Lords Sitting of 6 December 1906

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against—of inhabitants of parishes of Ashwick; Lund; Bathwick (St. John Baptist); Combe Hay; Chepstow; Great Billing; St. George's-in-the-East, London; Badby; Margam; Tittleshall; Bakewell; Stoke-on-Trent; Calverton; Southampton (St. Marks) Abingdon; and Pullborough; of parents of children attending schools in parishes of Cherington; Ipswich (St. John's); Salperton; and St. George's-in-the-East, London; of certain trustees of Church of England schools in England and Wales. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of inhabitants of parish of Cherington; Brighton (St. Luke's); Shermanbury; Eastbourne (St. Anne's); Ripe; and Warbleton; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3737. Brazil (Trade of Santa Catharina for the year 1905).

  UNITED STATES, No. 1 (1906).
  Correspondence respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, and the consequential Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill agreed to; and the Amendments made to the Bill to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on, and the Amendments made
  1062
  by the Lords to the Bill in lieu thereof agreed to.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
  The Earl Brownlow added to the Select Committee.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a (The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the first Amendment stands in my name. When the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn wished to make the date when this clause would come into operation made of a more flexible character, I tried to meet him by not disagreeing to the insertion of the words—
  "Or such later date as Mis Majesty in Council may appoint for any district on the application of the local education authority of the district."
  But we think strongly that there ought to be some further limit, that it is unusual in a matter of this kind to leave a date entirely open, and we suggest, therefore, that the flexible date should not be later than the first day of January, 1909. I hope your Lordships will agree to this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after the word 'date' to insert the words 'not being later than the first day of January nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is a small one, substituting the Board of Education for His Majesty in Council as the body by whom this leave is to be given. It is rather a small matter, and one of a purely local character. It involves really no general considerations, so we think it is better it should be settled on administrative grounds by the Board of Education without the trouble of getting an Order in Council.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the words 'His Majesty in Council,' and to insert the words 'the Board of Education.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is to leave out the words "any district," and to insert the words "the area of any local education authority." Area is the technical word that is always used in this case, and not district.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'any district.' and to insert the words 'the area of any local education authority.'" —(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is on Clause 2. It involves leaving out some words which were inserted in Committee at the instance of Lord Barnard, viz.—
  "Provided that such arrangement includes as far as may be having regard to the altered circumstances of the case, adequate provisions for the preservation of such trusts, and for the protection of the endowment subject thereto."
  We think that these words are not wanted; in fact that they are really out of plate in this position. The arrangement only deals with the use of the schoolhouse during school hours, and does not affect the use of the school house out of school hours, which is the use with which Lord Barnard's Amendment purports to deal. Therefore, the words could have no meaning except so far as they relate to a scheme made generally affecting the trust of the school. So far as this Bill is concerned, the sanction of the commission to the scheme fully safeguards the trust.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 28, to leave out from the word 'proposes' to the end of subsection (2).—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that in the absence of Lord Barnard he would regret the omission of these
  1064
  words, because there was no member of their Lordships' House who was a greater authority on this special point than the noble Lord upon whose Motion the words were inserted. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill now said that they were otiose. He could hardly think that that was the case, otherwise Lord Barnard would not have inserted them. As, thank goodness, they had reached the last stage of this Bill, he would point out that there was no further opportunity of their Lordships putting this matter right if a mistake was now made. He hoped the noble Earl would allow the words to remain as they stood, and if in another place it was thought right to strike them out they could be struck out there.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no doubt the words will be struck out when the Bill reaches another place, as it certainly is the opinion of those who advise us on this difficult question that the words ought not to be here. I might add that the noble Lord asked us to safeguard trusts and endowments. As regards endowments, it is not at all a desirable thing that the owners and trustees should have power to make an arrangement for the protection of endowments. We are repealing Section 13 of the Act of 1902, and when that takes place the majority of endowments connected with elementary schools will require a scheme, and it is better that a scheme of that kind should be made by the Board of Education than between the owners and the local authority, who would be able to make it if the noble Lord's Amendment stood. These endowments, although they are attached to particular schools, are very often not held under the trust deed, and, therefore, it is quite possible that considerable inconvenience might arise. I would greatly prefer to see the words come out now, but if the noble Marquess desires to keep them in, I can only promise him that they will disappear in another place.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should prefer to keep them in.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved that Lord Salisbury's Amendment, agreed to on the Report stage, providing ordinary facilities in eases where no other schools were available, and which appeared in the reprinted Bill as Clause 4, sub section (1), should be made a sub-section of Clause 3. The noble Marquess said: This Amendment, which bears a somewhat formidable appearance, must be read in connection with another Amendment of mine lower down on the page, and with the further Amendment by which I propose to omit Clause 4. I daresay many of your Lordships, when you saw the Bill in the shape which it assumed after Report, must have been struck by the fact that, owing to the interpolation of the clause moved by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that clause became Clause 4, and what I may describe as our old friend Clause 4 became Clause 5. To some of us I daresay Clause 4 has been rather a nightmare of late, but still we have got so used to referring to Clause 4 and to Clause 4 facilities that I think it would be to many of us a great effort to describe those facilities by any other name. I therefore ventured to suggest to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council that the drafting of the Bill might perhaps be so arranged as to preserve for the original Clause 4 its pristine appellation. The words on the Paper are suggested to me as the most appropriate way of effecting the object in view, and I therefore beg to move them. The matter is not one of first-rate importance, and if your Lordships have any doubt on the subject I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 19, after the word 'morning' to insert as a new sub-section: (2) If the parents of a reasonable number of children attending any public elementary school require facilities for their children of the same character as those to be afforded under the foregoing provisions of this section, and in the opinion of the local education authority, those children cannot conveniently attend some other public elementary school in which facilities for religious instruction of the special character desired by the parents are afforded, the local education authority, without prejudice to any of their powers or duties under this section, shall, so far as it is in their opinion reasonably practicable to do so, afford those facilities in the school within school hours accordingly.'"—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Marquess has undoubtedly taken the right course in moving that these new words should form a sub-section of Clause 3 instead of a new clause. Clause 4 has become intimate to us by long association, and although it would smell as sweet, or whatever adjective noble Lords may like to use, by any other name, I think it is just as well that it should continue to be called Clause 4.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper referred to a point to which he called the attention of the noble Earl during the proceedings on Report. It was this. The Bill provided, as it now stood, that facilities under Clause 3 should be granted at the wish of the owners of the school house transferred, but made no provision for any authority who should control the religious instruction of that kind given in the school after such facilities had been granted. He did not know whether the noble Earl had any suggestion to make on the matter. The new sub-section which he proposed to insert ran—
  "The owners of the schoolhouse shall be responsible for and have the control of any religious instruction given in pursuance of facilities afforded under this section, but may delegate any of their powers under this section to any persons they think fit."
  The owners of the schoolhouse would, he thought, frequently be non-resident, or persons who would be unable to attend to the matter, and therefore he proposed that they should be able to delegate their powers of supervising the religious education to other persons. He did not know whether the noble Earl would be able to agree to this suggestion. He observed that Viscount Halifax had placed another Amendment on the Paper constituting a parents' committee, to be chosen by the parents of the children for whom facilities had been asked. He did not himself entertain any particular preference for one form of action or the other, but he felt that there should be some kind of provision made for supervising the religious instruction when it was agreed to be given.
  Amendment moved:—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 24, after the word 'authority,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) The owners of the schoolhouse shall be responsible for and have the control of any religious instruction given in pursuance of facilities afforded under this section, but may delegate any of their powers under this section to any persons they think fit.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX,who had the following new sub-section on the Paper—
  "In all schools transferred under this clause those parents of children attending the school who have expressed their wish for facilities for the giving of religious instruction of some special character, shall elect, in accordance with regulations to be made for the purpose by the Board of Education, four persons, some of whom may be women, who together with one other person nominated by the owners, and one other person nominated by the local authority, shall be known as the parents' committee. The parents' committee shall be responsible for and have the control of the religious instruction afforded under such facilities,"
  said it would be remembered that when he moved what was substantially this Amendment two or three days ago, Lord Salisbury pointed out that the object he had in view would not be secured by it, and it was further pointed out that it was too wide, that it did not limit facilities to those parents who had asked for them, and that it might be thought to apply to other schools than voluntary schools transferred under Clause 3. He had re-worded the Amendment, and he thought both objections had now been met. It was quite clear that the facilities would be only at the request of parents who had asked for them, and it referred only to Voluntary schools transferred under Clause 3. It endorsed the right of parents in regard to their children's instruction. He re-echoed what fell from the noble Viscount, and if His Majesty's Government preferred Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment to his Amendment, he would be very willing not to move his, but to acquiesce in the noble Viscount's.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount who has just sat down for having dealt with his Amendment at the same time as that of the noble Viscount. We have always regarded this as a matter which could be left very much to the House,
  1068
  because we think it is for those who enjoy these facilities really to decide on the proper manner in which they should be regulated. Of the two we are disposed to prefer the Amendment of the noble Viscount Lord Halifax. It carries out precisely the same principle which is carried out in what we are now once more able to call Clause 4 schools, and I think there might be some inconvenience in introducing the owner into the matter, in view of the definition of owners which the noble Viscount will find in Clause 19—
  "The expression 'owners' as respects any schoolhouse means any persons (other than the official trustee) in whom the schoolhouse is vested, and includes any persons in whom an interest in the schoolhouse is vested to the extent of that interest."
  That would include undoubtedly mortgagees and a great number of people who need have no special concern with religious education in the school; and if the noble Viscount opposite (Lord St. Aldwyn) is content to leave it to the parents' committee, it is the course we should prefer.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthen moved his Amendment, substituting "section" for "clause" in the first line of the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 29, after the word education' to insert the following new subsection: 'In all schools transferred under this section those parents of children attending the school who have expressed their wish for facilities for the giving of religious instruction of some special character, shall elect, in accordance with regulations to be made for the purpose by the Board of Education, four persons, some of whom may be women, who together with one other person nominated by the owners, and one other person nominated by the local authority, shall be known as the parents' committee. The parents' committee shall be responsible for and have the control of the religious instruction afforded under such facilities."—(Viscount Halifax.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Amendment to omit Clause 4 is consequential upon the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 4."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE*THE EARL OF CREWE moved to omit from the special facilities clause the following sub-sections—
  "That there is public school accommodation in schools not affected by a permission given under this section for any child whose parent declares his objection to the facilities; or that suitable provision will be made in the school or elsewhere, giving to the children of those parents who declare their objection to the facilities, religious instruction of the character permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."
  He proposed to insert in their place the following words—
  "(b) That there are vacant school places available in schools not affected by a permission given under this section equal to the number of the remaining children attending the school; provided that the requirement as to vacant school places shall not apply unless at least ten places are required, and that a child shall not be reckoned in calculating the number of vacant places if the parent of the child shows at the inquiry that he does not desire accommodation in another school for the child, and that no vote has been given at the ballot in respect of the child."
  The noble Earl said: The next Amendment is in my name, and is one of more substance than those we have been considering. Your Lordships will remember that an important question was raised by an Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite upon Clause 4, which, as we thought, went a great deal too far. Its origin was due, I think, to some observations made at an earlier stage of the Bill by Lord Cawdor, in which he pointed out that there were certain circumstances under which schools to which we intended the regulations of Clause 4 to apply might be almost, as it were, by accident, deprived of the chance of obtaining those facilities. But the words substituted by the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne, which are now paragraph (c) in Clause 5 of the Bill as amended on Report, went, as I say, in our opinion, a great deal too far. Not only did the Amendment meet
  1070
  those cases mentioned by Lord Cawdor, but, as we tried to show, it extended the privileges of Clause 4 to an altogether unwarrantable number of schools, and to schools to which the clause was never in any way intended to apply. We propose, therefore, to omit those words, and to re-insert the words which we originally had in the Bill, with certain additions. We propose to insert the following subsection (b)—
  "That there are vacant school places available in schools not affected by a permission given under this section equal to the number of the remaining children attending the school."
  That form of words, we think, will make it more easy for children to be allocated according to their sex and age than the original words which we used. And then we add an important proviso—
  "Provided that the requirement as to vacant school places shall not apply unless at least ten places are required;"
  and we introduce the words that a child shall not be reckoned in calculating the number of vacant places if the parent shows at the inquiry that he does not desire accommodation in another school for the child. We claim that that gets rid of what we imagine would be the exceedingly rare case, but the undoubtedly possible case, of the extremely inconvenient infant, the one dissenting child who would have to be provided for somewhere, and who might spoil the whole business by the mere fact of his or her existence. We think that by allowing the need for accommodation not to apply unless at least ten places are required we meet that point satisfactorily. Of course, we frankly admit that we do not go nearly as far as the noble Marquess went in his Amendment. As I think we stated pretty explicitly when that Amendment was under discussion, it would be quite impossible for us to do so. I noticed in this morning's newspaper a letter from the noble Earl Lord Cawdor. I am sorry that he is not able to be in his place, and has been obliged to have recourse to the columns of The Times. The noble Earl dwells a good deal on this inconvenient child, but I need not say anything on that, because we hope that by our proposal we have met that point; but Lord Cawdor goes on to press the point that the noble Marquess's Amendment really did no more than to extend the

  1071
  operations of the clause. This is an observation which we cannot allow to pass without contradiction, because we do not think that such a change as Lord Lansdowne's Amendment contemplated can be regarded as a mere extension. It must be regarded, I think, as a reversal of the principle of the clause. If a Bill were to come up from another place, saying that all persons over eighty were to have pensions and your Lordships were to alter the age to forty, that would be an extension of the operation of the Bill, but it would also be entirely changing its character; and that is what we think the noble Marquess will have done if his clause is allowed to stand part of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords who have had the opportunity since yesterday of seeing this Amendment on the Paper may agree to the elimination of the noble Marquess's words and to the insertion of these words in their place.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 20, to leave out from the word 'and,' to the end of line 29, and to insert, '(b) that there are vacant school places available in schools not affected by a permission given under this section equal to the number of the remaining children attending the school. Provided that the requirement as to vacant school places shall not apply unless at least ten places are required, and that a child shall not be reckoned in calculating the number of vacant places if the parent of the child shows at the inquiry that he does not desire accommodation in another school for the child, and that no vote has been given at the ballot in respect of the child.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I can assure the noble Earl that I am sincerely grateful to him for the attempt he has made to meet the point I raised when this clause was discussed on Report, and I therefore very greatly regret that I do not see my way to accept his proposal. It is quite true that the alternative which he proposes to your Lordships would meet the extreme case in which a single child might block the way to a school otherwise entitled to claim extended facilities. The case of the single child was, of course, used by us as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the clause, and the noble Earl told us the other night that it had certainly never been the intention of the Government that where all the conditions were fulfilled the existence of one extremely inconvenient
  1072
  child should alter the whole character of a school. The noble Earl said that in answer to an observation that fell from the Duke of Devonshire. Now, I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Earl never intended anything of the kind, but as has often been the case during these discussions, we have to consider not only what has been said by the noble Earl but what has been said by some of the noble Earl's colleagues. I venture to call the attention of the House to a statement which was made by no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this very point in July of this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was at that time addressing himself to a purpose very different from that to which the noble Earl has been addressing himself to-night and recently. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was endeavouring to keep quiet some very restless supporters of his who thought that this Bill was altogether too denominational in its character. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "Many of my friends view this clause with unfeigned repugnance, but I think when they come to consider the matter carefully they will be reassured on the subject. The safeguards we have set up for the protection of the public and of the minority seem to me adequate for the purpose"
  And then he went on to say—
  "What is most important of all, if there be a minority, a minority however small, if it be only the parent of one child, the extended facilities are only allowed in the case where there is an accessible and alternative denominational school to which these parents can send their children."
  Therefore, in the view of one member of the Government at any rate it was intended that the presence of a single dissentient child should block the way to these extended facilities. The noble Earl very kindly proposes to mitigate that grievance, and he mitigates it to this extent, that he says that the way shall not be blocked unless there are at least ten dissentient children. Well, my Lords, ten dissentient children may be a considerable fraction in some cases and a very inconsiderable fraction in others. Ten children in a school of fifty or sixty is a large fraction, but ten children in a school of 300 or 400 is a small fraction. The thing, therefore, would work unevenly.

  1073
  But that is not all. If they are to fulfil the conditions laid down for us by the noble Earl, the applicants for extended facilities must prove the existence of number of vacant places in other school equal to the number of children whose parents are dissatisfied with the granting of facilities. How will that work? I there are to be available places, it will not be enough to say there is a minority of thirty children in the school and there are thirty places in adjoining schools You will have to show that the accommodation is really available accommodation. That is, that if there are boys amongst the minority, there are boys' places vacant; that if there are girls amongst the minority there are girls' places vacant, and so on. Those are conditions which it will be extremely difficult to comply with. It really comes to this, that supposing you have thirty places to find you may find perhaps places for twenty-eight, but there may remain one or two pegs for which you cannot find holes, and therefore, you do come back after all to the inconvenient infant who may shipwreck your whole proposal. I use this argument because it is quite evident, from the wording of this sub-section, that His Majesty's Government contemplate that this legal procedure should be followed with very close strictness.
  Then the noble Earl allows the parents of the children to declare, if they like, that they do not press for this accommodation for the minority, but still, as the clause remains, the parents who are silent will be counted as in opposition. That is to say, the silence of two parents with five children apiece will, as I understand this sub-section, be enough to make the whole thing collapse. Surely we come back to this, that, in spite of the kind offer which the noble Earl has made, the absence of alternative accommodation for a quite insignificant minority of children will be enough to prevent a school which naturally might expect to get these facilities from obtaining them. You cannot get away from that. The rule seems to us the more hard and oppressive because, as has been admitted, this clause, while it will save the interests of the Jews, while it will save the interests of the Roman Catholics,
  1074
  while it may save the interests of some of the extremer Anglican schools, will, if the views of His Majesty's Government prevail, do little or nothing for the moderate Church of England schools, in which Church feeling prevails as intensely and as devoutly as in any denominational schools. To those schools the noble Earl offers Clause 3 facilities, and those facilities are offered without the use of the teachers. To put off a school such as I have described with Clause 3 facilities, with amateur teachers, while that old devoted teacher of whom we have heard so much, who is not to be allowed to go on with the teaching, stands aside with folded hands unable to take part in the life of the school, seems to me, if I may say so, a wholly illusory offer.
  I turn to my Amendment. I cannot see that my Amendment can create any hardship for any child or for any parent, because the point of it is that it leaves it open to any child whose parent is dissatisfied with the facilities to obtain Cowper-Tewple teaching, the teaching which the child would get if the school was not allowed to receive facilities at all. Let me dwell also on the fact that under the clause as it now stands the widest discretion is conferred on the local education authority. If my words are not adequate to give sufficient discretion to the local education authority, by all means let us alter them; but the intention of the clause, as I amended it, is that the local education authority should be trusted to permit these facilities where suitable arrangements can be made, and to withhold facilities where, owing to local circumstances, a suitable arrangement cannot be made. I have said all I have to say in defence of my proposal. I cannot accept the alternative of the noble Earl. I repeat that I am by no means wedded to my own formula; and if out of the discussions which I hope may arise in consequence of the Amendments inserted by your Lordships in this Bill should emerge some other proposal which will really deal adequately with what we believe to be a real grievance, I for one am ready to entertain that proposal. But I regret to say that, as matters now stand, I cannot give

  1075
  the noble Earl opposite a receipt in full for the small payment on account which he is good enough to offer to me.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the rejection of the offer of the noble Earl made it perhaps not necessary to examine too minutely the character of that offer. But had that offer been accepted it would not, he thought, have been satisfactory in the case of small schools to allow them to treat ten children as the minimum. In a school of thirty or forty, ten children would be a third or fourth; and as the Government had not receded from their opinion that there should be four-fifths in favour of the facilities he thought the provision as to the number of persons dissenting ought to be ten or not less than one-fifth, whichever was the lesser number. He pointed out that the Board of Education had been accustomed to
  deal with such small numbers of children as the noble Marquess had mentioned ever since the passing of the Free Education Act. He had seen reports of inspectors suggesting arrangements for the provision of two and three children in particular departments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, in order to save Lord Ashbourne's Amendment which comes next, I propose to put the Question down to the word "elsewhere" in line 26. The Amendment is, therefore, "in page 4, line 20, to leave out from the word 'and' down to and including the word 'elsewhere' in line "26."
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 115; Not-contents, 43.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Dunboyne, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Cross, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Falkland, V.

  Faber, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Halifax, V.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Forester, L.

  Bute, M.

  Knutsford, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Hertford, M.

  Llandaff, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hylton, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Inverclyde, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Kelvin, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Camperdown, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Middleton, L.

  Derby, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Moncrieff, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.

  Addington, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Newton, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  North, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Oranmore, and Browne L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Belper, L.

  Petre, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Lonsdale, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Manvers, B.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Braye, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Morley, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.

  Rothes, E.

  Clifford, of Chudleigh, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Stuart of Castle of Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Stamford, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Desborough, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Digby, L.

  Ventry, L

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Dormer, L.

  Vivian, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Davey, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Pirrie, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Reay, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Craven, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Fitzrmaurice, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Selby, V.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Tenterden, L

  Colebrooke, L.

  Headley, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved to insert, after the word "elsewhere," the word "for." He said the Amendment was a purely drafting one.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 20, after the word' elsewhere,' to insert the word 'for.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: This Amendment covers the possible case of an agreement made for the purchase or hire of a school house under Section 19 of the Act of 1870.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 9, after the second 'any,' to insert the word 'agreement.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is also a drafting one. The words are at present in the clause as a proviso, whereas they ought to be a new sub-section. They have nothing to do with the sub-section itself.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 28, to leave out the words 'provided that,' and begin a new sub-section." —(The Earl of Crewe.)
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to re-insert what was originally Clause 6 in the Bill. It was, he said, a very inno-
  1078
  cent, and, so far as he could see, a very useful clause, and he asked their Lordships to re-insert it because no reason had ever been given for omitting it. When the original Clause 6 was moved there was a proviso at the end which Lord Llandaff desired to omit. A short discussion followed, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in an unfortunate moment, suggested that the Bishop of Oxford and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh had two Amendments standing on the Paper which he said related to the same matter. He was not at all surprised that his noble friend the Lord President did occasionally say something that was not quite correct. He was only surprised that he had preserved his head so well through the intricacies of the long Committee stage. But in this instance the noble Earl did make a mistake. A general discussion followed, and the result was that no conclusion was arrived at of any sort or kind. He listened very carefully, as he thought, but he did not hear Lord Llandaff's Amendment put at all; but it appeared it was put and agreed to. However that might have been, Lord Salisbury then moved the omission of the clause. He gave no reason for that Motion, but their Lordships omitted the clause. It was the dinner-hour and in the confusion that occurred—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was before dinner.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Well, it may have been before dinner, but your Lordships were rushing off to dinner, and the Lord Bishop of Oxford then got up and sagaciously moved his clause, which. was inserted in the Bill and Clause 6 disappeared.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDrose to speak.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think it would be better if the right rev. Prelate allowed me to move my Amendment and then said what he had to say upon it. I can assure the right rev. Prelate that I did not in any way wish to reflect on what he did. On the contrary, I think he was most worldly wise.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid he was not desirous of being thought either sagacious or worldly wise. Before Lord Salisbury moved the omission of Clause 6 there had been a considerable discussion as between Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendment and his (the right rev. Prelate's), and by the courtesy of Lord Clifford, his was chosen. It was in no sense at the last moment, just before the dinner-hour, that a decision was arrived at.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that if it would gratify the right rev. Prelate he would withdraw all his remarks that related to him. The clause which he proposed to insert simply provided that if the local education authority at any future time made an arrangement for the transfer to them or the use by them of the schoolhouse of an elementary school, not being a public elementary school, and conducted it as a public elementary school provided by them, the foregoing provisions with respect to facilities, including extended facilities, should apply to that school in the same manner as they applied to a transferred voluntary school. That was a very innocent and a very useful proposition so far as he could understand it, and he asked their Lordships to re-insert the clause. There would be many cases which would not be covered by the right rev. Prelate's clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 5, to insert the following new clause, 'If the local education authority at any time make an arrangement for the transfer to them or the use by them, of the schoolhouse of an elementary school not being a public elementary school, and conduct it as a public elementary school provided by them, the foregoing provisions of this Act with respect
  1080
  to facilities (including extended facilities) shall apply to that school in the same manner as they apply to a transferred voluntary school.'"— (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The early stages of the discussion on this Amendment conveyed, I am sure, an extremely valuable moral lesson, but I do not know that they were of very great importance with regard to the particular clause with which we are dealing. The noble Earl is quite right in thinking that there would be cases which would come in under our old Clause 6 which would not be covered by the Bishop of Oxford's Clause. He will remember, of course, that our Clause 6 did apply to new schools.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: To any voluntary schools taken over in the future.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: But practically new schools, for all existing schools would be dealt with under the other provisions. It is true it would cover cases which are not met by the right rev. Prelate's Amendment, and therefore I have no objection to its re-insertion.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that the Amendment standing in his name was a drafting Amendment, and he assumed the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would have no objection to it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6, page 6, line 24, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or an order under Section 11 of this Act.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no objection to any of the noble and learned Lord's three Amendments as the Bill now stands; but, of course, I must not be taken as agreeing to the policy which they represent.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6, page 6, line 28, after the word 'school,' to insert as a new paragraph 'When the powers of the Commission appointed under this Act have expired, the Board of Education shall, without prejudice to any other power, have the same power to make an older with respect to a schoolhouse provided under

  1081
  this section as the Commission originally had.'" —(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is to leave out the reference to Sections 3 and 4 and insert a description, in order to avoid the rather mistaken practice of alluding to sections by their numbers.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 7, page 6, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of this Act for the purpose,' and to insert the words 'as a condition of any arrangement or order of the Commission with respect to a schoolhouse, or of the purchase or hire of a schoolhouse or afforded as extended facilities under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved the insertion of a new proviso in Clause 11, the object of which was, he said, to prevent a certificate of the Board of Education with regard to the structural suitability of the building being given quite irrespective of the willingness or power of the owners to make such alterations as would render the building structurally suitable. The Commission naturally would not have given their decision that the building was structurally unsuitable without hearing what the Board of Education required to make it so, and where owners were prepared promptly and efficiently to carry out those alterations they should be allowed to do so. He thought there should be some provision that the Board of Education should not only consider the existing condition of the building, but also the willingness and the power of the owners to render it suitable.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 11, page 10, line 12, after the word 'Commission,' to insert the words 'provided that the Board of Education shall not certify that any schoolhouse is structurally unsuitable, unless they have allowed the owners a reasonable time for alteration or rebuilding, and unless the time so allowed shall have expired.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the noble Lord will net press this
  1082
  Amendment, which I think is not really a necessary one. It must be assumed that the Board of Education, which, as the noble Lord will agree, tries to act fairly in these matters, would not declare a school unsuitable if there was an immediate prospect of the necessary alterations forthcoming. I am speaking, of course, of structural efficiency, and leaving out all question of necessity. I think it is hardly fair, by a direction of this kind, to tie the discretion of a public Department in this matter. I think noble Lords must assume that such discretion as there is will be properly exercised by the responsible Board.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he was quite willing, after that declaration, to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: By my first Amendment to Clause 12 I propose, to insert the words "after the first application." They are inserted to make it quite clear that the words "but no such application" in sub-section (b) apply only to second and subsequent applications. If the words as they stand were strictly construed it might conceivably make it impossible for the first application to be made.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 12, page 10, line 28, after the word 'but,' to insert the words 'after the first application,' and to leave out the word 'such,' and to insert the word 'further,' and after the word 'application,' to insert the words in respect of any order.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My next Amendment is designed to make it quite clear that the Board of Education are to have the same powers as the Commission, including the power to give leave to appeal.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 12, page 10, line 35, at end of line to insert the words 'and shall have the same powers, including power to give leave to appeal.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDsaid be presumed that this power was confined to varying or cancelling orders made by the Commission, and that it did not refer to schemes.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, it applies to orders.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is clear that the need for a ballot can only arise in the case of applications for extended facilities, and the words which I now move to insert are to make that clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 12, page 10, line 37, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'under which extended facilities are given.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is simply a matter of arrangement. Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 contains a provision as to the conditions or arrangements under that Clause. It is intended that orders made by the Commission should be on the same footing as arrangement. Therefore we apply the provisions of this sub-section.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 12, page 11, line 19, after '(3)' to insert 'and (5).'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved the insertion of a new paragraph in Clause 14. This was, he said, the last of his three Amendments to which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had signified his assent.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 14, page 12, line 25, after the word 'education,' to insert as a new paragraph: 'When the powers of the Commission have expired, the Board of Education shall, without prejudice to any other power, have the same power to make an order under this section as the Commission originally had.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I accept the Amendment.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The words "so appointed" in line 30 of Clause 15 are inappropriate. When the Bill was first drafted the Commissioners' names were not inserted, and now that they have been added the words do not fit in.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 15, page 12, line 30, to leave out the words 'so appointed,' and to insert the words 'under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is of a drafting nature. It makes clear that the words "notwithstanding any vacancy" in sub-section (4) of Clause 15 belong to the words which precede them and not to the words which follow.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 15, page 12, line 37, after the word 'number,' to insert the word 'and.'"— (The Earl of Crewe.)
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is to substitute an order for a scheme in Clause 16. As these clauses are now drafted, your Lordships will remember that a scheme is distinguished from an order, and it is necessary to change the word here.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 16, page 14, line 1, to leave out the words 'a scheme,' and to insert the word 'order.'"—(The Earl of crewe.)
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My next Amendment, which is to Clause 19, meets a point that was raised by Lord Camperdown. The noble Earl called attention to the fact that the definitions in the supplemented provisions were lumped together in one clause, and he quite

  1085
  rightly pointed out that that was inconvenient and unusual. It was, in fact, only done as a temporary arrangement, and this Amendment is to make from the beginning of line 29 to the end of the clause a new clause, with a marginal note "Supplemental provisions."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 19, page 15, line 29, to make from the beginning of line 29 to the end of the clause a new clause, with marginal note, 'Supplemental provisions.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas proceeding to put the Question, "That the words 'supplemental provisions' be inserted in the marginal note," when
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYintimated that it was not in order to amend a marginal note.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then in that case the Amendment has no right to appear on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid the marginal note was never looked at in construing a Statute. According to the rule of Parliament no such question was ever put to the House. The marginal note was simply added according to the view of the Clerk at the Table.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sure the noble and learned Earl is right. The Amendment ought not to have appeared on the Paper.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWEhad the following Amendment on the Paper to Clause 20 (schemes with reference to delegation), viz.—
  "Page 17, to leave out from beginning of line 20 to the end of line 31, and insert 'such committee must be either—'(a) a body elected for the purpose in manner provided in the scheme by the local government or parochial electors for the delegation area, women being capable of being elected; or (b) a body consisting of the council of a local government area where that is possible owing to the delegation area being a single local government area, together with additional members if so provided by the scheme, not being more in number than one-third of the whole body and being either common or county councillors nominated by the county council; or (c) a body the ordinary members
  1086
  of which consist wholly of members of the councils of such local government areas, wholly or partly situated in the delegation area as the scheme directs, or partly of such members and partly of members nominated in manner directed by the scheme (provided that the nominated members do not exceed one-third of the total number of ordinary members) together with additional members if so provided by the scheme being all or any of the members of the county council representing any electoral division wholly or partly situated within the delegation area or residing in the area; where a local education committee contains nominated members the scheme shall provide that a certain number of the nominated members must be women.'"
  The noble Earl said: We now come to the delegation clause. Your Lordships will remember the discussions that have taken place, very largely at the instance of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Belper, on this matter. We have tried to meet the views of those who represent the county councils, although I am afraid we have not been able to go quite so far as Lord Belper wished. I am sorry to say that, owing to a mistake, the Amendment as it appears on the Paper is not quite correct. There is an omission from it which is of a substantial character affecting the composition of one of the alternative bodies. Your Lordships will observe from the Amendment the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will ultimately put that the provision with regard to members of the comity council representing any electoral division within the delegation area or residing in the area being additional members of the local education authority is applied to all three of the bodies instead of only to two as in the Amendment printed on the Paper.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 20, page 17, to leave out from the beginning of line 20 to the end of line 31, and to insert the words 'such committee must be either—(a) a body, the ordinary members of which are elected for the purpose in manner provided in the scheme by the local government or parochial electors for the delegation area; or, (b) a body, the ordinary members of which consist of the council of a local government area where that is possible owing to the delegation area being a single local government area; or (c) a body, the ordinary members of which consist wholly of members of the councils of such local government areas, wholly or partly situated in the delegation area as the scheme directs, or partly of such members of council, and partly of members nominated in manner directed by the scheme (provided that the

  1087
  nominated members do not exceed one-third of the total number of ordinary members). If provision is made for the purposes of the scheme, all or any of the members of the county council representing any electoral division, wholly or partly situated within the delegation area, or residing in the area, may be additional members of the local education committee in addition to the ordinary members. Where the ordinary members of a local education committee are the council of a local government area, women may be appointed as additional members, and the scheme will provide that some women, not exceeding one-fifth of the ordinary members, be so appointed, and also where the local education committee consists partly of nominated members that some women be included among the members so nominated.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD BELPERsaid that substantially the Amendment carried out the intention of the clause which he had moved on the Report stage. There were, however, differences. The first was that his proviso only referred to those education committees which had the power of spending money. It would therefore have been possible to constitute a committee not having spending powers in any way they liked. He had been told that the committees who would have the power of spending money would form by far the greater majority; indeed, it had been stated that it would not be possible to constitute any committee under this scheme without giving them some powers of spending money. He did not take the same view himself, and that was why he moved the Amendment in the form in which he submitted it to their Lordships. At the same time the matter was such a small one when looked into that he did not wish on that account to reject the clause which the noble Earl had moved. There was another difference. His words with regard to the nominated members who were added would have referred to every committee however constituted. He agreed that two-thirds of the members should always be representative, but one-third might be nominated in all cases. He was not very much surprised that the noble Earl had moved the clause in a somewhat different form. In the case of an authority elected ad hoc it might be a stumbling block to add nominated members, and therefore he was not surprised that sub-section (a) had been proposed without the addition of nominated members. But personally he thought that in some cases it might be a very
  1088
  valuable addition if members of the council who had taken an active part in education up to this time were allowed to be added even to a body elected ad hoc. He regretted that the additional one-third had not been made distinctly to refer to the body to be elected tinder sub-section (b). That practically would be an urban council, an admirable body in many ways for dealing with the details of their own schools in their own neighbourhood. But it was quite possible that the members might not be men of great educational experience, and the addition of gentlemen who had had experience in educational matters would, in some cases at all events, make that body more efficient. He thought the provision with regard to the addition of women very valuable. The rest of the clause entirely carried out their view. There were, as he had said, differences but they were not important enough to justify him in doing anything that would prevent a settlement.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)said they had listened with great satisfaction to the remarks of Lord Belper. It was clear that they were substantially in agreement. He thought noble Lords would have arrived at the conclusion that cases in which a Committee could do useful work where no financial responsibility was involved would be very rare, and it was hardly worth attempting to provide for them. In any case, the difference between the clause as proposed by the Lord President and by Lord Belper was one of form more than of substance. The principal criticism of Lord Belper had rather been that under sub-sections (a) and (b) they had not provided, except in the case of ladies, for the co-option of members. That was perfectly true, but the probability was that the main operation of the clause would be under sub-section (c). That being so, he thought they had substantially met the noble Lord or, at all events, had gone very far towards meeting him on that point.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is a matter of arrangement. It is to insert a new sub-section. The words are omitted in Clause 31, and therefore ought to come in here.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 22, line 31, after the word 'resident,' to insert as a new sub-section, 'The powers and duties of a local education authority under Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, shall include a power to aid by scholarships or bursaries the instruction in public elementary schools of scholars from the age of twelve up to the limit of ago fixed for the provision of instruction in a public elementary school by sub-section (2) of Section 22 of that Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The Amendments standing in my name to Clause 31 are merely drafting Amendments, to which I do not anticipate any objection will be taken.
  Amendments moved—
  "In Clause 31, page 23, line 1, to leave out from the word 'place' to the word 'and' in line 6; in line 14, to leave out from the word 'schools,' to the end of the clause; and in line 19, at the end of the line, to insert the words 'provided that in any exercise of powers under this section, the local education authority may encourage and assist the establishment or continuance of voluntary agencies, and associate with itself representatives of voluntary associations for the purpose.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD HAVERSHAMasked the noble Earl to explain what was meant by the words "and assist" in the proposed new proviso. What they were dealing with were voluntary associations, and surely it was not intended that the Government should assist them out of the rates. If it was not so intended he thought the insertion of the words "and assist" would be very dangerous. He suggested the substitution of the words "and promote."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Occasions might arise when it might be far more economical for the local authority to give some actual assistance to an association of this kind than to carry on the work itself. For this reason I think it would be a pity to omit the words. Occasional help is contemplated.
  LORD BELPERexplained that the Amendment standing in his name was to carry out a point which he mentioned on the Report stage. It would give discretion to the local education authority in charging the parish with some part of the expense of conveyance if it was saved from building a school in consequence.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 32, page 23, line 29, after '1870,' to insert as a separate sub-section, 'For the purposes of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Education Act, 1902, the county council may treat any expenses incurred by them in providing means of conveyance for teachers or children attending a public elementary school under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Education Act, 1902, in the same manner as they may treat the capital expenditure mentioned in the said paragraph (c)'"—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I raise no objection to the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to omit from the enactments repealed in the schedule Sections 21, 23, and 24 of the Education Act, 1870. He said that in the present state of the Bill these enactments ought to remain as they were. Section 21 enabled the managers of a public elementary school, and persons desirous of establishing a public elementary school, to purchase land compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Act. In the original shape of this Bill it was contemplated that there should be no denominational schools in the future, and in that case it was quite unnecessary to keep alive this power. But their Lordships had inserted an Amendment providing that future schools could become part of the educational system of the country. As denominational schools might be founded in the future they would require to obtain sites, and he thought it would be highly undesirable to deprive them of this compulsory power. Therefore he contended that Section 21 ought not to be repealed. Section 23 of the Act of 1870 was also a most useful section. It enabled the local education authority to purchase, and the owners of a school to sell, the school outright. It

  1091
  was remarkable that the power to purchase was absolutely shut out from this Bill. If the local education authority wanted to turn a denominational school into a Cowper-Temple school the straightforward and honest course was to buy it, but this Bill gave them no power to purchase, and went so far as to repeal the section of the Act of 1870 which allowed them to buy the school. Not only was there power to purchase under Section 23, but also large powers to lease, to acquire the partial use of the school, or to make whatever arrangements might seem fit. That was a useful alternative to the cumbrous machinery of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. He believed that where there was a friendly local authority and sensible owners they might be able to devise an arrangement which would be perfectly satisfactory to all parties without going through the cumbrous procedure of Clause 4. He urged their Lordships to leave the door open to peaceful friendly arrangement.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 27, lines 5 to 8, to leave out words 'Section 21, Section 23 (as from the date of the passing of this Act), Section 24 (except as respects transfers in force at the time of the passing of this Act.)'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the noble Viscount will not persist in this Amendment to the schedule, or, if he does, that your Lordships will not support him. Even with the Amendments which your Lordships have placed in the Bill the existing provisions and the existing repeals really do everything that is required. The noble Viscount said that Section 21 of the Act of 1870 gave school managers compulsory powers for the purchase of land. If he will look at the Act he will see that the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act applied, except those which related to purchase otherwise than by agreement. No managers of voluntary schools at any time have been able to take land compulsorily for the purpose of a school.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: The noble Earl will find that is not so. Section 21 enables them to take powers compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Act.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The Act says that the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act shall apply "except so much as relates to the purchase of land otherwise than by agreement." There are no compulsory powers. I can assure the noble Viscount that he is incorrect on that point. If the noble Viscount looks at Section 19 of the Act of 1870, which we do not propose to repeal, he will see that it allows the purchase by the local authority of land or of schools, so that if it is possible for the owners of a school to sell outright there is nothing to prevent their making a friendly agreement with the local authority under that section. But the main objection that we have to retaining these sections is that in all of them the managers appear. Now, all the transactions which take place under this Bill relate to owners. The whole question of transfer rests as between the owners and the local authorities, and we certainly could not agree to re-admit the managers in any way.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next two Amendments standing in my name both relate to the same point. Section 99 enables managers of schools to comply with any conditions required for the payment of the Parliamentary Grant, and therefore it is needed for the purpose of State-aided schools.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 27, third column, line 8, after the word 'Act,' to insert the word 'and'; and in line 9, to leave out the words 'and Section 99.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is to leave out the words which repeal Section 22 of the Act of 1873. Under that section the local authority can obtain returns from elementary schools. These returns are useful in enabling the local authority to know how it stands in the matter of school accommodation, and we think it is valuable to retain that power.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the schedule, page 27, to leave out lines 10, 11, and 12."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to omit the words, "the whole Act so far as unrepealed." The repeal of the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, which would be effected unless his Amendment were carried, would make all voluntary schools in future liable for local rates. It seemed to him rather singular that throughout the long discussions that had taken place on this Bill, no reference had been made to the proposal to withdraw the exemption from rating which voluntary schools had hitherto enjoyed.
  LORD BELPER: I specially referred to it on the finance clauses.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he had not heard the point raised. They certainly had received no information from the Government to the effect that this exemption from rating would be withdrawn.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: May I say that I remember speaking on the point in reply to Lord Belper.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid it was not stated in the Bill whether or not the owners and trustees of Clause 3 and Clause 4 schools would have to pay the rates. The words he proposed in his Amendment to insert were necessary in view of the fact that a voluntary school would be no longer a public elementary school; it only became a public elementary school when transferred to the local education authority. He hoped their Lordships would not allow this particular blow to be struck at voluntary schools.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the schedule, page 27, line 16, to leave out this words 'the whole Act so far as un-repealed,' and to insert the word 'public' in Section 4, line 2.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHhoped the House would support the Amendment. All the schools which would be left would be schools whose existence was a distinct benefit to the rates. They would either be. State-aided schools or certified efficient schools, and they would be doing a work which,
  1094
  if not done, would involve serious expense to the rates. Therefore the reason for which they were originally given this immunity still existed.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment has not been entirely accurate in one or two particulars. If he looks at Clause 16, he will see that a temporarily occupied school becomes a public elementary school while it is so occupied. In those circumstances, it clearly is the local education authority who would have to pay the rates during that time. Practically the only kind of school affected is the State-aided school, and there does not appear to be any reason why it should escape the ordinary burden of the rates. At any rate as our Bill was drafted we contemplated that these schools would be very few indeed, and we are not prepared to propose a special exemption for them.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid his next Amendment affected the repeal of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1902. That section made provision for the appointment of foundation and other managers in public elementary schools that were not provided by the local education authority. He had, more than once, presented to the noble Earl the Lord President the difficulty that would arise in the case of temporarily occupied schools where there would be no managers at all. They were not provided schools, and therefore the local education authority would not have authority to appoint managers for them. If they repealed sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1902 the managers would disappear and there would be nobody left with power to appoint managers. Once or twice the Lord President had suggested that the Board of Education could interpose and appoint managers. He ventured to assert, very confidently, that that was not so. The managers were a statutory body appointed under the Act of 1870. The Act of 1902 also dealt in detail with the manner of their appointment. They were statutory officers throughout. There was no section in any Act of Parliament which would enable the Board of Education to

  1095
  appoint a set of managers for these schools. The Act now provided that the local education authority might occupy temporary schools for two years, that was until 1st January, 1910, and he thought no harm could be done, inasmuch as this was only a temporary occupation, by leaving the managers of the schools as they were under the Act of 1902, so that the old system of management would go on in the schools during the period that they were so occupied. If that was not done he conceived that there could not, legally, be any managers at all. That surely was not a result their Lordships would desire to see brought about by this Bill. The same argument applied to State-aided schools, which would not be provided schools. Their foundation managers would be taken away by the repeal of this sub-section, and the local education authority would not have the power to appoint managers for them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the schedule, in page 27, line 25, after the word 'six,' to insert the words 'as from, the first of January one thousand nine hundred and ten.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I must have made myself very badly understood if the noble Viscount thought I ever suggested that these temporarily used schools under Clause 16 should have managers appointed by the Board of Education. What I always intended to say, and what I cannot help thinking I said, was that those schools would become provided schools for that time, and that their managers would be appointed, as in the case of other such schools, by the local education authority. They become public elementary schools, and therefore they become provided schools, and during that time the managers would be appointed by the local education authority. I do not think it can be maintained that any unfairness could result to these schools from that fact, because, if the noble Viscount looks at sub-section (2) of Clause 16, he will see that the rights of those schools to be carried on practically as they have been hitherto are so entirely preserved that it would be impossible for managers appointed by the local education authority, even if they desired it, to interfere with their conduct.
  1096
  I think the noble Viscount will see, further, that the fact that they do become provided schools obviously makes it unmeaning to continue the foundation managers. Being provided schools, the existence of foundation managers would be anomalous.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: Under what clause do they become provided schools?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Their use is taken for the purpose of public elementary schools, and by Clause 1 a public elementary school is a provided school.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment has reference to the repealing of Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act of 1902. Those sections deal with the powers of the Board of Education with respect to the provision of new schools. As the Bill now stands, after the important additions which have been made to the old Clause 6, everything. I think, provided for in those sections is provided for in the new Clause 6, and therefore they ought to go out. There is this one exception, that in these sections there is an appeal by ten ratepayers against a new school. It is not found in practice that that is a very valuable provision, and I am sure the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, will confirm me in that. As a matter of fact, the Board of Education do exercise all the necessary control under Section 96, I think it is, of the Act of 1870, which allows them to refuse grants; and the Local Government Board, also on the advice of the Board of Education, have a very complete control over the local authority in the same way by being able to refuse a loan for the purpose.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the schedule, page 27, third column line 27, after the word 'eight,' to insert the word 'and,' and after the word 'nine,' to insert the words 'as from the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is quite sure that the repeal of those two sections—Sections 8 and 9—is

  1097
  really desirable. The noble Earl has told us that Clause 6 of the Bill dealt with the provision of new schools. That if true. But what Clause 6 deals with is the provision of new schools with facilities. Is it clear that we can afford to dispense with the provisions contained in Clauses 8 and 9 of the Act of 1902 under which machinery is provided for deciding whether new schools are or are not desirable? It seems to me conceivable that cases might arise in which, for various reasons, the local education authority, desiring perhaps to provide that alternative accommodation which figures so largely in certain parts of the Bill, might be very glad to have machinery for setting up a new school at which that alternative accommodation might be provided. At any rate, the existence of the two clauses on the statute-book does not seem to me to be fraught with any considerable danger, and I should have thought it would have been better to leave them alone.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I mentioned the only point on which any control over the local education authority would be lost, namely, the objection of ten ratepayers. On all other matters the Board of Education and the Local Government Board have precisely the same powers as they have had before. I will not divide the House, however, if the noble Marquess insists.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Oh, no, I only wished to clear the point up. I do not press it.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE*THE EARL OF CREWE moved to leave out sub-section (5) of Section 24 from the list of sections to be repealed. The noble Earl said: This sub-section defined the expression "trustee," and as that expression has been introduced into the Bill it is clear that the definition ought to stand.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the Schedule, page 27, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words 'sub-section (5) of Section 24.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, it is now my duty to move "that this Bill do pass." It may be desirable before doing so that I should say a few words on the general situation in which we stand after the careful consideration— in which I greatly admired the patience of your Lordships—to which the Bill has been subjected. In making this Motion I stand in a somewhat unusual position. If these were really the final dealings with the Bill it would be a very serious matter for reflection with me whether, instead of proposing this Motion, I should not have to vote against it if proposed by some one else. But the Motion which I shall shortly have to make means that this Bill shall once more go back to the other House for consideration of the changes which it has received at your Lordships' hands.
  It appears to me that it is right, having had the conduct of the Bill through this House, that I should to the best of my ability remind your Lordships what are the changes that have taken place in the Bill since its first arrival here. In doing so I find myself rather in the position of Mark Antony in the play, when he held up the mantle of the murdered Julius Cæsar; but with these two important differences. In the first place, I do not possess the persuasive art of the Roman, and, in the second place, the great majority of those whom I have now the honour of addressing have been accessories to the crime. But I have to point to the different gashes that have been made in the mantle—
  "Look ! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through:
  See, what a rent the envious Casca made !"
  If we can reconstruct the Bill by the aid of memory let us look at it as it was, and see what changes have been made. As it came up Clause 1 was a very simple clause, and it still remains a tolerably simple clause, though your Lordships have made an addition to it which is, I think we must all admit, of purely abstract character. You have pronounced that it is necessary that a certain part of every day should be set apart for religious instruction; but you have not said that any religious instruction need be given during that period. Consequently the addition cannot be

  1099
  regarded as anything beyond an expression of opinion on the part of your Lordships that it is an excellent and desirable thing that during some part of every school day religious instruction should be given.
  Next we come to the arrangements which can be made between the owners of schools and the local authorities. Your Lordships have destroyed, except in certain circumstances, the right of the local authority to refuse particular schools. I must remind the House that the manner in which these particular schools may on appeal he forced upon them, even although they do not want them, will operate not only when the appeal comes on, but will also operate during the process of bargaining, and will tend greatly to hamper the freedom of the local authority. In that respect your Lordships have cut deep into one of the great governing principles of the Bill—the principle of public control. If no arrangement is made the owner has the right in every case to bring the school before our Commission of three. I need not weary your Lordships with any further description, because the discussion has been so recent as to the manner in which the duties of the Commission have been altered by Amendments. I will only say that, whereas when the Bill arrived here the duty of the Commissioners was purely legal in character, now you are asking them to deal with the particular matters around which, and above all others, this unhappy religious controversy rages.
  We next pass to the provision of ordinary facilities. There was a time in the passage of this Bill when you increased the number of days on which these facilities had to be given, but for once—I am sorry to think it was only once—thinking better of your Amendment, your Lordships restored the limit of ordinary facilities to two days. Consequently the clause as it stands does not look so very different from what it was when it came into the House. But, of course, I need hardly remind you that its operation is very considerably affected, in the first place by the change it makes as to the attendance at the schoolhouse being compulsory—this gravely interferes with
  1100
  the operation of the conscience clause— and also to a still greater extent by the important change which has been made in allowing the teacher to give this facilities teaching. That, we cannot help thinking on this side of the House, adds very seriously to the probability that these schools, which were intended to be undenominational, will fall under the absolute and entire influence of a denomination, and will retain a denominational atmosphere. The general effect, therefore, as regards these schools under Clause 2 is to maintain that grievance of the Nonconformist minority which your Lordships have always been very quick to admit, but which when we have mentioned it you never, either in the past or during the progress of this Bill, attempted to remedy in any way which those who suffered from it would consider to be effective.
  I come next to the extended facilities. Again your Lordships have removed any discretion whatever from the local authority as regards those schools under Clause 1. You have abolished the urban limit and the limit of number which we placed in the original Bill. That in itself might not have been considered a matter of such very great gravity if the other conditions of the clause had been preserved. But the alteration must be taken in the light of the other alterations made. You have changed the proportion of four-fifths to the very different proportion of two-thirds of those who take the trouble to vote, which, as we have pointed out, enables one of these schools to become entirely denominational, even though only a small minority of the parents of the children attending it express any active desire that it should be so. You have also inserted the clause upon which we were engaged to-day, and which as it stands enables single schools in rural parishes to come in for the benefits of this clause, thereby completely altering its scope.
  Taking all these Amendments to Clause 4, and considering them together, no one can possibly attempt to deny that the whole character of the clause has been changed. But having secured this alteration, your Lordships next proceeded to invade the council schools. The new sub-section to Clause 3, for which Lord

  1101
  Salisbury is responsible, casts on the local education authority the duty of giving in council schools general facilities to the uncertain number of parents which may be defined as reasonable. That is an entirely new claim, and it in no way arises out of this Bill. I cannot help thinking that if your Lordships chose to strengthen here or to weaken there, as the Bill was before you, there would have been much to say from your Lordships' point of view, if you had refrained from interfering with schools, the system of which has been a fixed one for the last thirty-six years, and intrusion into which is certain to be greatly resented by the local authorities now managing them.
  Then, my Lords, in Clause 6 there was a further invasion of popular control. Clause 6, as amended, is obviously intended to indicate that your Lordships mean the denominational system, not merely to endure, but to be widely extended. It is only necessary to wait, because the pendulum may swing far and swing long, but it is bound to swing back until you have a sympathetic President of the Board of Education, such a Minister as Lord Salisbury would make, and then you can flood the country once more under this clause with a new set of denominational schools. Next we come to the subject of the teacher. Nominal liberty to do what he likes is restored to the teacher by permitting him to give facilities instruction in the Clause 3 schools. I say "nominal liberty," for in a great many cases he knows that it is not liberty. He knows that if he refuses he may lose money which he can ill afford not to earn, and he does not want in many cases to have that temptation set before him. He knows also if he declines to give it, he may annoy important people who can make life not too pleasant for him. It is for that reason that a great body of teachers, and also an immense number of people who are not teachers, consider that, in giving this permission, you are in many cases imposing an indirect test on the teacher.
  I noticed the other day that one of the noble Marquess's former colleagues —Mr. Wyndham—was employed in instructing the youthful mind at the
  1102
  Oxford Union, and he stated that the cry "No tests for teachers" was all nonsense (that was the effect of his words) and that there ought to be tests for teachers. No noble Lord has gone so far as that. There is still time for you to say whether teachers ought to be tested, but in the absence of any such statement we are bound to believe that noble Lords opposite do not believe that the conferring of what I think is an invidious privilege on the teacher really does lead to the imposition of a test.
  I do not dwell on the dealings of your Lordships with the Welsh Council clause. The noble Earl who attacked that clause with such vigour is not here, and his absence makes it even less necessary for me to argue the point again. But I may remind you that it was a clause which we believed was demanded by the vast majority of the people of Wales, and as to the form of which we were certainly more open to the reception of Amendments than in regard to many other clauses in the Bill. But it was somewhat slightingly cast aside by your Lordships and you did not even attempt to amend it. What is the conclusion of the whole matter? All I can say is that this Bill, as your Lordships have amended it, tends not only to perpetuate, but in my judgment largely to extend, the dual system of council schools and voluntary schools upon which the country has, as we believe, spoken with a clear voice declaring that it means it, as far as possible, to come to an end. In altering this Bill as it came to the House, your Lordships have made our rules exceptions and our exceptions rules. Even in this form, in which it satisfies us so little, it does not seem entirely to satisfy at any rate some noble Lords opposite; I think that the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) stated that he did not really like it even as it is—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear !
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Uninfluenced by the fact that the schools while retaining in many cases their purely denominational character are to receive a solatium in the form of rent, and that the local authority is to execute for them all their

  1103
  repairs. If the Bill as it stands does not entirely satisfy the noble Marquess opposite, it certainly does not satisfy in its present form those who desire that the grievances—the admitted grievances— placed on many people by the Act of 1902 should be remedied. As it came up here, in our opinion it went very far indeed to remedy those grievances; but the provisions on which we relied for that object have been most mercilessly dealt with by your Lordships.
  On the credit side—I want to be strictly fair—I appreciate the assistance which we have received from the House in the matter of the delegation clause. That, I hope, has now at last reached a form in which it can be accepted by all parties, and I sincerely hope it will pass into law as it stands. I also appreciate the welcome which your Lordships extended to the provisions of the Bill which deal with medical inspection, and the provision of play centres and other forms of amusement for children.
  But I cannot help saying, as my last word at present in relation to this Bill, that your Lordships are undertaking, in my view, a very grave responsibility in returning the Bill in this shape to the other House. I am quite aware that your Lordships in a kindred matter have shown yourselves thoroughly alive to the responsibility which rests upon this House. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech on the Trade Disputes Bill, stated his case with most admirable candour. That, he said, was a Bill on which he believed the country had spoken with no uncertain voice, and that, consequently, it would be an ill-chosen ground for a strategical attack upon that particular Bill. My Lords, what is there in the history of the late election to show that the country did not speak with quite as certain a voice on this question of education as it did on the question of the Taff Vale decision? Whatever your Lordships may say about this or that provision, I think nobody will be found in this House or outside of it who will have the hardihood to assert that the Bill which your Lordships are now going to send back to the House of Commons carries out the desire, the loudly expressed desire, of the country
  1104
  on this question of religious freedom in elementary education.
  Now, my Lords, it is undoubtedly, I think, a safe prophecy to say that when this Bill returns from another place it will not return with complete acceptance of all the changes which your Lordships have made. But it does not seem to me that that fact need necessarily be fatal to the passing of the Bill. To revert to the quotation I used at an earlier stage, I shall not admit that Cæsar is dead until I am actually called upon to attend his funeral. I personally shall not attempt to disguise the regret I should feel if no Education Bill were to become law. Quite apart from this religious discussion with which we are racked, I cannot forget that there are other valuable provisions in the Bill. Neither can I shut my eyes to the great administrative difficulties that must necessarily exist if the law remains in the position in which it is at this moment.
  In the present temper which exists in the country on this matter, I am not ashamed to say that I dread, from the administrative point of view, the result of no Education Bill passing this year. I am certainly not going to accuse noble Lords opposite of welcoming the difficulties under which political opponents may be placed if those difficulties involve the dislocation of a great public service, and the infliction very possibly of serious hardship on a great number of innocent individuals. I therefore, my Lords, respectfully urge that, during the interval for reflection which I suppose will now come upon us, your Lordships will consider and carefully weigh two things. If your Lordships will endeavour really to find out what it is that the country actually wants, and be guided in your treatment of this Bill accordingly, I do not fear the result; and, in the second place, I would ask your Lordships, in considering your own opinions, very carefully indeed to weigh in your own mind which of those opinions are really founded on principles which you cannot disavow, and which are founded on prejudices which some day you will be glad to have neglected.
  Moved, "That this Bill do pass."— (The Earl of Crewe.)
  The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I and those who share my religions feelings in this House have come to the conclusion, after very careful consideration, when the Question is put, "That this Bill do pass," to vote against it. We are a very small section in this House, and therefore it has not been without very great consideration that we have felt obliged to take the course we have decided upon. I wish to make it clear that that course is one which we do not invite your Lordships to follow if you do not share our view. But we feel that it would not be consonant with the dignity of your Lordships' House that we should take such a course without explaining what we feel on the matter.
  I need not say that when this Bill was introduced it aroused throughout the Catholic body in the country a feeling of keen disappointment, indignation, and dismay. It appeared to us that the earnest self-sacrifice of years was to be swept away, and that all that we had done and that Catholic parents had done to provide the schools which they considered necessary for the religious upbringing of their children was to be put in the greatest jeopardy. There is only Clause 4 to look to as a harbour of refuge, the passage to which is impeded by quicksands, and the shelter of which, when obtained, will be of a doubtful character. As the Bill passed the House of Commons it met with a great manifestation of popular opposition on the part of Catholics throughout the country. It passed through the House of Commons, its severity tempered with kindly phrases and kindly promises; but when we turned to the clauses of the Bill we found that those promises had not been turned into legal enactments.
  When the Bill came up to this House the Catholic peers—a small body, but a body representing for the moment tens of thousands of our poorest co-religionists, who are looking to us to defend the spiritual welfare of their children—had to consider whether we should move the rejection of the Bill, or whether it would be possible by the process of Amendment to bring the measure into such a shape that we would be able to accept it. We made it very clear that in endeavouring to amend the Bill we felt that we were entering upon a very hard and doubtful task, but we determined to take that risk
  1106
  and to do the best we could. Now the question remains for us to decide how far the process of Amendment has eradicated the dangers of the Bill. In our opinion that process has not eradicated those dangers, and, therefore, as I have said, we feel ourselves obliged to vote against the passing of the Bill.
  We have quite recently had many manifestations that our co-religionists through out the country are still, I will not say as dissatisfied as before, but still thoroughly dissatisfied and thoroughly mistrustful of the measure. Vast public meetings have been held in all parts of the country. The opinion of the Catholic body was expressed by a large and representative deputation which waited the other day upon the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. We had speakers from the north of the Thames and from the south of the Thames; there were representatives from Newcastle, Yorkshire, and the Midlands; the Principality was represented by gentlemen from Cardiff, and the West of England by gentlemen from Bristol, and other parts of the country were also represented. Each of the speakers on that occasion declared in constitutional and respectful language, but in the most emphatic manner possible, that, while they appreciated what the House of Lords had done and had attempted to do, nevertheless they had not achieved the hard task of making this Bill one which Catholics could possibly accept. They dwelt especially on the fact that we had not secured the appointment of the teachers in our schools.
  We were assured, at the outset of the debates in another place, that Clause 4 was to be made a reality, and that without Clause 4 the Bill would be an unjust one. We have watched anxiously to see that reality made sure. In this House we have done a great deal to make it so, but your Lordships wore not able to support our claim except in a limited way, and certainly not to carry into effect that which Catholic Peers stated could alone satisfy the Catholic body throughout the country. The Catholic Education Council, a representative body of Catholic opinion, has passed unanimously a resolution stating that, while gratefully appreciating the stand made by the House of Lords on behalf of denominational education, they are still unable to accept

  1107
  this Bill as a settlement of the education question. We feel that while, as the noble Earl pointed out, we have made many rents in the mantle of Caesar, Caesar is not dead, and the noble Earl will not be able to attend his funeral.
  We believe that the underlying mischief of this Bill still remains. We have planted Amendments, but we have planted them, I fear, in a noxious soil in which we cannot expect them to bear fruit. We are quite prepared to accept Clause 1 with certain safeguards and in a certain spirit, but I fear that from the interpretation put upon it on the Benches opposite it will be worked in a very different spirit. It has constantly happened that when Amendments have been moved the noble Earl opposite has said, "You are running counter to the spirit of the Bill." It is because that spirit is still there that we feel it a danger, and one that we cannot accept. We have had to give way on the question of the majority of parents in our schools having the privilege of obtaining or not obtaining Clause 4 concessions. It is clear to us that vast numbers of our children, for whom our co-religionists have struggled and toiled for years, will not be in a position to be brought up in the faith of their fathers. That is a position which we cannot accept. We claim for those children the same right as for every English child, that where possible the wishes of the parents shall be respected. For these and other reasons we have come to the conclusion that this Bill, oven after the efforts to amend it, is one which we cannot accept, and we feel obliged to make that clear in the only constitutional way open to us—namely, by dividing the House when the Question is put. We have no wish to dictate to others who, thinking very much as we do, may not believe that that course of procedure is best calculated to attain the ends in view; but what we say is that we must make it clear for all time that the underlying principle of this Bill and the provisions which it contains, ameliorated though they have been by what has taken place in Committee, still remain in a form which the Catholic body are wholly unable to accept.
  Viscount HALIFAX: My Lords, I would ask the indulgence of the House
  1108
  for a few moments for much the same kind of reasons as those put forward by the noble Duke. It is true that the Amendments that have been carried by this side of the House have done something to make the facilities for definite religious teaching more secure than they were, but I am sure there is no one who feels the vital importance of preserving denominational schools and denominational teaching who does not regard the facilities professed to be accorded under Clauses 3 and 4 as insufficient and precarious. I might have spoken differently if the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh had been carried and the facilities under Clause 3 had been preserved for every day in the week, and if there had been securities under Clause 3 for the teachers in the majority of Church schools. But in view of what has passed, I repeat that the facilities which have been secured by the Amendments are insufficient and precarious.
  The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has just told us that this is a Bill for securing religious freedom. My Lords, this is not a Bill for securing religious freedom. It is a Bill for the establishment and endowment of undenominational religion. It is not a Bill that holds the balance even. It is a Bill that is unjust to the parent. It imposes a double burden on those who dislike undenominational teaching, for it rates them for that purpose and compels them, in addition, to defray the expense of such religious teaching as they desire. It denies the right of parents to determine the religious teaching to be given to their children, and it ignores all those principles of liberty of conscience and equal dealing between all classes which I had supposed to be one of the cardinal principles of noble Lords opposite.
  Nor, my Lords, is this all. I am satisfied that the Bill will entail very great additional expense on the country. How great that additional expense will be I doubt if any one knows. And all to no purpose. For, instead of promoting education, it will but generate bitter religious strife and division where now there is peace and harmonious co-operation; and it is quite impossible that it can be a settlement of the question. If your Lordships think that I am speaking without book, and

  1109
  that I am exaggerating these difficulties, I would refer you to that very important letter which appeared in The Times on Monday last from Mr. Llewellyn Davies. Mr. Llewellyn Davies and I have very little in common, but on this point he has echoed very nearly everything I have said. This letter affords conclusive proof how entirely agreed in thus regarding the Bill are persons who profoundly differ on other matters, and I venture to think His Majesty's Government will make a very great mistake if they do not take account of such a great consensus of opinion.
  That would be sufficient reason why I should vote against this Bill. But there remains a still more important reason. The future of this country, like the future of every other land, depends on the maintenance of a high moral and religious standard. It is the character of the individuals composing the nation that really signifies the motives that inspire them, their strength of will to choose the good and reject the evil. This high character is not to be formed, this strength cannot be imparted to the will, apart from religion. There are grave signs which may well make us anxious as to the moral future of this country. I will refer your Lordships to the words of Mr. Roosevelt, in his remarkable message to the American Congress, which are not without their application nearer home. I will not allude to some of the specific evils which President Roosevelt mentions; they are topics I would rather avoid. But, my Lords, how are those evils to be met? How are they to be combatted? Those evils which touch the very life of the nation can only be met by the strength of those religious convictions and of that definite religious instruction which are the direct antithesis of undenominational.
  Has not that most distinguished Nonconformist divine, the greatest, perhaps, who has lived in our time, Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, left it on record that in his opinion nothing is so likely to bring about the destruction of whatever religious faith exists in England as undenominational teaching, which if genuine will ultimately leave men without a religion at all? I venture to say that with such a declaration before us and with our own experience we cannot run the risk which
  1110
  is involved in the principle on which this Bill is founded. For these and other reasons I cannot, consistently with my conscience, vote for this measure, and I shall never as long as I live give a vote with greater satisfaction than the vote which I shall record to-night against the passing of this Bill.
  The LORD BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords, I wish to say a few words from this bench, though I represent only myself. I am not even speaking for the most rev. Primate, whose absence we all regret, but I venture to think that the most rev. Primate would not disagree with what I am about to say. Though I speak only for myself I represent many thousands who are outside this House. I do not think your Lordships are aware of the immense number of petitions which have been presented from all parts of the country against the Bill. Before the summer adjournment 6,896 such petitions, containing over 800,000 signatures, were presented, and since then petitions containing 200,000 signatures have been handed in, so that I speak for at least a million of His Majesty's subjects. In addition there have been presented to Parliament petitions from 8,542 trustees of schools.
  I have never in my time experienced such a wave of indignation throughout the whole of the Church of England as was evidenced when they found to their utter surprise that their schools were to be swept away by the first clause of the Bill. Many who voted Liberal at the last election are amongst the most indignant. I will admit, for the sake of argument, that there was a mandate for popular control, but I have yet to learn that popular control means necessarily the sweeping away of all denominational schools. We were ready for popular control, but not for that. Churchmen have been accustomed to the denominational system from their childhood, and they have been encouraged by Government after Government to erect denominational schools. The Church of England has spent an amount equal to £10,000 a week for ninety years on these schools. If any statesman went to Lancashire and said he had received a mandate to sweep away the schools, he would have little chance of being elected there. I went there the

  1111
  other day, a stranger, and received a perfect ovation. Why? Because I had walked with the Lancashire lads through London when they came up to demonstrate against this Bill.
  When we looked to see what was to be given us for our schools we turned first to Clause 3. But the more we endeavoured to grasp the facilities to be given by that clause the more elusive they became. Until it was amended the clause did not even mention any time for the facilities—it might have been five minutes. We found, too, that our schools might not be taken over at all—might be left in the lurch. No teacher was to be allowed to teach religion. I know from long experience in great cities that the schools would be useless unless the teacher was allowed to teach. Then we turned to Clause 4, to try and get a little comfort, but the debates in your Lordship's House have unmasked that clause, although I am sure the noble Earl did not mean it to be a delusion. There was to have been a four-fifths majority; every one who did not vote was to count against us, and we were to be saddled with the obligation of finding places for all those who were in the minority. I venture to say not one Church of England school in a thousand would have survived those tests. We got, therefore, no consolation of any sort from Clause 4. Mr. Birrell at Bristol said that Clause 4 was meant chiefly for the Jews, Roman Catholics, and possibly some portion of those Anglicans who object to be called Protestants. Then what about the great mass of the moderate Churchmen of England who are to be advowedly left on one side by Clause 4?
  Then again, we wished to see if another injustice was redressed; The Church of England has 1,000,000 children in council schools, and while there are 2,750,000 children in voluntary schools and 2,500,000 in council schools, there is a kind of rough justice which makes the situation tolerable, but the moment the Church schools are swept away, the injustice becomes intolerable, and yet the Bill, as originally drafted, made no attempt to remedy it. It was to remedy to some extent these injustices that your Lordships' time has been spent during the last five weeks; it has been a most difficult task, for nothing can really turn
  1112
  a Bill which is bad into a good Bill. Public control and no tests for teachers is one thing, but to imagine that public control means universal undenominationalism and that a test for a profession is the same thing as a qualification for a duty is quite another. I do not deny that your Lordships have done much to amend the Bill; but the appointment of the teacher is taken for the first time out of the hands of the managers. They have this great grievance, that they have lost the appointment of the teacher in these schools altogether. As the Bishop of Birmingham has said, a strict Baptist or a secularist might be appointed headmaster.
  I could not vote for the Bill, but one thing has made it possible for me not to vote against it, and that is Lord Salisbury's Amendment to secure Church teaching for some at least of our million children in the council schools. That Amendment gives promise of a better state of things; it is the beginning of a principle which must prevail at last. Let not your Lordships think that we underrate the great truths common to Christendom, but what we cannot tolerate is that those truths should be trusted to men whom we are not allowed to ask a question as to whether they believe them or not, or that at least a million of our children should have no distinctive Church teaching. I shall not vote against the Bill, because it contains the principle to which I have referred, which I believe to be a sound one for the future settlement of the education question. But let there be no misapprehension. We of the Church of England distrust this Bill; we fear that even with the safeguards your Lordships have introduced it will lower the standard of Christian teaching in England, and if any attempt is made to do away with any of those safeguards we shall resist it to the utmost of our power.
  The Marquess of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it has been my duty to intervene so frequently during the course of these discussions that I really feel I owe your Lordships an apology for once again addressing you on the subject. The question which requires our most immediate decision is, I think, whether we shall go into the lobby with the noble Duke behind me or not. I yield to no

  1113
  Member of this House in my admiration for the part which the noble Duke has taken in these discussions, and I have been impressed, as I am sure many of your Lordships have been, by the weight and authority of the arguments which he has advanced. I am afraid that on this occasion he must not expect me to support him by my vote, and I will give my reasons in as few words as possible.
  I will recall to your Lordships our debates on the Second Reading of this Bill. We on this side of the House said from the first that we regarded it as a bad and dangerous measure, and we gave it a Second Reading with the plain declaration that it was our intention in Committee to make very serious alterations in it. Noble Lords opposite cannot complain if our Amendments have been of a drastic character. We warned them in the plainest possible language that they would be of such a character. What has happened? Those Amendments have been in the main accepted by this House; and, that being so, I do not see how we who gave, as it were, a conditional support to the Second Reading of the Bill can now vote against it. Therefore we shall go into the lobby with noble Lords opposite when we come to a division. But, my Lords, I share the view of the noble Duke that this is a bad and dangerous measure. It has been to my mind faultily designed from the very outset, and I am afraid I share the fear which has been expressed that it may prove not to be a true settlement of this question, but rather the occasion of much heartburning, strife, and expense to the people of this country.
  Complaint has been made of us by the noble Earl the Lord President that we have transformed the Bill. We did all we could to avoid the structural alteration of the Bill. If we had desired to substitute a Bill of our own we might easily have done so. We might have supported, for example, the Amendments of Lord Ampthill, who laid before the House a well-thought-out proposal for dealing with this question upon different lines. On the contrary, we endeavoured to follow the scheme of the Bill and to amend it clause by clause in such a way as seemed to us consonant with the demands of justice and fair play. The noble Earl says we have gone counter to the wish of
  1114
  the people of this country, and he says there was as distinct a mandate for this Bill as the mandate which was given for the amendment of the law with regard to trade disputes. I dispute that altogether.
  I believe that so far as there was a mandate, the Bill as now amended complies with the conditions laid down by that mandate. What was demanded, I believe by the people of this country was that there should be public control over these schools. This Bill is founded upon public control. On the day when it comes into operation the whole of these schools will pass from the control of the managers to the control of popularly-elected bodies. That is genuine public control. It was also demanded that if there was denominational religious instruction such instruction should not be supplied at the public expense. Not one farthing of public money will under this Bill be spent on denominational teaching. Then there is the question of tests. What tests are there in the Bill, unless it be a test when you assign to a person the duty of giving a particular form of instruction to satisfy yourself that he is willing and competent to give it? These are what the noble Earl calls the crimes we have committed.
  The noble Earl favoured us with an indictment containing a number of counts. Let me touch upon one or two of them. What was his indictment? That in Clause 1 we have inserted words requiring that a certain portion of the school hours shall be sot apart for religious instruction. The noble Lords opposite divided against us upon that proposal, but I never heard a weaker criticism than that to which it was exposed. It was derided as savouring of a political manœuvre, but as to the justice of the proposal, as to the fact that it was based upon a universal desire that part of the school time should be so disposed of, that part of our argument was not in any way met by noble Lords opposite. Then the noble Earl referred to the second clause of the Bill, and he complained, not for the first time, that we have made that clause a mandatory instead of a permissive clause. Why did we do so? Because in our opinion when Parliament lays down certain conditions upon which it desires to insist, it follows that if those conditions are complied with it should not be

  1115
  left to any local body to deny the privileges or advantages which are promised by the very terms of the Bill to the persons who are able to fulfil those conditions. What would be the alternative? To leave all these matters to a species of local litigation, to be disputed first before the local education authorities, and then before the Board of Education. In our opinion, the less room there is left for this kind of wrangling the better it will be for the people of this country. I was glad to notice when we came to the third clause that the noble Earl gave us credit for one solitary aberration into the paths of virtue. I am very much obliged to him for that admission.
  But he complained because we had stipulated that the attendance of the children at school during the time given to religious instruction should be compulsory. To my surprise he described that as a blow at freedom of conscience. Why is it a blow at the freedom of conscience of child or parent to say to him, "The school hours begin at such an hour, the child must be there at that hour? If you do not like the religious instruction with which the school day begins you need not attend." Where is the blow at freedom? Then the noble Earl spoke severely of the important Amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, but he did not mention the very careful reservations which accompanied that Amendment. He did not dwell upon the fact that under that Amendment a very full discretion indeed is given to the local education authority, and that they are invited to give these facilities in council schools only in cases where, in their opinion, it is practicable and convenient to do so.
  I will not go into the numerous details of Clause 4. All we have done has been to get rid of restrictions, of limitations, which seemed to us fanciful and unreasonable, and to transform the clause into a shape consonant with the professions which accompanied that clause when it was explained by His His Majesty's Ministers in and out of Parliament. The noble Earl referred to my Amendment as being probably the most criminal of the many crimes we had committed, but let me again remind him that but for that Amendment a school always conducted on denomina-
  1116
  tional lines, with a large preponderance of denominational children, a school where, perhaps half-a-dozen children of another religious creed had been admitted and received hospitality, where the arrangement was one agreeable and satisfactory to all concerned, where a change in the character of the school might have been as distasteful to the parents of the minority as of the majority—such a school would have had denied to it those extended facilities to which on the face of it the school would be entitled and have been abruptly deprived of its immemorial character.
  With regard to the teachers what has been our object? We are deeply convinced that, unless you give to teachers that amount of liberty to teach which we claim for them, you will not only strike a very serious blow at the value of religious instruction, but that you will do a grievous wrong to the personal liberty of this great and important class, and that you will strike a blow also at the general efficiency of the teaching in the schools. Upon that point we have spoken strongly because we feel strongly. The only other count to which I need refer is the noble Lord's reference to our treatment of the Welsh Clause. It did not strike me that his accents in dealing with that part of the case denoted a very deep conviction. We remember the history of the Welsh Clause—the three shapes which it assumed in a few days, or a few hours, and how at the last moment it assumed or was about to assume still another shape when my noble friend Lord Cawdor came to the rescue and dispersed the remains of that untoward proposal.
  The noble Earl has told us that our Amendments bulk large. He has told us that we have made this Bill into a denominational Bill. Is that quite consistent with the fact that the Roman Catholic Peers, and, I am afraid, a considerable number of Church of England Peers who feel strongly on these subjects, are going to divide against the Bill as one that falls altogether short of their requirements? We have endeavoured throughout these discussions to steer an even course between the extreme demands which may have been made from one side or the other. Occasionally, I am afraid, we have incurred the disfavour of both.

  1117
  I will refer only to one other observation that fell from the noble Earl and it was one which I noted, and which I think your Lordships must have noted with considerable satisfaction. He told us that this was not the final act in the transactions attending the Bill. He intimated that our Amendments would receive further consideration, and that we might expect to see the return of the Bill to this House. I welcome that intimation, because it disposes of a rumour, to which I could never bring myself to attach credence, but which was believed, no doubt, by many people— I mean the rumour that His Majesty's Ministers would advise or permit the contemptuous rejection of the Amendments made by the House of Lords. I could never bring myself to believe that such a course would be encouraged by the noble Earl, and I rejoice to hear from him that that course is not likely to be adopted.
  Let me say, speaking for myself alone, that, although I regard this as a bad Bill, I should as matters now stand regret its failure. I say that partly because, like the noble Earl, I recognise that
  it contains some useful provisions, and partly because, if there were to be no legislation at the present time, serious administrative difficulties might arise. Nor can I dismiss from my mind the very human feeling that we should all regret if so much pains-so much careful discussion and consideration of complicated provisions-should count entirely for naught. The Bill is now passing out of your Lordships' hands, and the noble Earl has counselled us to employ the interval between now and the time when it may come back to us in reflection. Let me suggest to him that reflection might with advantage also take place on the other side; and may I be permitted to say that if a settlement of this most difficult question is to be looked for, such a settlement can only be reached by mutual forbearance and mutual desire to see a just solution arrived at? I gather from what the noble Earl has told us to-night that we may look for such forbearance and such consideration from him and from those who act with him.
  On Question, "That this Bill do pass," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 28.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, L. (L. President.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Faber, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Grafton, D.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Churchill, V.

  Forester, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Cross, V.

  Glantawe, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Harris, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Haversham, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Headley, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Joicey, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Kelvin, L.

  Craven, E.

  Addington, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Derby, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Manners, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L,

  Lonsdale, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Clinton, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Penryhn, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Morley, E.

  Davey, L.

  Ronfuryl, L. (E. Ranfurly)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stamford, E.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Eversley, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) [Teller]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Newcastle, D.

  Halifax, V.

  Gerard, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Bute, M.

  Kenmare, L.(E. Kenmare.)

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun).

  Lovat, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Braye, L.

  North, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

  Stanmore, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  gerton, E.

  De Freyne, L

  Feversham, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Emly, L.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons.

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  [Second Reading.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Lord DENMAN: My Lords, in rising to introduce this Bill at what used once to be regarded as a late hour in your Lordships' House I think it will be for the general convenience that I should condense my remarks as far as possible; but as this is a measure of some importance, as it has been the subject of a considerable amount of criticism in another place, and as its passage through Parliament is being anxiously watched by the people of Ireland, I fear I shall have to trespass for a few minutes on the patience of the House. First of all, I will endeavour to deal with the principle of the Bill. I am happy in the belief that, whatever opinions may be entertained in different quarters of the House in regard to this measure, no Member of the House, in whatever quarter he sits, can possibly take exception to its principle, because that principle is so eminently just and fair. It is that a tenant at the expiration of his lease or tenancy shall be entitled to receive from the landlord compensation for certain improvements which he shall have made to the holding. That it is an eminently just and fair principle I may cite as authorities such
  1120
  distinguished statesmen and politicians in another place as the ex-Premier, Mr. A. J. Balfour, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Walter Long, and also Sir Edward Carson, who have all expressed their approval of the principle of the Bill. But although the principle is so eminently just and reasonable it is nevertheless obvious that it must be applied with many safeguards and conditions, and in this Bill it is most carefully safeguarded and conditioned.
  I would call your Lordships' attention to Clause 1, which states that no improvements shall be entertained except those which at the date of the claim add to the letting value of the holding, are suitable to the character of the holding, and have not diminished the letting value of any other property of the same landlord. There are many further safeguards in the Bill to which it would be more convenient not to call attention to-night.
  It has been said in some quarters that the effect of this Bill will be more generally felt in the big towns of Ireland, such as Dublin and Belfast, but the Government hope that its provisions will apply equally or to an even greater extent to the smaller towns and county towns of the country where the community is, on the whole, poorer. I think it is obvious that as the law stands at present, in this respect at all events, it bears more hardly upon the poorer than upon the better-to-do classes of the community. Let me take as an instance a rich man, say a Member

  1121
  of this House, who takes a house for a term of, say, twenty years. At the end of five years he desires to make some addition, say, a billiard room, to the house. He approaches the landlord and asks him to bear the whole or part of the cost, but the landlord declines. The tenant considers whether it is worth his while, seeing that the lease has fifteen years still to run, to make the improvement, and he decides that it is. Accordingly he adds the billiard room or whatever it may be, and spends possibly £1,000 or £2,000. At the end of the tenancy the landlord steps in and reaps the whole or practically the whole of the benefit of that improvement. That seems to me to be a hardship, but not perhaps a very great hardship in this case, because the tenant is probably well able to afford the money, and in the case of a rich man the improvement would generally be made for his own pleasure or convenience. But take the case of a poor man, say a clerk with £150 a year, living in a town. He rents a house of the value of £30 a year, and desires to make some improvements—say to add a bathroom, or to put a bath in the house. I hope your Lordships will agree that a bath is a very desirable accessory in any house. The clerk approaches his landlord, who, having heard that his tenant has a fondness for bathing and would probably put in the bath in any case, refuses to help him in any way, and the tenant has to spend £15 or £20 in making the improvement. I submit that in such a case there is a very great hardship, especially as when it is a poor man it is frequently the case that he is only trying to provide a very modest measure of comfort for himself or his family. As a matter of fact, it may be vitally necessary for the tenant to make some improvement in the house, because I understand that under the law as it stands at present, the landlord of an unfurnished house is not obliged to see even that the house is in a habitable condition.
  If your Lordships will allow me I will glance rapidly through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 applies to existing tenancies, and therefore, in this respect at all events, it is retrospective. The retrospective action of the Bill has
  1122
  been subjected to considerable criticism in another place, and I anticipate it will be somewhat keenly disputed in your Lordships' House on a later stage of the Bill. I think, however, it will be for the convenience of the House if I do not stop to go into details now, but proceed to the other clauses. Practically the remainder of Clause 1 and the whole of Clause 2 provide other safeguards for the landlord. Clause 3 provides for notice being given to the landlord, and Clause 4 deals with the special case of the mesne landlord. Now I come to Clause 5 which introduces the principle of compensation for disturbance. That is no new principle in Acts of Parliament, more especially in Irish Acts. I would point out, however, that in this Bill it is carefully limited to shops and business premises. The reason for the presence of the clause in this Bill, which I think is a very good one, is this. A man establishes a business in a certain locality, and by his own industry and enterprise creates what is known as the goodwill of the business. The goodwill of a business is a somewhat intangible and indefinable class of property, but nevertheless it is an asset which can be and is bought and sold in the open market. If you turn a man out of his shop for business premises, not only do you cause him the inconvenience which any tenant suffers on removal, but you very likely deprive him of that valuable asset the goodwill of his business, and in so doing you may ruin him. In a country like Ireland, where it is not unknown for people to be evicted on account of their political convictions, you have a very distinct grievance, and. one which it is hoped to remedy by this particular clause. Without dealing with the question further at this stage, I may mention that it is the intention of the Government that the raiding of rent shall not in itself be considered unreasonable action on the part of a landlord, and if the Bill proves to be not sufficiently clear in this respect the Government will be prepared to accept or to move Amendments which will make it perfectly clear. Clauses 6, 7, and 8 make further provision to protect the interests of the landlord, and in touching Clause 9, which prohibits contracting-out under the Bill, I will only say that the prohibition exists in a reasonable

  1123
  form, since the clause enables the Court to give effect to a contract if they are of opinion that it was reasonable and was entered into without direct or indirect compulsion. That concludes my survey of the Bill.
  The advantages of this measure, in my opinion, are that it remedies a distinct class of grievance where a tenant is unable to obtain compensation from his landlord for improvements, and it prevents a landlord from evicting a tenant from a shop or other business premises, and thereby depriving him of the goodwill of his business, without paying some compensation for so doing. We hope that the Bill may, in some degree, contribute to the cause of law and order and good government in Ireland, because it has not been unknown that where a landlord has sought to evict a tenant and the tenant has thought himself to be in the right, he and his friends have barricaded themselves in the house, the police have thereupon had to lay siege to the building, the population have taken sides—not invariably with the police—and a very pretty fight has resulted. Then, too, it is hoped that the Bill will generally improve the condition of town property in Ireland. It is obvious that if a tenant feels himself secure in that he will receive compensation from his landlord for the improvements he may make, it would tend to the general improvement of town property, and improvements will be made which otherwise would not be carried out.
  Before I resume my seat I should like to say one word with regard to Irish landlords, who, I am well aware, can, if they choose, command such a numerous following in this House. I am fully aware of the subordinate position which I occupy in merely enunciating the Irish policy of the Government in this House, and that my own opinions can carry very little weight, but I shall not attempt to I deny that in my view this Bill is more to the interest of the tenants than of the landlords. I hope I may say without offence that I can realise to some extent the difficulties of the position in which they are placed, but I believe that bad landlords—and I am afraid I cannot share the optimism of my noble friend, the President of the Board of Agriculture,
  1124
  with regard to the scarcity of bad landlords —will be under this Bill either compelled to do certain things which they ought to do, or prevented from doing certain things which they ought not to do. In the case of good landlords, however, though I pretend to no intimate acquaintance with the conditions of life in Ireland, I have reason to believe that the Irish Peers include in their number some of the best landlords to be found in the United Kingdom—in the case of good landlords this Bill will really make very little material difference. I will only add, in conclusion, that I hope this Bill, the principle of which is so eminently just and fair, and has been so carefully safeguarded and conditioned— a Bill which is greatly needed and has been asked for by the great majority of the Irish people—will not only pass its Second Reading, but will go through its subsequent stages without very material alteration from the shape in which it has reached us from another place. I beg to move.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Denman.)
  Lord ORANMORE and BROWNE: My Lords, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to His Majesty's Government for the change of mental pabulum with which they have provided us within the last three days. Perhaps they thought that your Lordships were somewhat exhausted after the long and tedious debates on one of the most complex measures ever presented to your Lordships' House, and that a quick-change variety entertainment might be an agreeable novelty. At any rate, we had an opportunity of considering, on Tuesday, the Trade Disputes Bill, yesterday the Land Tenure Bill, and to-day, after completing the last stage of the Bill by which the Radical Party hope to capture the vast majority of the children of this country for the vague and somewhat nebulous religion termed undenominationailism, your Lordships are invited to consider another contentious measure with regard to Ireland. But, my Lords, there is perhaps another reason why we have been considering so many Bills, and that is

  1125
  that the various sections which together constitute the majority in another place are each desirous that some sop should be given to them before the close of the session, and in this particular case it is hardly necessary to say that the sop is intended for the Irish Nationalist Party. It may seem almost unreasonable on their part, considering the sumptuous banquet to which it is understood they are to be treated next year, that they should not have been content to exercise a little abstinence on the present occasion.
  This Bill seems to proceed on the lines which generally commend themselves to Radical Governments with regard to Ireland, the lines which commended themselves to the gentleman who was so touched by a charity sermon that he abstracted a sovereign from his neighbour's pocket for the purpose of putting it in the plate. The Bill purports to be one to prevent Irish landlords from confiscating at the expiration of a lease the improvements made by their tenants. I will not say that that pre-supposes that Irish landlords are knaves, but it certainly pre-supposes that Irish tenants are fools, and I think that noble Lords will agree that that has not been our experience of tenants in Ireland. We have found them very shrewd men, eminently able to look after their own business, and as ready to drive a hard bargain as any other section of His Majesty's subjects. If that is so, I submit that when a man takes a plot of ground for building purposes, he considers beforehand what rent he can give, with the full knowledge that when his contract comes to an end the house which he has built will pass from his possession. If a tenant makes improvements in the course of the lease, his natural course in the first place is to apply to the landlord, and my experience is that, if the improvement is a suitable one, in ninety-nine cases out of 100 the landlord will contribute towards the cost. But even if that should not. be so, I presume that the improvements are made for the purpose of profit, and the tenant is quite capable of calculating whether out of the profit which he thinks he will make he can lay aside sufficient for a sinking fund to recoup him at the end of the lease the expenditure he has incurred.
  1126
  Now, my Lords, in another place and in the public Press, the chief charges against Irish landlords have been three; in the first place, that they demand fines for the renewal of a tenancy; secondly, that they demand an increased rent, and, thirdly, that the terms for which they grant leases are exceptionally short. I should like to ask whether Ireland is the only place where these things occur. Have your Lordships never heard of fines being asked for the renewal of the lease of a house in London? Is it not a very common thing when a lease is renewed for an increased rent to be asked? And as to the question of short leases, there may be much to he said against them, but I should like to mention a case which happened to me only two days ago. I was inquiring about a house on one of the largest properties in London, and was told that a new lease had just been granted from April last for twenty-seven years. I think this is shorter than is given in almost any place in Ireland, and I would mention that when short leases are given in Ireland it is nearly always in cases of renewals and not of original leases.
  Though I think there is a great deal that is bad in this Bill I do not intend to ask your Lordships to refuse it a Second Reading, because I am sorry to say that the principle of freedom of contract has been so often interfered with by legislation that I think it would be vain for your Lordships to try to affirm it in the present instance. But if the Bill passes its Second Reading, I think it is quite evident that it will require to be radically amended in Committee. I do not intend to detain your Lordships by suggesting all the Amendments which would be necessary, but I think anybody who reads the Bill carefully will see that it is absolutely impossible that it should remain retrospective. In Clause 3 there are a number of most stringent conditions to be observed before the tenant can take advantage at the close of his lease of the advantages offered by the Bill. Then in Clause 14 the landlord as well as the tenant is able to require that any improvements which may have been made in the course of the lease shall be registered. Now, my Lords, it is quite evident

  1127
  that neither the conditions of Clause 3 nor those of Clause 14 have been fulfilled in the case of existing leases. Therefore I feel sure that I may appeal even to noble Lords on the Government side to see how eminently unfair it would be that existing leases without any of these safeguards should be included in the same category as leases made after both sides are prepared. Another point, not so contentious, but still deserving of the attention of His Majesty's Government, is in regard to Clause 8 dealing with temporary lettings. I believe His Majesty's Government intend to exclude temporary lettings from the Bill, but it seems to me that the clause they have designed for that purpose will not have the desired effect. As far as I can make out, it will not exclude country houses from the operation of the Bill. I will give an instance. Supposing anyone were to take a hunting box in Meath, and, desiring to build new stables to it, applied to the Court. The Court might consider that new stables were a most excellent thing for a hunting box in Meath and would tend to improve the value of the country residence, and consequently with the consent of the Court the tenant might erect the stables, and the landlord at the expiration of the lease would have to pay compensation. But perhaps the landlord would wish to re-occupy the place at the end of the lease, and he might not be a hunting man. On the other hand, though the improvement might have increased the letting value of the house, we all know that it is not very easy to let country places, and the landlord might be at the expense of keeping up those buildings for a considerable time before he found another tenant.
  Clause 5, dealing with compensation for disturbance, is the most contentious clause in the whole Bill. As other noble Lords wish to take part in the debate I will not detain the House by giving my own views on the subject, but with your Lordships' permission I will give the views of His Majesty's Government. So recently as the 18th of May the Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Cherry, said—
  "The other provisions of the Bill as regarded the compensation for disturbance and right of purchase were on a different footing, and he could not on behalf of the Government approve
  1128
  of the principle of compensation for disturbance or of compulsory purchase being applied at the present time to town holdings."
  The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Bryce, speaking on the same occasion. said—
  "The second part of the Bill was Clause 5, which provided for compensation for disturbance and this, he confessed, appeared to be entirely unworkable.…. He entirely dissociated himself from any approval on the part of the Government of the principle of fixing fair rents or compensation for disturbance as proposed in the Bill."
  I do not think we can find a stronger condemnation of the clause than is contained in those two quotations, and I shall content myself with submitting them to your Lordships.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: The consideration of this measure by your Lordships would be as welcome if it was to secure the amelioration of the lot of any class of His Majesty's subjects in Ireland as it would be in the case of any other part of the United Kingdom. But I would remind your Lordships that the Bill brings in a great innovation as regards the rights of urban property in Ireland, and not only in Ireland but, since the tenure of Irish property is the same as in England, it involves an invasion of the whole principle of the tenure of urban property all over the United Kingdom. The details of the Bill are no doubt familiar to your Lordships, and therefore I will not dwell upon them further than to point out that under the Bill as it stands there is a possibility of the confiscation of property which is now secured to a landlord by a previous contract. The terms of urban leaseholds are practically the same all over the United Kingdom. Whether the house stands in Bond Street or in some small village in the West of Ireland, the terms are practically the same. The owner of the land lets a site to another man on certain terms for a certain number of years, and it is for the lessee to determine whether under the circumstances and conditions of the lease it will pay him to do what he desires, and he will improve or build upon the property knowing full well that at the expiration of the lease it will revert the landlord. Such has until now unquestionably been the rule with

  1129
  regard to the tenure of urban property all over the United Kingdom.
  But, my Lords, this Bill, owing to its retrospective character, tears up existing contracts concerning urban leaseholds, and although I have listened to every argument and carefully studied the reports of the debates on the subject, I cannot see that any justification has been brought forward for the introduction of so sweeping a measure. As far as I can see, the only argument brought forward to justify the introduction of the Bill is that a precedent has been set by previous Land Acts, and this argument has been adduced also to counteract the natural fears of those who hold urban property in England lest similar legislation should follow applicable to this country. I will only repeat the answer, which, although made many times before, nevertheless remains true, that the system of tenure of agrarian land in Ireland is entirely different from that which obtains in the remainder of the United Kingdom, whereas the system of tenure of urban property in Ireland is practically and materially the same as that which exists in England. That argument has never yet been refuted. That being so, I fail entirely to see why Irish urban property should be treated differently from English urban property, or, should the retrospective conditions of this Bill become law, why later on English urban property should be treated differently from Irish urban property.
  There is another objection to the Bill which I am glad to hear His Majesty's Government will probably remove. As the Bill now stands it introduces a system of dual ownership. I believe the great majority of the country are agreed as to the pernicious effects of dual ownership in land or anything else. In order to remove such a pernicious system the Land Act of 1903, which involved £120,000,000 of public money, was introduced as a means of making the best of a very bad job. I understand that His Majesty's Government have no intention of allowing this system to creep in, but. I most earnestly hope that their Amendments will be such as to remove all possibility of it, lest it be said that the road to dual ownership is paved with the
  1130
  good intentions of His Majesty's Government. Clause 5 as it stands says—
  "Where the landlord … unreasonably and without due and sufficient cause requires more onerous conditions as terms of such renewal…"
  Under the circumstances those words would mean that the Court was to decide whether the terms are more onerous; that would mean that the Court must decide what rent ought to be asked; and that involves the fixing of a fair rent. Should a landlord be unwilling or unable to pay compensation for disturbance, the tenant could go on for ever in his holding, which means fixity of tenure. Fixity of tenure and the fixing of fair rents are two of the three great conditions of dual ownership, and as the Bill now stands those two conditions are a part of it.
  Another and a greater objection to the Bill—greater than those practical objections to which I have referred—is the moral objection. Though a great deal may be said in favour of the Bill as far as it regards future agreements, in its retrospective character it would do great moral harm to Ireland. The Land Acts which have been so often referred to have, owing to their retrospective character, caused to arise in Ireland the feeling that no contract need be abided by and no bargain adhered to. In consequence, the further feeling has arisen that if only sufficient agitation were raised It would be successful, and consequently that ordinary success in life does not depend upon individual energy and effort, but merely upon the amount of agitation which can be raised. As a fruit of such a belief we have to look back upon some of the most gloomy events of past gloomy years. I would further point out that this Bill being retrospective destroys the financial credit of the Irish nation. It is almost universally agreed that one of the great reasons of Ireland's lack of prosperity is that so little capital is invested in the country. With such object lessons as is afforded by the retrospective character of this Bill, how can you expect any man to invest his money in Ireland? If the Bill is to do good to any section of His Majesty's subjects in Ireland it will be welcomed by the whole of the Irish

  1131
  people. But I believe it ought to be amended in respect of its retrospective character, because if it is not so amended the injury that it will do to one class of Irish subjects is far surpassed by the moral harm which it will do to the whole of the Irish nation.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, this Bill has led to an interesting and well-informed discussion upon a subject which has naturally attracted a good deal of attention. Lord Denman, in a speech of great clearness and conciseness, has stated the grounds on which His Majesty's Government have deemed it right to adopt this Bill, which certainly has passed through considerable vicissitudes since its first introduction, although it still retains its curious name. It is called the "Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill," and the only thing absolutely clear is that it is not confined to towns or urban districts in the slightest degree. In fact, the word "town" cannot be found anywhere in the Bill except in the title. I do not say that it is not entitled to be there, as a certain amount of freshness is expected in an Irish Bill. The Bill was introduced by a private Member, and, in regard to some of its clauses which were severely criticised in the Standing Committee by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, it has assumed a somewhat different form, and now, having passed through the House of Commons, it is in a state not at all the same as that in which it was originally introduced. It is quite evident, however, from the speeches of the noble Lords on the cross benches, that it is still open to grave and serious criticism.
  The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading said the Bill was intended to help good tenants, and to prevent bad landlords doing any harm. That is a very nice and agreeable phrase. There are in Ireland a great many excellent people, not confined to tenants; their is an occasional good landlord to be found. I do not say the landlords are all good. I would not suggest that of them any more than of any other class. You must take human nature as it is on the average, and I think that if Irish landlords are judged by any ordinary test they will come out of the ordeal as satisfactorily as
  1132
  the landlords of any other country. I remember Mr. Gladstone saying, in some of his speeches on the agrarian question in Ireland, that the landlords had been submitted to the ordeal and had stood the test. Commissions were appointed with a view to founding land legislation, and according to Mr. Gladstone the landlords came out of the ordeal well. After the grave years through which they have passed, and the many trials they have had to face, I hold that any fair statesman must admit that, whatever may be the needs for fresh legislation in Ireland, whether in relation to land or in relation to houses the Irish landlords can compare well with the landlords of England, Scotland, Wales, or any other part of the world. But, my Lords, that is no reason why, if improvements can be suggested which may benefit the tenants without inflicting injustice on others, they should not be considered fairly and dealt with. No one has suggested that anything good in this Bill should not be dealt with justly, and my noble friends on the cross benches have not proposed that the Bill should be refused a Second Reading, but that it should be examined in detail in Committee.
  Reference has been made to the retrospective character of the Bill, and upon that my noble friends have founded the statement that although it might be quite reasonable to think out the problem now of what would be a wise and reasonable amendment of the law in reference to future tenants, it is not fair or reasonable to apply ex post facto legislation to people who became tenants years ago under entirely different impressions as to what the law was. It is not fair to spring upon old tenancies perfectly new conditions, and the proposal will require careful examination in Committee. As a result of the changes made in Standing Committee and on Report in another place many precautions have been inserted even with regard to future tenants, indicating that it would not be reasonable for future tenants to be able to make these claims without ample notice to the landlord, and surely it would be out of the question side by side with these precautions in the case of future tenants to say ex post facto that all existing tenants

  1133
  should have a claim against their land lord without any notice whatever having been given to him on the subject.
  Another matter to which reference has been made, and which will obviously require much consideration, is whether the proposal to give compensation for disturbance, no matter what words are inserted, is not unreasonable, and how for it is capable of being fairly applied to houses. This is not a question of land, nor is it limited to towns. It applies to any houses in any part of Ireland. It might be the handsomest square in Dublin or the richest part of Belfast or it might be some poor struggling village, or a district where the house was not near a hamlet or village of any kind. Therefore, it is obviously of first class importance to see what kind of a case is made out for such an application of the doctrine of compensation for disturbance, which has hitherto been confined to country districts.
  Without going into detail, I may say there are other clauses which also require more than verbal consideration. Contracting out is obviously a matter of importance. I do not say that poor people who may be subjected to injustice through not being able to understand the contracts may not require the protection of being prohibited from contracting out; but in all the Land Acts for which Mr. Gladstone was responsible it was recognised that there was a point beyond which it was absurd to say that a person of means and wealth should not be allowed to contract out. The proposal applies to people with the largest houses in Dublin and the possessors of the great emporiums of wealth in the north, and is it not ludicrous to say that such people should be protected by not being allowed to contract out?
  As to the tribunal selected, it does not commend itself to me as one familiar with these matters. I do not object it all to the county court, but I think in appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland is quite out of place. That is the highest Court in the country; it is composed of the Lord Chancellor and two, other Judges, and some considerable expense is necessarily involved in going before it. I will not discuss the point
  1134
  now, but it would be infinitely wiser, in my view, to enable appeals to be taken to the Court of King's Bench, where they could be settled by a Common Law Judge regulating the matter by rule, and thus provide a cheaper method of appeal.
  Other matters have been referred to, but I do not think it necessary to discuss them now. I do not suggest that the Bill should be refused a Second Reading. I am prepared to consider fairly any proposals for the improvement of the condition of the tenants, but I think that end should be secured without bringing in. all these matters which can be so hardly defended and are so open to attack. Therefore, although the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading expressed a not very confident hope that the Bill would pass through your Lordships' House without any very material Amendment, I cannot hold out any expectation that his hope is likely to be realised.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, after the speeches to which we have listened I take it for granted that this Bill will be read a second time, though I gather from my noble friends on the cross benches that they do not see any merit whatever in it, and if their speeches were carried to their logical conclusion they should have wound up with a Motion to read the Bill a second time on this day six months. But we are getting tolerably accustomed in this House to objecting to measures root and branch, and then placidly reading them a second time, and proceeding to alter them substantially in Committee. In my opinion, the Bill contains some matters of considerable merit. My noble friends have directed their criticisms mainly to the effect the Bill will have on building leases, but as I read the Bill it does not interfere with an ordinary building lease, that is to say, a plot of land let on lease for a certain rent in consideration of certain buildings or premises being erected upon it. What the Bill mainly affects are the ordinary yearly tenancies in the small towns and villages throughout the country. I think the provisions as regards improvements are likely to be beneficial; at any rate, it cannot be said

  1135
  that they will inflict any great hardship or injustice upon the owners of such property. If a tenant wishes to make an improvement he will have to do what in the ordinary course he does now; he will go to the landlord and ask him to make the, improvement. If the landlord does so, the Bill provides that he shall charge interest and sinking fund for the repayment of the expenditure. If the landlord refuses to carry out the improvement, and, the tenant having expressed his willingness to do the work himself, declines to allow the tenant to do so, the tenant can appeal to the county court Judge, who, if he is satisfied that the improvement is a suitable one and likely to be beneficial to the property, and that the landlord's objections are unreasonable, may empower the tenant to make the improvement, and in that case the tenant would be entitled to compensation on the expiration of his tenancy.
  As to the clause giving compensation for disturbance, to which much objection hits been taken, your Lordships must remember that without compensation for disturbance the whole of the former part of the Bill would be useless. There is no question of fixation of rents or of fixity of tenure. Unless some such protection for the tenant is inserted, what would happen? The landlord would refuse to make an improvement and decline to allow the tenant to do it himself. If the tenant got permission from the county court Judge the whole proceedings could be rendered nugatory by the landlord's putting a prohibitory rent on the holding. So that in the absence of fixity of tenure and the fixing of fair rents there is absolutely no protection whatever for the tenant, and all the earlier clauses of the Bill might as well be wiped out at once if compensation for disturbance is eliminated. Under these circumstances merely obtaining recoupment of the capital expended is not sufficient protection to the tenant, because, if he has laid out his money in improvements he can be turned out at the end of the year by a prohibitory rent being placed on the holding and lose his business, good-will and all. Therefore, if you are going to strike out this provision for compensation for disturbance, and, at the same time, not going to insert what I hope will not be
  1136
  inserted, namely, any provisions for fixing rents or giving fixity of tenure, your Lordships may as well cut out the earlier part of the Bill altogether.
  It is said, and I think with truth, that there is not the same difference between the tenure of town property in England and Ireland respectively as exists in the case of agricultural property. Intrinsically, as far as I know, there is no difference between the system of town property in England and in Ireland, but during the last twenty-five or thirty years a considerable difference has arisen. There has been Act after Act interfering with the right of the owner of land to do what he pleases with his property so far as agricultural land is concerned. This Bill deals largely with yearly tenancies in towns and villages throughout the country where there is really no gap or gulf between the condition of the town tenant and that of the agricultural tenant near him. It is impossible that the fact that for years the rights of a landowner in regard to agricultural land have been restricted should not have affected the minds of the small holders in villages and small towns. Therefore, although by nature there is no difference between the tenure of town property in Great Britain and in Ireland, the result of the legislation of the last twenty-five or thirty years has been such as to constitute a difference which I think ought to be taken into consideration.
  Another point to be remembered is that there is not the same confidence as between man and man between landlord and tenant in Ireland as in Great Britain. There is more friction. It cannot be denied that the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland are more strained than in Great Britain. I do not say who is to blame for it, but the fact remains that relations have been and are a little strained, and there is not the same confidence that landlords will be absolutely reasonable in the exercise to their rights. I dislike the constant allusions to "good" and "bad" land lords. I do not see what on earth ethic. have to do with the matter. I prefer to say that one man reasonably and another man unreasonably exercises his legal rights, and I think it would be distinctly to the advantage of the majority of

  1137
  landlords, who exercise their legal rights reasonably, that some restraint should be put upon the possibility of other landlords exercising their rights unreasonably.
  Another consideration is that many of the owners of these small urban properties are not in a position financially to do much for the betterment of their property, and it would be an enormous advantage if the tenants were encouraged to lay out their capital for that purpose. The great want of Ireland is that capital should be invested in the country, and if the tenant is willing to do so where the landlord is unable to lay out capital on the improvement of the property, it would be greatly to the advantage of the whole community that he should be encouraged in that direction. I will not go into the matter raised by the noble and learned Lord. There may be many matters of detail in regard to which improvements may be effected in Committee. On its general principle I believe the Bill will be an advantage not only to the tenants, but to the landlords also. do not agree with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Denman) that it will be much more to the advantage of the tenant than of the landlord. My own opinion is that it will be greatly to the advantage of the landlord. We all know that there are a few cases where landlords have exercised their rights in a way which every member of your Lord ships' House would consider unreasonable, and those few isolated cases make it extremely difficult for the great majority of landlords to conduct their business in the way they would wish to do.
  The Bill does, of course, interfere to a certain extent with liberty of contract, with the right of a man to do exactly what he pleases with his own. But that commenced thirty years ago, and it is hardly worth while troubling the House now with an academic discussion as to whether or not it is advisable in any way to restrain a man in the exercises of his legal rights. This Bill certainly interferes very little with the rights of landlords, and my noble friends from Ireland will agree that it contains nothing which can interfere in any way with the right of a landlord to conduct his affairs in a reasonable, fair, and business-like way,
  1138
  while if it does interfere in some cases to prevent a man exercising his legal rights in an unreasonable way I think that curtailment will be to the advantage not only of the tenants, but of the landlords and of the whole community.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, if I venture as an Englishman to intrude in the discussion upon an Irish Bill, it is because I have waited in vain until the speech to which we have just listened for any reason for applying this Bill to Ireland and not to any other part of the United Kingdom. Although I have studied previous debates upon this Bill, I have not discovered any attempt to make out that the law or the customs with regard to town tenancies in Ireland were different from those in England or Scotland. The noble Earl Lord Dunraven has made out some difference as regards agricultural tenancies in Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, but because agricultural tenancies are on an admittedly different footing and have been legislated for in a different way from the rest of the United Kingdom, is that a reason why we should proceed without any reason whatever to legislate for town tenancies in Ireland on a different footing also? And as has been pointed out, although the Bill professes to deal with town tenancies, except in the title it makes no distinction between town tenancies and house property throughout the whole of Ireland.
  The fact is, my Lords, the Government are attempting to make a new precedent of State interference in contracts for town tenancies, and they are doing it by moans of a Bill brought in by a private Member. After all, this is only another of the adopted children of the Government, adopted, if I may say so, without the usual reason for adoption, namely, the absence of children. I should have thought they had plenty of Bills of their own without their adopting and presenting to the House in its present undigested form this somewhat unnecessary and ill-drafted measure. Similar Bills have been rejected by Government after Government, no matter what their views may have been on other politics, and the proposal to give compensation for disturbance has been opposed by successive

  1139
  Chief Secretaries, including the present occupant of the office. Not only has the Bill gone through that experience, but every one of its main provisions has been thoroughly examined by the Select Committee on Town Tenancies, appointed in 1889 by a Liberal Government, and condemned root and branch. In the face of these facts, we are asked at the end of the session to make a complete revolution in the system of contracts for town tenancies, That, surely, is a large order.
  The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, hinted that the Bill had not so wide an application as some thought, and that it did not extend to the ordinary system of building leases. I am not a lawyer, but I have consulted one upon that point, and I am assured that every class of house property, including that to which the noble Earl referred, would come under the Bill. The clauses to which I chiefly take exception are of great importance. The clause providing for compensation for disturbance gives a permanent proprietary interest in this particular class of property to a temporary tenant. I fail to see why a man who borrows money from another man should not, on the same principles, be given a permanent proprietary interest in the money. Can anybody seriously suggest that if any noble Lord borrowed money from a gentleman willing to oblige him, there should be compensation for disturbance when the contract comes to an end? There is really no difference between the two cases that I can see. Then with regard to compensation for improvements: supposing one of your Lordships hired a yacht, a motor-car, of a house-boat, and in the course of the term for which it was hired made certain improvements; should he be compensated for those improvements? If not, what difference is there? I say that there is no difference, and that this Bill is brought in, dealing with this particular class of house property, without any justification whatever in reason or in fact.
  This is really an Irish question, but I cannot understand from an Irish point of view how its promoters can regard the Bill as likely to be beneficial to their country. In dealing with
  1140
  a particular class of property in connection with which cheap capital is so important, it cannot be wise to pass a measure which is bound to make capital more expensive. Irish land is already excluded from trust investments, and you are now asked to pass a Bill which will have the effect of putting Irish town property in a similar position. A considerable amount of house property is built by the aid of mortgage, and this Bill will certainly make mortgagees advance less money on a house or charge a higher rate of interest, thereby making Ireland less prosperous by reason of the fact that there will be less opportunity of building houses and less attraction for investing capital. As the prosperity of Irishmen in America is often contrasted with the comparative poverty in Ireland, it may be pertinent to point out that under the Constitution of the United States the Courts of law would quash as contrary to the Constitution the interference with contracts proposed under this Bill. However, as I have said, this is an Irish Bill, and inasmuch as noble Lords from Ireland do not propose to divide the House against the Second Reading. I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of so doing, but I sincerely hope that noble Lords will carry out their promise of seeing that thorough and radical Amendments are introduced in Committee with a view to making the Bill a workable measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Ridley commented with much effect upon the manner in which His Majesty's Government have lately exercised what I suppose is the privilege of the Government of the day—I moan their right of adoption. Scarcely a week has passed without our being presented to some little stranger of this kind, which has been discovered no matter where, and of more or less obscure or doubtful origin. It is satisfactory to know that by the time they come before your Lordships, they are generally shorn of what I may describe as some of their aboriginal wildness, and I hope that this particular infant may, after it has passed through Committee, find itself in a form which will admit of its being duly

  1141
  qualified for a respectable place on the Statute Book. My noble friend, Lord Dunraven, recommended the measure to your Lordships upon the ground that it contains some excellent provisions. I was reminded while I listened to him of that historical curate who had stumbled upon an extremely doubtful egg at the Bishop's breakfast table, and who in reply to the Bishop said—"Parts of it, my lord, are excellent." My noble friend has found that parts of this particular measure are excellent. There, however, is no doubt that the measure does contain some provisions of an extremely unusual and far-reaching character. What has struck me with regard to some of the Bills which His Majesty's Government have lately brought before us has been that they propose great innovations, changes in the whole of our jurisprudence, changes affecting the social system of those Islands, but that Ministers do not seem to think it necessary to produce any solid backing of evidence to show that these changes, are really called for by the circumstances of the country.
  What have we been told this evening with regard to the grievance that is sought to be remedied by this Bill? We are told that there have been in Ireland cases of capricious eviction by town landlords. I think the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading told us there had been cases in which tenants have been evicted for political reasons. I should like to know a little more about those cases. I do not mean to say that if you search the whole country you may not find cases in which landlords have acted foolishly and inconsiderately. But is it the case that there are any considerable number of in tances in which landlords have so acted? What I desire to protest against is the practice of making these great changes in the law of the land in order to catch out a mere handful of foolish and ill-advised individuals. I do not believe for one moment that by so doing you really bring much relief to those whom you desire to help. For one individual whom you are able to coerce by measures of this kind, there are dozens whom you render suspicious and reluctant, and who with the knowledge that they are threatened by such legislation will fail to deal with their tenants in the reasonable and considerate spirit, which
  1142
  they have formerly been in the habit of observing.
  Then one word with regard to the provisions of the Bill. The Bill we understand is designed for the purpose of encouraging the improvement of town property in Ireland. But why, in order to encourage the improvement of town property in the future, is it necessary to bring in these retroactive provisions—provisions which will affect parties by whom these improvements were effected, or upon whose property they were effected, but who could have had no kind of anticipation that the law was to be modified in these important particulars? I come to what seems to me far the most important provision in the Bill, viz., Clause 5, under which the tenant is in certain cases to be entitled to compensation for disturbance. My noble friend Lord Arran, in a very convincing speech, demonstrated to the House that what this clause really means is that in the future we shall have the fixation of rents for town property, just as we now have fixation of rents for agricultural property in Ireland. I know that the Chief Secretary stated the other day that in his view the demand for an increase of rent did not constitute an onerous condition within the meaning of Section 5 of the Bill. That shows to my mind a complete misapprehension of the effect of this clause.
  Then I come for one moment to the clause under which contracting out is forbidden. My noble friend made light of that, saying that we had left freedom of contract far behind in Ireland. So we have. But surely that observation shows how careful we ought to be in moving further in the direction in which these Acts affecting land in Ireland have taken us. I am no pedant on the subject of freedom of contract, I have always believed that we might well lay freedom of contract on one side when it was necessary to depart from it in order to insure the health or the safety of the public. We have at this moment an excellent Bill on the Table of your Lordships' House dealing with merchant shipping. That is an interference with freedom of contract, and I do not for one moment desire to question the wisdom of the provisions which it contains. But there is all the difference

  1143
  in the world between provisions of that kind and provisions which in effect say to two people who are perfectly able to make their own contracts, "You shall not make such contracts, and if you do, the law will over-ride them." Why should the landlord and the tenant of property in the suburbs of Dublin or in one of the great towns of Ireland not be allowed to make contracts excluding them from the operation of this Bill? It has been pertinently asked, Why are you to give exceptional treatment to Ireland in this respect? What is there in the conditions of Ireland which demand treatment to which town tenants in England and Scotland are not also entitled? We gave to the tenant farmers of Ireland exceptional treatment in regard to agricultural tenancies, but surely your Lordships have not forgotten the reasons by which that great concession was justified. There were two. We were told, in the first place, that the tenants in Ireland made the improvements upon their farms, whereas in England the improvements were made by the landlord. In the second place, we were told that the great mass of Irish tenants were so helpless that they required this protection as they were unable to make contracts for themselves. I am sure the Lord President of the Council will remember how frequently that proposition was enforced by Mr. Gladstone. Can anybody say when you come to deal with tenants of town property in Ireland that the same conditions apply? I do not believe it for a moment. The noble Lord opposite, who moved the Second Heading in an excellent speech, took for his text—what? The case of the town tenant who wanted a billiard-room, and he said that because this man wished for a billiard-room and his landlord might drive a hard bargain, therefore you ought to depart from freedom of contract and introduce all these unheard-of provisions. Could any illustration have been more unfortunately selected? I do not desire to detain your Lordships at this late hour; I am quite ready to believe that this Bill contains some good provisions, and I am prepared to look at them with a magnifying glass. But I believe also that it contains some uncommonly bad provisions, and I hope that when we get into Committee your Lordships will make it your business to distinguish very carefully between the good and bad, and that when the Bill
  1144
  leaves this House some of the bad provisions may no longer find a place in it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very much disposed to apologise to your Lordships for rising again after having inflicted myself upon the House for so lengthened a period earlier in the evening on another subject, but, as your Lordships are aware, I have some acquaintance with Irish matters, and therefore it is perhaps right that I should say a word on this Bill. Lord Oranmore said that the subjects before the House during the last few days have been somewhat numerous, but I am bound to say that in this very interesting debate— which was opened by my noble friend, as the noble Marquess opposite was good enough to say, and I quite agree, in a very capable speech—we have had full evidence that the flexibility of mind enjoyed by your Lordships has in no way become impaired by the variety of subjects we have had lately to consider. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, gave us something of a constitutional lecture, and hinted that we were doing something extremely improper in adopting this Irish foundling, and the noble Marquess seemed inclined to back up that criticism. But, after all, everybody knows that this occasional practice of adoption, if not indulged in too often, is common to all Governments, and has often been employed by the Party opposite with, I dare say, very good results. It is perfectly true that Bills taken up in this way often require a good deal of Amendment, and if your Lordships have followed the course of this particular Bill they will have seen that the Government have taken it pretty severely in hand and amended it to no small extent.
  There is one singular fact about this House, and that is, that as a rule when questions connected with land come before us we look at them from one point of view. We are undoubtedly a House of landlords—country landlords— but we are also to a wry large extent a House of town tenants, because many of your Lordships are tenants of urban property, but it is only a fortunate few who are landlords of estates of that kind. This Bill attempts to carry out two objects, viz., to give compensation

  1145
  for tenants' improvements in all kinds of town tenancies and to give compensation for disturbance from business premises. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) fell into a somewhat remarkable error in regard to this compensation for disturbance when he spoke of houses in the country and houses in fashionable squares. He should, I think, have been aware that it is entirely to business premises that this compensation for unreasonable disturbance is confined. As regards compensation for tenants' improvements, I am inclined to ask your Lordships, is it possible to raise any objection to the principle of compensation to tenants, whether rich or poor, in towns for improvements which they have executed? If noble Lords will look at this Bill they will see that compensation is fenced round with almost innumerable safeguards. There are a vast number of conditions to be fulfilled before the tenant can obtain compensation for any improvements he has made. Building leases have been mentioned. I think if noble Lords will look at sub-section (4) of Clause 2 they will see that a very large number—I should think the great majority—of what are ordinarily known as building leases would fail to become subjects for compensation for improvements under that sub-section. The noble Viscount, and I think also the noble Marquess opposite, said, Why, if this principle is so good, do you not extend it to England? I am bound to say that if you find the same conditions in England as are likely to be dealt with under this Bill I have no answer to that question.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: What conditions?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The conditions in which tenants find themselves liable to be evicted from town holdings which they have been unable to get their landlords to improve, and which they themselves have improved. Noble Lords have implied all through that the conditions are the same throughout the United Kingdom in urban matters. I think that is a statement which needs a certain amount of correction. In Scotland, perhaps, the feuar system between landlord and town tenant
  1146
  is almost the universal rule. In England long leases, though perhaps not the invariable rule, are certainly a very general rule. If noble Lords will consider, therefore, I think they will see that under long leases—leases for ninety-nine years and so on — the probability of compensation for improvements being obtained is, of course, infinitely less than it would be for short leases, because it is obvious that the enjoyment which the tenant has had of the improvement is one of the considerations which the Court would have to take into consideration, and, consequently, the tenant would be far less likely to receive compensation. But unless I am entirely misinformed there is this difference; there are a very considerable number of quite short leases in Irish towns. Particularly in the smaller Irish towns is it the case that many landlords will not let for more than thirty years, and that kind of lease, as it seems to me, certainly places the tenant in an extremely unfavourable position, because anything he docs towards the middle of his lease is likely to be almost entirely sacrificed, and probably, therefore, he would let things slide, and improvements would be made neither by the landlord nor the tenant The noble Marquess was not quite fair upon my noble friend behind me when he said he had instanced the case of a person who had erected a billiard room. He did mention that instance, but he mentioned it as one for which a claim for compensation would not in itself be very sympathetically received. But the case he mentioned was that of a poor clerk who added, or wished to add, a small bathroom to his house— and a very laudable thing to do—but he was either prevented from doing it, or, if he did, he got no compensation. Lord Oranmore asked why not have a sinking fund. Well, you cannot have a sinking fund for a bathroom, and consequently small domestic improvements of that kind can hardly be made in that particular way. I do not hesitate to say—and I believe it it is the personal opinion of a great many people of the Party to which I belong— that the extraordinary monopoly value which the ownership of town property confers upon the landlord does lay the landlord under a very considerable debt both to the tenants who are on that property and to the public generally.

  1147
  Now, my Lords, the Bill as it was introduced erred, from my point of view, in making too much of the tenant. Ireland is a very individualistic country, and it has been, to my mind, the fault of a good deal of Irish legislation that it has clone more for the individual farmer or the individual labourer than it has done for the farming class or the labouring class, and this Bill, as introduced under Irish auspices, erred, I think, in the direction of doing far too much for the actual tenant who is occupying the house and not leaving enough for what I personally should like to see done, namely, a larger share of the monopoly value of these town properties given for the benefit of the community. But as the Bill now stands I do not think that that criticism applies. The retroactive powers of this Bill have come in for some pretty severe criticism. I confess I cannot see on what principle, if compensation for improvements is right at all, an improvement executed with in the last few years, instead of being executed next year, in any way diminishes the tenant's claim. Nor do I see how the landlord is to be the worse off, because if this Bill had been in operation he ought either to have done the improvements himself or allowed the tenant to do them. The fact of the tenant having done them seems to me to entitle the tenant to as much compensation as if he did it in a year or two. At the same time, I do not think noble Lords need be very much alarmed at this retrospective action; I doubt if tenants will get very much under it. I think as a rule it will be difficult for them to show in a great many cases that they have actually increased the letting value, and I am inclined to think from the nature of the tribunal, which is likely to take a severely legal view of these matters, that the actual amount which will be gained by tenants under the retrospective clause will not be very great.
  Interference with existing contracts is another point which has been hardly dealt with. It is, of course, easy to say that this is a novel proceeding when applied to urban properties; but it was a very novel proceeding when applied to agricultural property by noble Lords opposite in 1887, when they turned leaseholders into present tenants. I do not know any case of interference with con-
  1148
  tract in any country that was stronger than that. Although I am perfectly certain that noble Lords opposite were quite right to do it, yet it that were right in itself the mere fact of there being no precedent for it is not enough, to my mind, to condemn it. I think it is important to notice that as regards the question of compensation for disturbance the right is very largely protected. It is perfectly true for one thing, as my noble friend said, that the raising of rent is in itself no claim for compensation. It does not mean that an exorbitant rent put on, in the manner my noble friend Lord Dunraven so very clearly described, for a penal purpose might not cause the claim for compensation, and one which could be sustained—and in such a case as that I certainly think it ought to be sustained— but an ordinary raising of rent due to an ordinary increase in the value of the property would, of course, give no claim for compensation, and none of your Lordships would be inclined to say that it ought. I am bound to say I agree also with what has been said as to its being a little late to talk about the power of contracting out as a necessary provision in every Bill of this kind, ft is perfectly true there may be some cases, as Lord Ashbourne said, of owners of large business premises who ought to be able to contract out if they like; but, on the other hand, I do not know that the landlord would undergo any necessary hardship by forbidding even those people to contract out considering how tightly in every respect the power of claiming compensation for improvements is tied up. I am quite sure as regards the smaller tenants it is very important indeed that they should not be allowed to contract out for the same reason as the noble Marquess opposite claimed as a reason for so many of the provisions of the Irish Land Acts, that the contract between these people and a powerful landlord, particularly in the case of a man who holds the whole of a country town, cannot be regarded as a free contract, and therefore undoubtedly the provision ought to be contained in the Bill.
  I have every reason to believe that there is a large demand for this measure in Ireland, a demand which is not confined to the South or West of Ireland, but extends, as. was shown by several speeches made in another place, to the North of Ireland

  1149
  as well, and I think the onus of proving that it is not wanted after its passage through the House of Commons lies with noble Lords opposite. As regards the point raised by the noble and learned Lord as to what superior Court the appeal ought to be made, I have no doubt my noble friend behind me with his friends at the Irish Office will take that into consideration in view of the authority of the noble and learned Lord as a former Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I have only one further observation to make. The noble Marquess opposite complained that we had fallen into the habit of bringing in rather drastic legislation, not to remedy wrongs which were of extremely frequent occurrence, but wrongs which were only committed by a few unreasonable people. I am bound to say that I think the harm that can be done to a whole system and a whole class by the acts of a few unreasonable people can hardly be exaggerated, and from that point of view I am in hearty agreement with my noble friend Lord Dunraven when he said that all landlords who conduct their affairs in a sensible, fair, and business-like manner ought to be grateful when a check is put upon those who do the opposite. It is exactly the same criticism, and no doubt the noble Marquess had in his mind the appeal of my noble friend, Lord Carrington. To my mind precisely the same considerations apply. It is perfectly true that the cases may be few, but when you have got what is after all an artificial system in the land system both in England and Ireland, it is amazing what harm may be done by two or three arbitrary people who give evidence all over the country as to the lengths to which an unreasonable person may by law go, and thereby bring the whole system under suspicion. Therefore on these grounds I entirely agree with my noble friend that this is a Bill which Irish landlords ought to welcome.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I only wish to ask one or two questions. I understood the noble Lord who has just sat down to say that this Bill only refers to business premises.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Only as regards compensation.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The other matter that was a little
  1150
  puzzling is this; there was a discussion between two noble Lords as to the question whether or not certain leases were dealt with under the Bill. I find the explanation of the word 'leases' in the definition clause, but I cannot discover in the Bill any reference at all to any leases of any kind. The word does not occur from beginning to end.
  LORD DENMAN: In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I believe that Clause 2 sub-section (4) does deal to a certain extent with the question of building leases, but it is rather a difficult conundrum the noble Lord has put to me to answer on the spur of the moment. I can only tell him that some building leases may be excluded from the provisions of the Bill under that sub-section.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: It is rather an odd piece of drafting to put in a definition of a word which does not occur from beginning to end of the Bill.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  LAND TENURE BILL
  LAND TENURE BILL LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a Question of which I have given him private notice. The noble Earl and the First Lord of Admiralty both promised certain Amendments to the Land Tenure Bill which, more or less, are to apply to Scotland. The noble Earl has put down a large number of Amendments, most of which, though not exclusively, are of a drafting nature. I should like to be told if possible when we may see the other Amendments, and the reason I ask is that the House does not sit to-morrow, and if they are not to be put down until Monday it will be too late to consult our friends in Scotland before the Bill comes on.
  EARL CARRINGTON: According to promises I gave to the noble Lord I did my best to get what Amendments we had ready, and the drafting Amendments

  1151
  will be out to-morrow morning. With reference to the other Amendments, I hope to be able to get them out on Saturday morning. I will do the best I can.
  House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.