance of its food supplies? It seems to me that no fairer application of public money could be made. No tax was so little felt as the shilling registration duty on corn. Yet that revenue has been thrown, as I humbly suggest, into the sea, and I submit that the consumers of bread, the operatives of this country, are by no means the gainers as the result. I regret that this policy has been adopted, and conclude by moving for any further Papers there may be on the subject.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, my noble friend has not spoken in flattering terms of the views held on this subject by the from Opposition Bench. He alluded to two classes of politicians. I do not know in which category I should place myself, and I am not quite sure whether the policy of looking out for a "cry" is to be reckoned as the exclusive privilege of the Opposition. I rather think that the policy of searching for a cry belongs to some members of the Government. There can be no. doubt that there is likely to be larger. expenditure on education and an increase in the heavy charges entailed by the Navy. But I differ from the noble Lord in thinking that a slight tax on corn is permissible in order to relieve the taxpayers in other respects. It is one of the most injurious taxes that could possibly be levied, and I doubt very much whether those who are arguing in favour of the new fiscal.

  1051
  policy of the Colonial Secretary would be content with what the noble Lord has called a mere registration tax. In order to carry out their views, it is certain that those who support the Colonial Secretary would have to go further in devising new means of taxation.
  There is certainly a difference of opinion as to whether the corn tax has or has not raised the price of bread. In some places the price of bread has been raised, and in other places it has remained stationary. I know it is the opinion of many that if the tax had not been put on, the price of bread would have been lower than it was before. That is the answer to a great extent to the argument of the noble Lord. The noble Lord has moved for a Return of the price of bread for three months, but that would not be affected by the retention or the removal of the tax. There are many other circumstances which have to be taken into consideration. If we are to have a Return at all, we ought to have a Return covering a much larger period, and if we bad that Return we should probably find the same phenomenon as that to which my noble friend has directed our attention. I have not seen the Returns to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, but I should like to know whether the prices given are wholesale or retail. If they are retail, it would be a most fallacious argument, because the retail price of bread varies greatly, there being one price for richer persons and another price for poorer persons in the same village. The only scientific Return on which to rely is the wholesale price of bread, and I should like to know from the Government whether the Return is for wholesale or retail.
  THE EARL or ONSLOW: My Lords, when I saw the notice on the Paper I welcomed an addition to the ranks of those who were inquiring into the subject, and I thought that perhaps the noble Lord would express a hope that the Government would by-and-by furnish him with some data on which he could form his opinions on the great questions which are agitating your Lordships' House. But I find that that was not his object, that he was merely flogging a dead
  1052
  horse—namely, the Finance Act which passed some months ago. The proper time to raise this question was when that Act was before your Lordships
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Act did not come into operation until July 1. That was my reason for waiting.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: At any rate the abolition of registration duty on corn has this one advantage, that in the consideration of the fiscal policy of the future we start with a clean slate. I think that the noble Lord will feel inclined if we are to enter into the great inquest of the nation to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there are a great many more circumstances to be taken into consideration in the price of bread beyond the duty, whether it he one shilling or even more. The most potent factor that affects corn or bread is the visible supply of wheat. Threemonths, or even a year, would scarcely be enough on which to found a real judgment on such a question as this. Besides that, the cereal year should be considered as a whole, because the price always rises about now, when the old harvest is exhausted and the new harvest has not made itself felt. If the noble Lord will look at the price of bread and wheat in England and compare it with the price in other countries where there are heavy import duties on corn, he will find that it varies considerably, not by any means in accordance with the duty put upon it; and, further, if the noble Lord tries to make out that because the price of bread has not varied during the last three months that is a clear indication that the taking of the tax off and putting it on had no effect, he is, I think, arguing from premises which he is not entitled to use. The noble Lord attacked the Government for taking off this tax, which had been imposed for a specific purpose. The country was engaged in a great war. It was a difficult task for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know where he was going to get the finance to carry on the war. The income-tax stood at a high figure, and the working classes were not behind any other class in wishing that the war should be carried on to the end. His Majesty's Government thought they would not he doing wrong to ask even the poorest of the population to contribute to the cost of

  1053
  the war. When the war was over the income tax, which was a burden on the wealthy, was reduced, and there was naturally a desire to benefit the poorer classes also. In addition to that there was the question of reducing the cost of the raw material which the farming class uses for feeding herds and flocks. The Government thought that under the circumstances they should abolish the tax altogether and have, as I have said, a clean slate in the inquiry which is going on, and a perfectly open mind, and not keep on any tax which might have prejudged the question.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, even after the speech that has just been delivered, I am presumptions enough to think that I should like to say a word or two with regard to the observations of the noble Lord who has called attention to this question. Let me first say, with regard to the remarks of the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer stated very distinctly in the House of Commons that it was not a tax put on for the circumstances of the war, but it was for the purpose of broadening the basis of taxation. My noble friend Lord Camperdown is very much disturbed, apparently, because he cannot find that either the imposition of this tax or the taking of it off has made any difference in the price of bread. I think the noble Earl is in too great a hurry in drawing any conclusion with regard to this particular tax. In a question of this sort, to come to any definite conclusion as to what the effect of such a tax would by the experience of a single year is absolutely impossible.
  There are many considerations. Let me suggest one or two. In the first place, it is possible that the baker has used a less good quality of flour to make his bread with. In that case he would buy his flour cheaper, and keep the price of bread at the same figure. There are also the considerations of the quantity and the quality of the harvests both in this country and in America. It is perfectly well known that last rear the wheat produced in this country was not good wheat. It did not make up into flour that was particularly suitable for bread-making. On the other hand, in
  1054
  the United States of America there was a wheat harvest which was abundant in quantity and extremely good in quality. The regular course of trade was that these stocks of wheat should be sent to this country. They were so sent, and I think the noble Earl will find that the price of American wheat in this country was considerably raised last year. The makers of bread here were obliged to have it because it gave a better quality of flour, and it was necessary to have it to mix with the inferior quality of flour grown in this country. There is another thing which has to be taken into consideration in considering the question of price. Last year there was in the-United States a great famine in coal, and from this country large quantities of coal were sent to America; the ships that conveyed that coal required to have freights to bring back to this country, and large quantities of wheat were sent back in those ships at a low rate. That is another consideration which should not be overlooked in this matter; and I would advise my noble friend to study these questions a little more closely than he has done, and not he in too great a hurry in drawing conclusions.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In answer to the Question put to me by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, I may say that the prices selected in the Return quoted by the noble Earl who raised this question represent, so far as could be ascertained, the prevailing prices paid at the various places by members of the working classes.
  EARL SPENCER: Then they are the retail prices, and practically of no value.
  The subject then dropped.

  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the model By-law No. 3, lately issued by the Board of Education, is in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Education Act, 1870. I regret to have to inflict another educational discussion upon the House, but the noble Marquess is aware of the circumstances which have led to this question being delayed. The by-law to which I wish to

  1055
  call attention allows the parent to withdraw his child from religious instruction without giving any reason for it, and simply by giving notice in writing. He may withdraw him, not merely from the lesson in religious instruction, but from the school altogether. That is the all important change made in this by-law. Section 7 of the Act of 1870 only allows the child to be withdrawn from instruction of in religious subjects in the school, but does not allow him to he removed or withdrawn from the school. That certainly was the interpretation given when the Bill of 1870 was under discussion in the House of Commons, because an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham in exactly the same terms of this by-law was strongly objected to by Mr. Forster, who said—
  "He hoped the Committee would keep the clause as it was. It had been drawn after very great care and thought, and the object was to meet what he considered the real wish of the Committee, that whoever objected to his child's religious instruction or presence at religious observance should be able, without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school, to withdraw his child from that instruction or observance."
  Therefore, it was not at that time the intention of the Government to interfere with the discipline of the school. An hon. Member asked Mr Foster where the children would be withdrawn to for secular instruction, and Mr. Forster replied that he could not possibly say. In most Government schools there were, he said, class-rooms, and it would be perfectly easy to give the child secular instruction during the time that religious instruction was being given in the rest of the school. Mr. Forster saw no; reason why the child should have less teaching than the other children because his parent objected to his receiving religious instruction. The Amendment moved by the Member for Birmingham was rejected by a majority of 244 votes.
  I am quite aware that this by law is permissive and that it will only be adopted by those education authorities who approve of it; but, at the same time, it represents the policy of the Board of Education. It affects the children of Church of England parents no less than those of Nonconformists If parents withdraw their children for the purpose of employment, there will be no
  1056
  means of preventing it. I am all the more surprised that the noble Marquess should have authorized this by-law when I recall what he said in the discussion on an Amendment, moved by Lord Lytton when last year's Act was before the House. The object of that Amendment was to permit children, instead of being withdrawn from school, to have religious instruction of a different kind, in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That Amendment the noble Marquess opposed, and he quoted a sentence from a letter which had then recently appeared from the late Sir Joshua Fitch, and which ran—
  "The effect of the adoption of such a plan (i.e., that children should have religious instruction according to their various creeds) on the general discipline of the school and on the authority of the head teacher would be disastrous."
  Now, I ask, if that would be disastrous, what will be the effect of a by-law under which you have no guarantee that the children will get religious instruction elsewhere, and which allows children to be withdrawn, without any reason, from all religious instruction whatever.
  The Principle of the Act of 1870 is that religious instruction forms an integral part of the instruction given in school. In many cases, as the noble Marquess well knows, certainly in London, the religious instruction which children receive in our schools is the only religious instruction they obtain, and, as regards London Board schools, the withdrawals hitherto attach importance to attendance at school during religious instruction, and if the children cannot be withdrawn from school altogether, the temptation to withdraw them becomes very great, and religious instruction will, under this by-law, be considered not to be one of the most important subjects on the timetable, but an appendix to the timetable. Teachers and attendance officers have always done their utmost to secure the punctual attendance of the children at 9 o'clock in the morning, and this punctuality, of course, has a great influence on the regularity of the attendance as well. If you encourage a

  1057
  section of the parents to send their children to school at 9 o'clock, and allow another section to send their children to school between 9 and 9·45, the it is quite obvious that the children will hour for the school meeting is the hour at which secular instruction begins. It will be necessary to make a double registration of attendances; and children who are withdrawn from religious instruction must receive the punctual attendance mark if they arrive at for hour for the commencement of secular instruction. That is the first step in the direction of secularizing our schools.
  The inspectors of the London School Board have had this new by-law under consideration, and they are of opinion that the adoption of the clause enabling parents to withdraw the children entirely from school during the time of religious instruction would be followed more or less rapidly by the actual withdrawal of many children. This would, they say, especially be the case in the poorer districts, where the sense of parental responsibility is not strong, and where there is a tendency to utilize child labour at every possible opportunity. I cannot believe that the noble Marquess, with his experience, would wish to put the religious instruction at the end of the school meeting. It is quite obvious that you change the whole tone and character of the school if you deprive the children of religious instruction as the first lesson in the morning. Unless religious instruction is given by the headmaster at the beginning of the school, the school really attains a secular character and is no longer what the Act of 1870 intended it to be.
  Here I may, perhaps, say that the London School Board has always attached so much importance to the attendance of children at religious instruction that was one of the reasons why exception was made in the case of Jewish children. To meet their case of syllabus was issued securing that they should only have instruction in the Old Testament and in Hebrew. They do not receive any instruction in specific Jewish doctrines. The instruction they receive is in absolute conformity with the conditions laid down by the Act of
  1058
  1870, and out of the 508 schools, it is only given in seventeen. Jewish children do not receive any preferential treatment. The rule not to require the attendance of Jewish children on Jewish Feast days is in accordance with the Act of 1870, which specifies that children are not to be compelled to attend school on days set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parents belong.
  I think this is a by-law which the noble Marquess will do well to submit to somewhat closer consideration. Whether it is legal or illegal, it certainly constitutes a fundamental change in out educational system, and I am bound to say that if these are the first fruits of the Act of last year, if that Act has made this concession necessary, then I can hardly conceive a result more disastrous. If this by-law were to be generally carried out it would render nugatory all the results that have been obtained from the wise provisions of the Act of 1870. By a stroke of the pen the Board of Education would be inaugurating an entirely new system of education—a system which was deliberately rejected in 1870 when it was proposed in the House of Commons: a system which certainly was not contemplated (judging by the attitude which the noble Marquess took up on Lord Lytton's Amendment) when the Act of last year was passed, and which is, I believe, opposed to the opinion of the country, Which has never sanctioned any step to be taken in the direction of secularizing education. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  The LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: MY Lords, I desire to express my pleasure in finding myself for the first time in full accord, in an educational debate, with what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite, for whom I have so profound a respect in educational matters. I have no special anxiety that this by-law will affect Church schools, for those in London who take the trouble to send their children to Church schools are parents who will probably see that their children attend at the religious hour. I feel that there is great danger that the by-law may

  1059
  do harm to the religious character of the teaching throughout England. Families to whom every shilling is of importance will be tempted to send children late to school. I also think that religion will be depreciated in the eyes of the children when it no longer occupies any part of their school hours. The by-law is unnecessary. The conscience clause, I rejoice to say, is in active force in the Church schools, as is proved by the statistics of withdrawals, the number of which have increased from 985 in 1887, to 2,3866 in 1902, comprising 999 Jewish children and 128 Roman Catholic children. I rejoice in that, because it shows that conscience clause is really a safeguard. My great fear is that under this by-law we shall have the religious hour stamped out throughout England. We have an object lesson in this matter in what is taking place in Australia and New Zealand, where Churchmen and Nonconformists are united in begging from their Governments some form of religious instructions in their schools for the good of the country. I, therefore hope that the noble Lord will see some way to modify the by-law, or will be able to send some instruction with it to prevent the religious hour being taken away.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, as an old member of two School Boards and a manager of many schools, I should feel considerable alarm if this by-law were carried into effect throughout the country. I cannot grasp the idea which is at the root of the by-law, or understand on what advice it had been adopted, but I am afraid it will be attended with disastrous results. Poor families will be tempted to keep children from school for the payment that can be got for their services, small tradesmen will keep them at work till the later hour, local quarrels may be got up by combinations of persons hostile to religious teaching in a particular school, increased difficulties will be put in the way of the attendance officers, and teachers will be fretted and hampered by increased irregularity. The effect of this will be that many children will never see the inside of a Bible at all. It has been
  1060
  said that it is practically the first step towards the secularisation of the schools. The mass of the people, I believe, are strongly opposed to anything that would lead to that state of things, and I myself think it would be one of the greatest disasters that could befall the children of the country. I earnestly hope that the noble Marquess will be led to reconsider the advisability of issuing this by-law, and even if it is issued I hope it will not be very largely adopted
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I join in the expressions of concern and anxiety of the noble Lord opposite in regard to this matter. It appears to me that the operation of this by-law will very seriously interfere, directly in some places and indirectly in others, with what may be called a staple hour of religious instruction throughout the country. I am not sorry of the opportunity of echoing the testimony of the Primate given the other night to the real though limited value of the religious instruction which is known as undenominational; and if, as I fear we may, we find the incidental advantages given by the by-law are to be bought at the price of seriously impairing the attendance at this hour of religious instruction, I would say that the price is too heavy to pay. I do not find that there is any difficulty in the poor districts of South London in getting the children to attend school for the hour of religious instruction; the difficulty is met with, curiously enough, in the suburban districts, where people want boots blacked and knives cleaned, and find boys convenient for the purpose. It would be very serious indeed if a tendency so real as that should be assisted by the action of this by-law. It is quite possible that in places the by-law may serve a very valuable purpose. Where the action of the Act of last year really presses hardly on Nonconformists, we should be only too glad to welcome anything which would relieve them from coming under a teaching to which they object. But I hope that the greatest care will be taken in the administration of the by-law, and that its operation will be closely watched.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION(The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, my first duty is to express my gratitude to the noble Lord opposite for the very kind consideration he showed me in postponing this Question until to-day to suit my convenience. The noble Lord seems to think that this by-law is an infringement of section 7 of the Act of 1870, but it does not touch that section in the slightest degree. In support of that I can quote the opinion of Dr. Macnamara, M.P., a gentleman who, I think, will be regarded by noble Lords opposite as an educational expert. Dr. Macnamara writes—
  "The new by-law has been before neither the London School Board nor the School Attendance Committee. My view of it is (1) it is in strict accord with the Act of 1870; (2) its form can, of course, be varied by any local authority, subject to the sanction of the Board of Education; (3) it ought to be hailed with satisfaction as likely, in single-school areas especially, to soften the asperities which have grown up under last year's Act. Lord Londonderry is quite at liberty to quote my opinion for what it is worth."
  I have consulted the Attorney-General, and the opinion of the Attorney-General, expressed in my own language, is as follows: Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, under which by-laws are made, empowers local authorities to make by-laws subject to the approval of the Board of Education for the purpose, inter alia (1)of requiring parents to cause their children to attend school; and (2) of determining the time during which children are so to attend school. The practice of the Education Department and the Board of Education has hitherto been only to approve a by-law which required a child to attend the whole time the school was open (subject to the right of withdrawal from religious instruction); but so far as the question of legality goes there is nothing to prevent a school authority from prescribing given number of hours or certain days of the week, provided the Board of Education approved such a by-law. A by-law determining that in the case of certain children the time shall be the time of secular instruction only, in no way contravenes Section 74 of the Act of 1870; all that is legally required is that the by-law shall not
  1062
  prevent the withdrawal of the child from religious instruction This new clause certainly does not do so.
  The conscience clause (Section 7 of the Act of 1870) neither requires nor prohibits the attendance of the child at school during the time of religious instruction. All it requires is that his attendance at religious instruction shall not be a condition of his being admitted to or continuing in the school, and that if withdrawn from religious instruction he shall not forfeit the other benefits of the school. It is wrong to say that it is illegal to require that the parents' withdrawal of the child from school during religious instruction shall be in writing. The by-law does not affect this right of withdrawal. If the authority suspects that a parent Is asking to withdraw his child on wrong grounds, or that parents are likely to do this, they could require the parent to state that he withdraws his child in order to get religious instruction elsewhere, and the authority could, if it chose, frame its by-laws so as to grant the withdrawal from the school upon such ground only, and for such purposes only. This would not in fringe the conscience clause since it would only bring things back to the state which has prevailed from 1870 to 1903, and would make the child come to school though it would not have to hear the religious instruction.
  That is my reply to the legal part of the Question addressed to me by the noble Lord; but there are other points on which I should like to say a few words. It has been objected that parents may make use of the right of withdrawal to get their children away from school during the hours devoted to religious instruction to employ them for their own advantage. But I would remind the noble Lord that the by-law is purely optional. It rests with the local authority to assure itself, before adopting it, that there will be no abuse. The intention of this by-law is to provide facilities for children receiving religious instruction in accordance with the views of their parents, and in places approved by their parents.
  While we were drafting the new form of by-law in April this year, we received an application from many schools in Eastbourne exactly on the lines of the

  1063
  proposed by-law The schools in Eastbourne are mostly Church schools. This is what was proposed:
  "Nonconformist parents will be invited to withdraw their children during the time—9 to 9.40 a.m.—devoted to religious instruction. Arrangements will be made at four different centres, close to the four leading schools, to have religious instruction given to all children who care to come, by four ministers of the Free Churches from 9 to 9.30. In this way the children will get to the schools by 9.45."
  I ought to say that the Vicar of East-bourne gladly supported the proposal, and I believe that amicable arrangements were come to in the matter. It is to facilitate this kind of thing that the change in the by-law is proposed. Hitherto, under the old by-law, every child was compelled to attend school during the hours of religious instruction, and children for whom exemption from the religious instruction was claimed under the conscience clause had to sit in the school and presumably do some other work. The new by-law will permit such children to have religious instruction elsewhere. In the view of the Board of Education and of the Government, the new form of exemption is a fairer arrangement, and we have every hope that it will be properly used and not abused. I fully agree with the right rev. Prelates that there is a danger of its being abused, but we have, I hope, adopted safeguards. I wish to say, in the first place, that no; authority need adopt the new form of by-law unless it pleases; secondly, that a county authority can adopt it for some of the villages in its area and not for others, if it thinks desirable; and, thirdly, that it can revert to the old form at any time if it finds on experience that it is being abused. The right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, stated that in his opinion children would lose religious instruction under this new by-law. I cannot think that any harm will be done to children whose parents desire that they should receive this instruction.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the by-law requires that the parents must say that the withdrawal is for the purpose of religious instruction elsewhere.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No. But in sending out copies of the new form of by-law for the consideration of local authorities, we are warning them of the possible danger of its being abused, and are sending with every copy of the by-law a circular signed by Mr. Morant, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Education, to the following effect—
  "Board of Education
  " Whitehall, S. W.
  "Sir, in forwarding the enclosed copy of a form of by-laws suggested for the use of Local Authorities, the Board of Education desire me to call attention to the importance of watching the operation of Section 3, as to the time of attendance, in the event of your Council considering it advisable to adopt that portion of the section which enables a parent, after notification in writing, to withdraw a child from school during the time given to religions instruction.
  "In suggesting the addition of this provision to the terms of the by-law hitherto in general use the Board have in view the importance of meeting the conscientious objections of parents who desire their children to receive religions instruction elsewhere than at the school.
  "If however, it should appear that permission for non-attendance is demanded and used for other purposes, and that the children for whom this permission is asked are allowed to remain idle or are employed in secular avocations, the.Board would be prepared to approve proposals from Local Authorities who desired either to withdraw this privilege by reverting to the by-law in its earlier form, or to impose such conditions as would prevent its abuse.
  "I am, your obedient servant,
  "ROBERT L. MONANT."
  We believe that this by-law will give facilities for carrying out the intention of the Act of 1870, and that the policy of the by-law certainly does not contravene that Act. We believe that it will be the means of bringing about a better system of organisation with regard to religious instruction in schools, and that it will remove the possibility of what is called proselytizing of children. In making arrangements for religious instruction to be given according to the views of the parents, we believe that we are acting fairly to all denominations and all classes; and in response to the enquiry of the noble Lord, we believe that we are acting within our legal right in inserting this by-law, and we trust that, safeguarded as it is, it may be attended with satisfactory results.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882,AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read—
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to amend Section 52 of the Act of 1882, which was intended to protect bankers who had received in good faith and without negligence cheques on behalf of their customers. That section was supposed to be a complete protection to bankers, but a recent case in the Courts turned on the point of a banker allowing his customer to draw money before he actually received payment of the cheque, and it was held that he was then collecting it for himself and not for his customer. This Bill provides that—
  "A banker receives payment of a crossed cheque for a customer within the meaning of section eighty-two of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, notwithstanding that he credits his customer's account with the amount of the cheque before receiving payment thereof."
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  PISTOLS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments. A further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE LAW CLERKS.
  LORD MONKSWELL:in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the Paper, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor whether there is any foundation for the report that be has recently invited 100 law clerks to resign.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is not the smallest foundation for it. In a conversation between the noble Lord and myself, I told him that it was grotesquely inaccurate. I cannot help saying that it is not creditable to a certain portion of the Press that these statements should be made, apparently with the purpose of founding some commentaries or severe observations against noble Lords and others. I daresay that the person who invented this little suggestion only thought, perhaps, of reflecting on others. He did not seem to consider that he was reflecting also on a very hard-working, very diligent, and very efficient body of public servants when he suggested that 100 of them were being withdrawn by reason of their inefficiency. There is not the smallest foundation for the suggestion. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice in saying that I have no reason to suppose there is any lack of efficiency or diligence or energy in the public Department to which I have referred and I can only regret that such statements are made apparently with no responsibility. Although some newspapers have had no complicity in the invention, I do not find that the persons who invented these things are made responsible even to those who accept their information. I regret that such statements can be made without the persons who invented them being made responsible for their untruths.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next a quarter past Four o'clock.