Lords Sitting of 14 November 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against—Of parents of children attending schools in the parishes of Christ Church (Waterloo), and Cowley; of inhabitants of parish of St. Thomas's, St. Helen's, Ryhope, Cowley (Gloucestershire) and Heapey; of Trustees of Church of England Schools in Diocese of Liverpool (49); and Trustee of Ryhope School, in Diocese of Durham; of Church Council of St. Stephen's, Sunderland read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of Ruridecanal Conference of Deanery of Wear-mouth; and inhabitants of Diocese of Exeter; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AUSTRALASIA.
  Papers relative to the working of taxation of the unimproved value of land in New Zealand, New South Wales, and South Australia.
  STATISTICS.
  Statistical Abstract for the several British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates in each year from 1891 to 1905. Forty-third Number.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Appendix (Section II.) to the Annual Report of the Commissioners for the year 1905.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLICE ACT, 1890.
  Correspondence relative to the refusal of the Secretary of State's certificate under Section 17 (2) of the Act to the River Tyne Police Force, for the year ended 29th September, 1905. Laid be fore the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE MARSHALL ISLANDS.
  *THE EARL OP JERSEY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to state what answer has been given by the German Government to the claim by Messrs. Burns, Philp & Co. for losses incurred in consequence of the Marshall Islands incidents. This matter was discussed in your Lordships' House some two years ago, † and I understand that His Majesty's Government did make last August an application to the German Government for a statement as to the grounds on which they had hitherto declined to pay. I should be glad to know if any reply has been received.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, this matter has been the subject of communications with the German Government, but the final reply of the German Government with regard to these claims has not yet been received. His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been instructed to recall the matter to their attention, and as soon as I hear anything definite I shall be glad to communicate it to the noble Earl. I can assure him that the matter has not been lost sight of.

  BRITISH SETTLERS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in accordance with the Notice in my name on the Paper, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government their intentions—(1) as to their policy in regard to land settlement in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; (2) as to the steps they are to take to safeguard the interests of British farmers and others who have recently taken up
  † See (4) Debates, cxliv., 288 et seq ; cxlvi., 28–30; cxlix., 527–529.

  1383
  land under the Land Settlement Ordinances in these Colonies; and, further, to ask that the Report of the Ridgeway Commission, so far as it relates to land settlement, should be laid on the Table of the House; and to move for Papers.
  I regret to say that I have to take up the time of your Lordships' House to ask a simple, but, I think, important question. Are His Majesty's Government to take steps to safeguard the British settlers in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, or are they to abandon them to the tender mercies of a probable Boer majority in the Transvaal, and a certain and overwhelming majority in the Orange River Colony? Before considering the case of the settlers in detail I would like to point out to your Lordships two outstanding facts—first, that of the settlers 75 per cent. fought for the Empire in the War and are men of small capital who have invested their all in South African lands; secondly, that they will be totally without representation in the Government of either Colony, there being no prospect of one single settler representative being returned for either place. I trust that His Majesty's Government will see fit to give a direct Answer to the Question that I have put on the Paper.
  Six months ago, when this subject was brought before the House, we were told that the matter was still sub judice. The Ridgeway Commission has now gone, seen, and reported, and the time would appear to have arrived when a definite answer should be vouchsafed in view of the very acute anxiety which exists amongst all the two thousand settlers in South Africa about their future existence. I do not believe for one moment that His Majesty's Government are going to desert the settler or the policy of land settlement; and, if that is so, why not say so? His Majesty's Government cannot get away from their responsibility and the responsibility of their predecessors for the placing of settlers on the land, settlers many of whom were placed by the actual British military authorities under a system of practically military land tenure, and who regard the land as actually given and guaranteed to them in return for services rendered. That this view is held by many soldiers
  1384
  and colonial settlers in the Colony can be proved by the Leeuw and Maroka District Petition, from which I should like to read the following:—
  "Fourthly, we consider we have a strong claim, amounting almost to a demand, on your future consideration. The farms were allotted to your settlers immediately after the cessation of hostilities. A clause in the Land Settlement Ordinance grants certain preferences to those persons who have done most public service. Is it not only reasonable for us to feel we gained our land partly as a reward for our services in time of need to the Empire? If we have any grounds for this belief, we should also be able with full confidence to rely on the support of this same Empire in case our future existence on these farms might be threatened through no fault of our own."
  On the subject of responsibility I would further urge that this cannot be understood to end with the dumping down of soldier settlers in a colony. In all common fairness it must be accepted that before being left to their own devices such settlers so planted must be given a chance of success. That these settlers in South Africa have had a chance of success I must emphatically deny.
  Now, my Lords, it is a curious fact that there appears to be a fatality attaching in initial stages to all planting of a foreign population on a new soil. Even in recent years the facts are still well known to all of us of the difficulties encountered by the Welsh settlers in Patagonia, the Algoa Bay Settlers in 1820, the Posen settlers of the last few decades, and the Scottish settlers in Canada, both recently and after the American War. There appears to be some fate, apart from hostility or the reverse of the indigene, which brings down on new settlers a series of climatic and other hardships beyond the experience of any former dwellers on the soil. In South Africa, not only have the settlers had three consecutive years of drought more severe than the oldest settler can remember, but the natural sequences of a war, increase of locusts (from lack of precautions taken) and cattle fever spread through the country from cut fences, have been more virulent than ever. In addition to these hardships the settlers have had to build their houses, kraals, fences, etc., de novo. Materials after the war have been at famine prices, and the failure

  1385
  of many successive crops has entirely depleted their resources. It is not exaggeration to say that, unless the friendly landlord in the shape of an Imperial landlord is guaranteed to the settlers for a period, many of the best will be ruined, and through no fault of their own.
  It must be clearly understood that the men who are now holding on to the farms are a very different class of individual from those misfits and "sundowners" who were dumped on the land in 1902. Those who are left represent the very pick of our Colony's pioneers, men who have fought against every obstacle and who believe in the undoubtedly great agricultural possibilities of the country, given a fair chance to make their way in it. The question I am asking to-day is, Are you going to give these colonists a fair chance? They will get it if they are given an Imperial Land Board on the lines which His Majesty's Government have twice stated they are favourable to. Under Boer control, as certain as anything can be predicted, these men will fail.
  Now, my Lords, on the attitude of the Boors, Boer leaders and Boer farmers, I must take up our time for a very few minutes. As a general fact it may be stated that when the Boer farmer has come into touch with the British settler the relations are most cordial. The English settler, by his methods of agriculture, his keenness for marketing possibilities, and his pushing methods, supplies a want to the Boer; whilst, on the other hand, the Boer, by his knowledge of stock, local advantages and difficulties, and cleverness in pastoral pursuits, is an equal help to the settler. This is not at all the case with the Boer leader. He is prejudiced against the settlement of any Britisher on the land on general and political grounds, and, unfortunately for the peace of the land, it is only the Boer leader in politics who counts. About the attitude of the Boer leaders I do not think it is necessary to quote at any length. Steyn says—
  " Boycott the English and guide your political action by the cries of the women and children done to death in the concentration camps."
  Louis Botha, in a more suave manner, enunciates the same views. The utter-
  1386
  ances of General Beyers, a fine out-spoken gentleman in the North of the Transvaal, are too well known to be worth quoting here. The Bloemfontein Friend, the official organ of the Hartzog-Fischer leaders of Orangia, shows in no uncertain way the attitude of the leaders of Orangia to the settlement policy.
  Now, the importance of the question is this. If the settlers are backed and practically made secure by a Land Board the vapourings of the hostile portion of Boer leaders is of no importance. If the settler is left to stand alone in his present weak financial position, the Boer leaders will see that he can be squeezed from the land, and on the first non-payment of rent, etc., squeezed he will be. That this process is easy one has only to look at British settlers in the Orange River Colony. I am sorry to have taken up so much time in developing these points, but I wish very clearly to bring out that there is a real danger to the settler, as shown by petitions and letters forwarded to the Ridgeway Commission and to private individuals. The solution is a very easy one, and, as I have said already, has been twice accepted by His Majesty's Government as desirable. I think the proposal that has been most often put forward to remove anxiety with regard to the settlers has been the institution of a Land Board, and His Majesty's Government are not disposed to deny that a Land Board may supply the best machinery for administering these Colonies, but they are obliged to attach conditions. It seems to them it would be entirely contrary to the general principle of responsible government that an arrangement of that kind should be carried out except by general consent.
  I do not think it will be necessary to read to your Lordships some remarks I have here on Lord Elgin's statement on the subject, but I think that perhaps an extract from a letter by Lord Selborne may not be without interest to your Lordships. Lord Selborne published this letter, we understand, as a feeler for a move that His Majesty's Government proposed to make—
  "In respect of land settlement, His Majesty's Government feel that they have a special obligation to those who have become settlers during

  1387
  the period when they have been directly responsible for the government of the two Colonies, and it is a matter in which public opinion is the United Kingdom takes a deep interest. They would like, therefore, to see land settlement placed under a board appointed by themselves and altogether divorced from politics, and to that board they would like to see handed over the responsibility for all existing settlers, for the administration of all assets derived from the £2,500,000 of the guaranteed loan which has been devoted to land settlement, and for the expenditure of the further sum of £1,500,000 which His Majesty's Government suggest should be devoted to this purpose from the new loan."
  If that is carried out everyone will be satisfied. You will then have a board with a sufficient sum to minister to the wants of the colonists on the ground.
  What are the arguments against having an Imperial Land Board? There is the argument of interference. Is that a fair argument to put forward? We have interfered in the question of the labour on the Rand. Surely we ought to be able to interfere in the cause of our own people who are settled in the country. Then, on the question of precedence, I do not think that is very much of an argument. If you can show any instance of abandoning 2,000 settlers to their fate then we talk can about the question of precedent. In conclusion, might I venture to submit that if patriotism is still considered one of the civic virtues, we owe something to these settlers in a far off land? They are the people who fought for us for years in the war, who have struggled for years against a series of fortuitous chances outside their control. Is the question of the doubtful privilege of the British status, as pointed out by Lord Elgin in May, 1906, to be their only heritage? My Lords, in South Africa, since the date which Englishmen of all kinds look upon with shame, the status of a British subject is not a very definable asset. I cannot believe that His Majesty's Government are going to desert men for such a flimsy gift. Services have been rendered, help has been given; if help is taken away, is betrayal too strong a term? With the proposed Constitution imminent I have considered it my duty to bring this matter forward. I think the opportunity has arrived when a statement might be made that these settlers are not going to be abandoned, and the answer of the Government will show whether it is
  1388
  true, as is often said in South Africa, that it depends upon which Party is in power at home whether it is worth while to be a Britisher or not.
  Moved, "That an humble address be presented to His Majesty for papers relating to land settlement in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies." — (Lord Lovat.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, may I be permitted quite briefly to emphasise one or two points which have been brought forward by my noble friend? My noble friend reminded the House that these settlers were some of the picked men who had been placed on the soil in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, but he forgot to remind your Lordships of the exact number. They number over 1,300, and they have been settled at a cost of £2,500,000" out of the £3,000,000 which has been allocated for that special purpose. That money was borrowed from the loan guaranteed by this country to the Transvaal on the promise made by leading citizens of the Colony that £30,000,000 would be paid to this country in the way of indemnity for the war. None of that money has yet been paid. Furthermore, I would like to remind your Lordships that the money which this country guaranteed to the Transvaal was lent at the rate of 3 per cent. instead of 4 per cent., and consequently the Transvaal saves in interest an amount equal to £350,000 a year. The interest on the £2,500,000 which has been expended in land settlement amounts to only £80,000 a year. Consequently if we deduct this £80,000 from the amount saved in interest—namely, £350,00 a year—we see that the Transvaal has gained a clear £270,000 a year by the co-operation and financial support which that Colony has received from the Imperial Government. I only mention this to show that the British taxpayer has an undoubted right on financial grounds to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether these settlers are in future to be under the management of a board in sympathy with their aims and objects.
  His Majesty's Government themselves stated during the earlier portion of the session that it would be wise to place these

  1389
  settlers under the administration of a Land Board supervised and controlled by the High Commissioner. The Undersecretary of State for the Colonies in the other House commented in eloquent terms on the fact that these settlers had been placed on the soil. He said they formed a new and valuable element of the population introduced into the country which tended to mitigate the asperity of race distinction. The Colonial Secretary himself, in introducing the Transvaal Constitution last July, admitted that land settle-meat had proved favourable in the Orange River Colony. The leading men in South Africa—Dr. Jameson, Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams, and the High Commissioner himself, Lord Selborne—have in various speeches in that country intimated that in their opinion the wisest course would be to create a Land Board on the lines suggested by my noble friend. In addition, there is a consideration which certainly will appeal very much to noble Lords on this side of the House. The noble Viscount who sits on the Cross Benches (Viscount Milner) is, I believe, strongly of opinion that a Land Board should be created to administer and control the affairs of these settlers. We have, therefore, a general consensus of opinion among all those who are qualified to judge that the wisest course for His Majesty's Government to pursue would be to create a Land Board and place these settlers under its administration. Roughly, therefore, my argument is this, that financially we have a right to hear from His Majesty's Government that these settlers will be under a board in sympathy with their aims and objects. Since His Majesty's Government have themselves admitted that a Land Board would be the best machinery for ensuring the desired result, we sincerely trust that they intend abiding by that suggestion and will not recede from the position they took up in the summer months.
  We should regret it if the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary were to try and prevent this House from comprehending what is really at the back of his mind in regard to this question. I have a feeling that he may say that during this month he is going to lay on the Table of your Lord-
  1390
  ships' House the terms of the Letters Patent, and that it will be time enough then for your Lordships to know what are the views of His Majesty's Government in this matter. But the whole point has been explained by my noble friend. Then it will be too late. We shall have no opportunity then of expressing our opinions in any strong or measured terms. The noble Earl would tell us that everything had been effected and the decision of His Majesty's Government already arrived at. With regard to precedent the noble Earl may claim that it is not altogether in harmony with the principles of self - government to ask that a certain portion of His Majesty's subjects should be placed under the direct control of the Imperial Legislature, and not under the control of the local Legislature. Your Lordships will remember that about a year ago in this House a debate arose on the treatment and management of the aborigines in Western Australia. When Western Australia was granted self-government it was specially decided by the Colonial Secretary of the day that the management and control of the aborigines should not be placed under the local administration but should be retained under the Imperial Parliament. I do not wish to draw an analogy between the aborigines of Western Australia and the settlers now in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, but the point is the same. His Majesty's Government have always assured us that in this final settlement which they desired to effect they would approach the solution of it by giving equal opportunities to Boer and Briton alike. If you hand over these settlers to the control of the Colonial Legislature, then there is a certain risk that this land settlement, which, on the admission of the Government themselves, has borne good fruit, is likely to end in premature and melancholy breakdown. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will have no hesitation in dividing the House.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): On what?
  THE DUKE OK MARLBOROUGH: I hope he will divide the House should the

  1391
  reply of the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary prove unsatisfactory, so that we may definitely record our opinion that the Government's treatment of these settlers is not in harmony with the opinions they have themselves expressed.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length, nor do I think that what has been said makes it necessary for me to do so. But I would like to remind your Lordships shortly of the history of this question. The noble Lord brought forward the subject in March. I gather from the noble Lord that he did not consider then, and does not. consider now, the reply I then gave as very satisfactory, though the noble Viscount on the Cross Bench (Lord Milner) described it as sympathetic.
  After that we did not let the matter go to sleep. That was evidenced by the statement I made at the end of July in announcing the principles upon which we desired to frame the Constitution of the Transvaal. On that occasion I said it was the opinion of His Majesty's Government that a Land Board might afford the best machinery for dealing with this subject, but, I added, only on certain conditions. The noble Viscount no doubt challenged the particular qualification that this must depend on consents. But I do not think that otherwise he regarded my statement with any want of appreciation.
  The noble Lord opposite referred to a letter which has appeared in the public prints written by Lord Selborne on this subject, and from the nature of the. letter itself it will be obvious that it was written with the approval of His Majesty's Government. There again, surely, we did the best we could to endeavour to arrive at a conclusion as to what was the best thing for us to do in the circumstances of the case. In fact, all through we have been collecting, not only from the Report of the Commission which was sent out, but otherwise, information to enable us to determine the course which we think practicable, and which will meet the undoubted difficulties of the situation. But that is a point which the Government must determine, and it is only when they
  1392
  have determined, and are in a position to bring it formally before the House and the country, that I can give categorically the answer which the noble Lord asks me to make. This cannot be treated as a matter standing entirely by itself; it is on the face of it a part of the general scheme of the arrangements which have to be introduced into the new Colonies. In confirmation of that opinion I need only refer to two of the subjects which the noble Lord opposite mentioned. He said that he brought forward this question because, in the first place, as he was informed, the settlers would have no representative in the new legislative bodies, unless, indeed, he said, there was a provision for minority representation, which he believed there was not to be. Surely that shows that this question cannot be separated from the other political considerations which are involved in the whole case of the Constitution.
  LORD LOVAT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. But have you not settled your principle of representation in the Transvaal?
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: I have nothing to add at the present moment to the statement I made in July; but I hope the day is not far distant when I shall be able to show the House and the country what it amounts to in concrete form. All I have to say at present is that that announcement will be made very shortly, and that the Government cannot separate this question from the rest of the scheme.
  *THE EARL OF DURHAM: My Lords, I listened with interest to the speeches of the noble Lords opposite. I also very naturally listened with sympathy to the noble Earl's reply, because I believe he is animated by feelings as to Imperial and Colonial policy which are not very different from my own, and I think we inherited them from the same source. But I cannot understand why the noble Earl, or why His Majesty's Government, should show reluctance to make a plain statement of their intentions about these land settlers. Surely it is very necessary that on the

  1393
  eve of the granting of a new Constitution to these Colonies we should have a straightforward and consistent statement as to the Government's intentions towards these settlers.
  My noble friend Lord Lovat has not asked the noble Earl to anticipate or disclose all the features of the new Constitution, but he has asked him to state plainly the intentions of His Majesty's Government towards these settlers. I can conceive nothing more calculated to remove misapprehension, to discourage unworthy ambitions, and to prepare South Africa for the impending Constitution than a straightforward statement that His Majesty's Government mean to protect and assist these settlers in the two Colonies, with due regard to economic considerations. There is nothing in such a statement which would be antagonistic to the principles of self-government. There is nothing novel in the Government enunciating its determination to promote the prosperity of a Colony; and, above all, there would be nothing in such a statement which could in any way cause legitimate umbrage to any one in South Africa who means loyally to fulfill his obligations to the Sovereign Power.
  With those, whether British or Dutch, whose secret object it may be to undermine our authority and to wish to make use of this new self-government as a Party weapon, not as a universal boon, His Majesty's Government should feel little sympathy. With regard to these settlers, I am sure that the majority of Englishmen would rather see His Majesty's Government guilty of too lavish a generosity than of niggardly abandonment. They may not please all sections of the Liberal Party at home, but I think the Government would gain more than they would lose by a straightforward declaration which would remove the impression which undoubtedly exists in our Colonies that a Liberal Government is a danger to Imperial unity. His Majesty's Government have a splendid opportunity now of dispelling that impression, or, I will say, that illusion, by making it clear that a change of Government at home will make no change in our policy or sentiment towards our loyal fellow subjects throughout the world.
  1394
  The noble Earl has referred to the difficulties of the situation, but I do not think he has told us that there is no precedent. His first plea could be very easily answered by saying that to a strong Government difficulties should occur only to be overcome. As to precedent, I think the noble Earl should be very pleased that he is unhampered by precedent. How could there be a precedent in a situation which is unique in its circumstances? If His Majesty's Government establish a wise precedent they may afford useful guidance for the future in situations of a like character; but to refuse to make such a statement as that asked for, within a few days, it may be, of the issue of the terms of the new Constitution, is to leave us too much in the dark, and to treat us without sufficient consideration. The noble Lord opposite has not asked Lord Elgin to make any definite promise as to the specific allocation of any fixed sum of money; he has not asked him to announce a precise formula for the constitution of the board; but he does ask—and I associate myself with the request—that His Majesty's Government will undertake to safeguard the interests of the British settlers in South Africa, and that they will do so by the appointment of a board under Imperial control to promote, encourage, and financially assist the agricultural development of these Colonies by British settlers.
  *VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, it was with extreme regret that I listened to the remarks of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I do not think that he appreciates, or that the Government at all appreciate, the strength of the feeling which exists on this subject among all those who are interested in British South Africa, or the deep feeling which exists, and the still deeper feeling which, I believe, will exist, throughout the country when the danger to which these settlers are at present exposed becomes a realised fact. On the other hand, I am greatly encouraged by the speech which has been delivered by the noble Earl who has just sat down, who, I think, on this question voices a large amount of opinion on the part of the supporters of the

  1395
  Government and of the population of the country generally.
  I really deeply deplore the total inadequacy of the statement the Secretary for the Colonies has seen fit to make to-night. He referred to former expressions of sympathy of his with these settlers, which he said I had acknowledged. I fully acknowledge them. I have never had any doubt as to the sympathy of the noble Earl, but what we want is to see his sympathy converted into acts, and the last moment is approaching when that can be done. I realise as much as any one the extreme inconvenience to which your Lordships are put by this question having to be brought forward on the present occasion. I apologise for intruding at this time, but what I wish your Lordships to realise is that we are making this intrusion because it is a matter of practical and vital urgency. The provision of special protection for the settlers for which we are appealing must be made while the matter stands as it does at present, or it cannot be made at all. Let the Letters Patent issue without any reference to land settlement and the settlers will pass automatically under the control of the responsible Government which is to be set up. You may say that these Letters Patent are for the Transvaal, and that in the Transvaal, after all, British settlers will have advocates to stand up for them. It is true, I fully admit, that the risks in the Transvaal are less than in the Orange River Colony. But even in the Transvaal there are risks, owing to the fact that there is no provision for the representation of minorities. These settlers will have no direct representation in the Transvaal Parliament at all. But a point which is of far greater importance is this, that the position of the settlers, if it is precarious in the Transvaal, is more than precarious, it is a position of almost certain ruin, unless something is done for them, in the Orange River Colony. If these Letters Patent issue without any provision for their protection in the Transvaal, then I say it is a moral certainty that, when it comes to the Orange River Colony, the fact that nothing has been done for settlers in the Transvaal will be quoted as a precedent for leav-
  1396
  ing them in the lurch in the sister Colony. And so we are being drawn step by step down the slope which leads to the abyss of another disgraceful desertion of those who have served us in South Africa. This is my excuse for having intruded on your Lordships' time.
  I do not think the historical retrospect in which the noble Earl has indulged makes his case any stronger. That retrospect, on the other hand, will show that we have exercised the extremest patience and the greatest possible desire not unduly to press or hurry the Government in this matter. And if I press them at all to-day it is simply because I feel that, having been the agent of the British Government in putting these people on to the land, and having induced them to put themselves in the position in which they are, I should be the basest of deserters if I did not do all that lies in my power to save them, while there is yet time.
  Let me follow, as briefly as possible, the retrospect of the noble Earl. He said that on March 27th he expressed his sympathy with these settlers. I quite agree. He did make a very sympathetic speech, which filled me, at any rate, with considerable hope. But what was his reason then for not going more into detail about this matter—because it is to be observed that, although the noble Earl has several times expressed his sympathy, he has always given the vital question the go-by? On that occasion he said it would be premature to discuss the matter before we had the Report of the Commission which was going out to South Africa to study the question of the Constitution. The Commissioners have been home, how many months? Three or four. I should like to know, it is one of the things we want to know, what did the Commissioners tell the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government about the settlers? It would be a great satisfaction to us to near that the Commissioners reported that they thought our anxiety was all moonshine and that the settlers in the Orange River Colony would be perfectly safe if they were handed over to the tender mercies of a Boer majority. Is the noble Earl prepared to tell us that the Report of the Commission has allayed all fears on this

  1397
  subject? I think we are entitled to know what the Report of the Commission is.
  Then the noble Earl went on to refer to the next occasion on which this matter was brought up, in July. At that date he foreshadowed an attempt, which, as a matter of fact, was subsequently made by His Majesty's Government, to do something for the protection of these settlers. He said that his Majesty's Government were in favour generally of the principle of a Land Board, but that they expressed their approval subject to certain reservations, and one of these was that there must be general consent. It seemed to me, and I said so at the time, a most preposterous thing to admit that these people needed the protection of a special Land Board because they were not safe in the hands of the majority of the inhabitants of the Orange River Colony or of the Government responsible to that majority, and yet to appeal to that very majority to say whether they were to be protected or not.
  You ask the people against whom they are to be protected, "Will you approve of our making special provision for their protection? "The thing is a perfect farce. And the truly farcical nature of it came out in the proceedings initiated by Lord Selborne, as the noble Earl said, on the instructions of His Majesty's Government, with regard to this matter. I should like to refer once more to the terms of Lord Selborne's letter, which was issued with the approval of the Government. It contains a remarkable admission—
  "His Majesty's Government,"
  it says,
  "feel that they have a special obligation to those who have become settlers during the period when they have been directly responsible for the Government of the two Colonies, and it is a matter in which public opinion in the United Kingdom takes a deep interest. They would like, therefore, to see land settlement placed under a Board appointed by themselves and altogether divorced from politics, and to that Board they would like to see handed over the responsibility for all existing settlers."
  That was the proposal which Lord Selborne was authorised to make to various representative people in these Colonies. But then this suggestion
  1398
  was coupled with a proposal to raise an additional £4,000,000, partly for the relief of the settlers, but partly for further compensation to the Boers and partly for some other objects, and in that form it seems to have met with no particular favour anywhere. I never expected that it would. I cannot conceive how the Government could have supposed, that, with elections just impending, with these Colonies about to be endowed with the supreme blessing of party government—that is to say, with the population marshalled into two brigades, each looking out with hawk-like keenness for some reproach to throw in the face of the other—I say I cannot conceive how anyone could have supposed that under these circumstances any party in the Transvaal or the Orange River Colony would make themselves responsible for an additional burden of £4,000,000 being placed on the shoulders of the Colonies in order to get His Majesty's Government out of a difficulty. It was, in my judgment, quite unreasonable to expect that any result would follow from that proposal. I do not comment on the absurdity of going cap in hand to the Boers and asking them whether they would like to pay another million and a half for British land settlement. Of course they would not like it. But then it was anticipated that the sop which was to be offered to them of another million and a quarter for compensation to themselves would induce them to swallow the pill. Really it is difficult not to smile at the simplicity of those who were seized with that idea. The Boers expect that they are going shortly to be in power. They know they will be in power in the Orange River Colony. Whether they will be in power in the Transvaal Colony or not, they are aware that any Government there will be more or less at their mercy. They look forward, as a matter of fact, to the time when they will be able to provide themselves with this million and a quarter, or any other sum which they may feel desirous of devoting to compensation to themselves, without the accompaniment of any disagreeable concession to the British settlers. The whole plan of saving these settlers by means of this

  1399
  appeal to the various parties in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony was doomed to failure from the very first.
  I wish briefly to sum up the position as it strikes me. Is it, or is it not, a right thing to continue to offer opportunities for British colonists whether coming from this country or from the other colonies, who, remember, are interested in this matter, too—is it, or is it not a right thing to keep the door open for them to settle in the new colonies which have come under the British flag by the exertions of this country and of those colonies also? If it is right to keep that door open, ought not His Majesty's Government to keep it open without asking anyone whether they are to be allowed to do so or not? But there is a stronger point even than that. Granted that the policy of land settlement was a mistake, that the policy ought to be abandoned, as I hope it will not be abandoned. Even so you cannot abandon the obligations you have already incurred under it, and surely it is strange for a British Government to go to any body of men anywhere and ask their consent to its fulfilling its own obligations of honour.
  I have felt bound to speak strongly on this subject because I feel it is a vital and urgent matter. Let me say that I still have hope, a strong hope, and especially after the words we have heard from the Ministerial Benches, that His Majesty's Government may see fit to convert the sympathy which I have no doubt they, or some of them, feel, into action, and not only to do that, but to do it promptly, and let us know where we stand.
  I plead, in the first instance, for a continuance of the policy of land settlement as a policy. Remember, it was not lightly adopted. It was adopted on the recommendation of a Royal Commission sent out expressly to study this question at the time of the war, who reported as follows—
  "Dealing with the question as a whole, we desire to express our firm conviction that a well-considered scheme of settlement in South Africa by men of British origin is of the most vital importance to the future prosperity of British South Africa. We find among those who wish to to see British rule in South Africa maintained
  1400
  and its influence for good extended but one opinion upon this subject. There even seems reason to fear lest the vast expenditure of blood and treasure which has marked the war should be absolutely wasted, unless some strenuous effort be made to establish in the country, at the close of the war, a thoroughly British population large enough to make a recurrence of division and disorder impossible."
  It was that policy which was initiated, not by me as one noble Lord, I think, said—I was only the. agent—but on the Report of the Royal Commission by the British Government, with, I believe, the full concurrence of the nation, for, whatever differences of opinion there may be on other questions, I have not yet heard that a policy of land settlement is disapproved of except by a few extremists.
  Here then is this policy, adopted on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, instituted for the maintenance of our future power in South Africa, a policy the progress of which has been steadily satisfactory, and which has been continued to a stage at which we have gained experience and have learned, by such experience, how it may be carried on with greater advantage than it could be in the first necessary stage of experiment. Here, I say, is this policy in absolute jeopardy, and its future depends entirely on its being taken out of the hands of the new Government of the two colonies, and placed under independent management. The whole of our past efforts in that direction appear to my mind to be imperilled. But there is a higher obligation even than the maintenance of policy, and that is the obligation of honour. You may abandon that policy—though I should deeply regret it, and I know the nation would ultimately regret it—but you cannot abandon honour. After all the melancholy instances in South African history of vacillation on the part of this country and the desertion of those who have staked their lives and fortunes on the continuance of a particular course, you cannot, surely, add another and one of the most disgraceful pages to the dark annals of our chopping and changing in South African policy.
  It is said that, if you were to place the land settlement fund, the lands which have been bought with it, and the tenants on those lands, under the control of a

  1401
  special board appointed by the Imperial Government, it would be an interference with responsible government. I think that is an absolute misapprehension. We do not propose to interfere with the freedom of the Legislatures of the new colonies or to put any restriction upon the action of their executive governments. I should be the last to suggest such a thing. I say you cannot both grant responsible government and not grant it. You cannot say to these colonies, "Now you are free to manage your own affairs, but in this or that particular you must manage them in accordance with our wishes." But what is there inconsistent with responsible government in retaining certain lands in the new colonies under a British board responsible to the British Government? There would he no interference with the law of the colonies. These lands would be administered under the ordinary law. There would be no interference with the executive power. The executive power could do, as regards these settlers, exactly whatever it could do with regard to any other occupiers of land. But it seems to me that an immense protection would nevertheless be afforded to these settlers, and it is the only protection they ask for— the protection of a sympathetic landlord. That is their point. It is not that they want any privilege. They are at present the tenants of a body which is doing all it can to help them and to give reasonable consideration to their difficulties, and they want to continue the tenants of a sympathetic landlord.
  Does anybody say it is an interference with responsible government for the British Government to own land in a British Colony '? The Cape Colony has been under responsible government for thirty-four years, yet the British Admiralty is the owner of enormously valuable land in the Cape Colony, and the British War Office is the owner of valuable land in all the colonies of South Africa. Has it ever occurred to anybody to say that the ownership of land in a British Colony by the British Government, or by a board dependent on the British Government, is an interference with
  1402
  responsible government It is a misunderstanding of our proposal to suppose that we desire any interference with responsible government at all.
  I hope the House will pardon me if I refer to one more point, because I am certain that it will be brought up. It may be said, "That is all very well. But this particular land is land which has been bought with money which the colonies have borrowed, and on which the colonies are paying interest; and that makes all the difference." I fully admit that this is the case, but I say that it does not in the least alter the fact that the Imperial Government would be perfectly justified in keeping that money and land under its own control. After all, these £3,000,000 are the only money out of all the millions that we have spent upon South Africa in which the people of this country, and the people of the British Colonies who have helped us, have any direct interest whatever.
  We gave a free grant of £3,000,000 under the Treaty of Vereeniging. Directly afterwards there was a further grant of £2,000,000 to the so-called "protected" burghers, and there was another grant of £2,000,000 for compensation to British and neutral subjects who had suffered during he an That was a clear £7,000,000 out of the Imperial Exchequer. In addition to that, the whole of the £35,000,000 loan, out of which this £3,000,000 would, according to our proposal, be taken, has been guaranteed by the British Government. If it had not been for that guarantee, the two colonies could not have raised a penny of it. Whatever money they did raise would have cost them at least 4 per cent. The mere fact of our giving that guarantee has saved the colonies £350,000 a year in interest on that loan. Therefore, apart from the three grants, apart from our claim for many millions of war contribution from the Transvaal and our contingent claim on the Orange River Colony, if there had been no financial transaction at all except this guranteed loan of £35,000,000, we should still have afforded the colonies ample compensation for taking £3,000,000 out of that loan for Imperial purposes> which, moreover, are not purposes in which the colonies have no interest at

  1403
  all. If we took £3,000,000 to expend it in Great Britain, it would be a different matter; but we propose to take this £3,000,000, not to spend out of the colonies, but to spend in the colonies, and all we ask is that it should be kept under Imperial control. Indeed we are almost bound so to keep it owing to the fact that these £3,000,000 were allocated for land settlement in the new colonies in the Act of this Parliament confirming the guarantee of the loan, and it was one of the great inducements offered to this Parliament to give that guarantee at all. It would be a breach of that understanding, if we allowed any part of this money to be diverted from the purposes for which jt was ear-marked in the Guaranteed Loan Act, and how can we ensure its not being diverted, if it passes under the control of the two new colonial Governments, one of which at any rate is bound to be hostile to the policy of settlement? For these reasons I hold that, although there are no doubt difficulties standing in the way of any arrangement which would give the settlers protection by placing them under the control of an Imperial board, those difficulties are by no means insuperable. In the interests of the great policy of land settlement, or, even if you reject that entirely, then at least in the interests of British honour, I beg to make this last fervent appeal to His Majesty's Government to save us from a discreditable solution of this question.
  *LORD COURTNEY: My Lords, I had not understood that this subject would interrupt the continuance of the debate in Committee on the Education Bill, and I have not refreshed my memory with any re-perusal of letters and documents relative to the question, but I might perhaps be misjudged if I followed my own desire and remained silent in this discussion. Therefore I hope your Lordships will excuse me if for a few minutes I trespass upon your attention.
  No one can be surprised that the noble Viscount has spoken with much feeling in this matter and has earnestly impressed on your Lordships what he desires. But I think it is well that we should distinguish between the two parts of the noble Viscount's appeal. There is one question relating to the few hundreds who are now
  1404
  in the Colonies, and there is another and very distinct question with reference to the maintenance of the policy of the continued introduction of new settlers into the new colonies. Much has been said as to what we should do with regard to the 1,300 settlers, and much might be allowed to the claims advanced on their part. But there is the strongest testimony that there is no wisdom, and no good policy, in maintaining the land policy which the noble Viscount was the agent in introducing, if he was not its inspirer.
  I think the noble Viscount will find that in the judgment of the majority of this country—a majority which increases from day to day—his policy was an absolutely erroneous one, because it was based on the necessary division between the Boers and the British. And the policy which he is now advancing and earnestly recommending to His Majesty's Government is based on the same supposition that there is this racial hostility between the two races, and that it must be the part of this country to continue the introduction of a stream of settlers in order to counteract the preponderating influence of the Boers.
  The noble Lord who initiated this discussion frankly said that no complaint was made as to the attitude of the mass of the Boers towards these settlers, and that there was perfect friendship between them.
  LORD LOVAT: I said the Boers on the land.
  *LORD COURTNEY: But the noble Lord said there was a distinction between the Boer leaders and the mass of the Boers, and we would find that the policy of the predominant partner in the new legislature would be expressed in the language of the leaders and not in the conduct of the majority of the Boers themselves. It would be a strange thing that you should find the mass of the people well contented and those who were elected by the mass of the people to represent them distinctly hostile. There is something that requires explanation in that apparent contradiction. It is a paradox on the face of it. The noble Lord did not quote what he considered to be the evidence in favour of the hostility of the

  1405
  Boer leaders. He referred to a sentence of ex-President Steyn, which involved no kind of hostility towards the settlers or the English people. He said—
  "The people of the Orange River Colony could not forget, and must not forget, the sufferings which their mothers and, sisters had undergone in the camps in which they were placed."
  Is it conceivable that any man who has sympathies with other men, irrespective of difference of race, can quarrel with the retention of a memory of that kind and fasten upon it hostility towards the other race with which they are linked? If that is all that can be quoted from President Steyn's language it seems to me that it is insufficient for the conclusion which the noble Lord founded upon it; and I challenge him to quote anything which President Steyn has uttered since the establishment of peace which is inconsistent with the desire to promote the utmost goodwill between the British and the Boers in South Africa. Louis Botha was also mentioned by the noble Lord, but he did not quote anything from what Louis Botha said, and I think it would be difficult to make any quotations from General Botha reflecting on his friendliness towards the British. If Louis Botha has any fault it is that of having too much amiability.
  LORD LOVAT: Would you like me to read the words of Louis Botha? I have them here. At a meeting on 7th April, 1906, he said—
  "We have already in many ways pointed out that we are against the land settlement policy of Lord Milner in this country."
  *LORD COURTNEY: Where is there a word of hostility towards the British in that statement? I have in a few words indicated what I consider to be the error of the settlement policy of the noble Viscount, in that it maintains and continues a source of irritation, and the language of General Botha is a natural expression of that feeling. Botha, in effect, said, "You are not treating us fairly if you propose to continue to spend the money of this country in bringing in people to counteract the condition of things that may arise naturally." The other general referred to by the noble Lord who raised this question I
  1406
  give up at once. He is one of those individuals with swollen heads who occur in all communities, and he is a terror, I understand, to his friends. He is perfectly insignificant, and what he says is not paid any attention to by the mass of the Boers in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.
  I do beg your Lordships to conceive what natural effect the maintenance of the policy for which the noble Viscount pleaded might produce in the two colonies. You have in the two colonies an enormous preponderance of Boers; and a section of your Lordships are proposing deliberately a policy which, instead of breeding goodwill, instead of leading the Boers and the British to forget their differences, actually brings one element against the other. The feeling in South Africa is, "Let us forget these contending elements and differences altogether." The desire is to forget the war and all that lay behind it. Boers and British say that they ought to live together and try to develop the community in peace together; but you cannot achieve that end if it is insisted that this policy of the noble Viscount, based on the conception that there is an enemy to guard against instead of friends to conciliate, is given effect to. By it your Lordships may produce what the noble Viscount produced, something which we may look back upon with mixed feelings, with feelings more terrible, perhaps, than in the case of that other retrospect to which the noble Viscount referred. The more that any Government adopts that as their policy in South Africa the more they are likely, almost certain, to produce another war; for the policy itself is founded on the principle that dissention must exist and must be maintained.
  It is a totally different question about these 1,300 settlers. I am not much concerned about them. I do not mean that I am indifferent to their welfare. I am not much concerned about these things, because I regard the question as une chose négliqeable. You cannot solve the South African question by a little infusion of settlers. The lessons of history have already shown that the task is not likely to be attended with success; and already your Lordships

  1407
  have been told that the body of settlers has dwindled from 2,000 to 1,300 through bad years.
  LORD LOVAT: I think the noble Lord is mistaken when he says that the 2,000 have dwindled to 1,300. The 1,300 actually hold land directly under the Ordinance, but there are many more who have settled down in the neighbourhood. There are probably altogether over 2,000.
  *LORD COURTNEY: I am not much concerned with a few numbers up or down. I take it from the memorial of these 1,300 settlers that they admit that a certain number of their fellow settlers could not go on, and it is expressly acknowledged that the number of settlers has diminished. It is pleaded that they have had very bad years. My Lords, they will always have bad years. South Africa is not a good country for agriculture as far as my knowledge of it serves, and the reports of experts and skilled examiners show that it is net a good country in this aspect at all, and for the British settler it is a most unsatisfactory country. The Boer, on the other hand, by long generations, even centuries, of experience is now accustomed to the natural conditions and can live in a way in which the British settler cannot live, and in which, we are glad to think, he will not live. The British settler, therefore, disappears in the natural economic struggle before the Boer settler; and you may pour in your money to keep up this small band of settlers but the thing is perfectly negligeable.
  I would be inclined to tell the Boers, supposing that I were consulted, "I hope that you will not concern yourselves very much to oppose any protection which the Home Government, on the recommendations of expert Commissions, have thought it desirable to interpose on behalf of those settlers that have been sent out." I am satisfied that they will gradually disappear, and that these men and women will probably sink into the population around them just as the settlers at different times in the history of the country have become more Boer than the Boers themselves. That has been the past history of the effect of colonisation in the Cape, where the children of the earlier settlers have
  1408
  been absorbed in the Dutch population and have become, perhaps, more Dutch than the Dutch themselves. The experiment is not a new one, and like many other experiments in many of our Colonies it is, I believe, foredoomed to failure. Its history has already shown how it has failed. You may, out of tenderness and consideration, help those who are there; you may even create a separate board to look after and protect their interest; but that board must be subject to the law of the Colony, leading to an agglomeration into one institution of the rights which the individuals will have themselves, and which they can exercise in order to protect themselves. I do not think they will get very much by it, but I do not reckon it to be of any great account one way or another. I leave it to His Majesty's Government, who are considering the problem, to pronounce upon it later. But with respect to the policy of the noble Viscount, reinforced by his speech, I am confident that, though I may be expressing the opinion of a small minority in this House—and I am not much concerned whether that is so or not—I am representing the growing opinion of the majority of my countrymen who, after all, govern this kingdom, in condemning it as being absolutely fatal to the establishment of good feeling among the community of South Africa.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I imagine that your Lordships do not desire that this refreshing interlude in the discussion of the. Education Bill should be too much prolonged, and I rise, therefore, to say a few words. I think many of us must be surprised that, after the eloquent speech of the noble Viscount, no noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite rose to respond to his challenge. We greatly regret that this discussion should have proceeded so far as it has done, and that those half dozen words which we desired so much to hear spoken should have been left unsaid. My noble friends did not seek to press the Government for a premature revelation of the Letters Patent. What they desire is to elicit from the Government in the simplest possible terms an assurance that this little Imperial outpost will not be left to its fate.

  1409
  The reticence of His Majesty's Ministers has created profound uneasiness, and that, too, not only in this House. The Colonial Secretary has assured us, not for the first time, of his sympathy with these settlers. We do not for a moment question the sincerity of his feeling, but we should like to have something more substantial than sympathy. The noble Earl is not hostile to the cause represented by the settlers. I am not sure that I can say quite the same thing of the noble Lord who has just addressed us, for he has condemned the whole policy of land settlement as an erroneous policy. That policy was adopted deliberately, and on the recommendation of a Royal Commission. I believe it was adopted with the approval of the great majority of the people of this country, and it was adopted under financial arrangements which were of the most extraordinarily advantageous kind to the two Colonies.
  I am one of those who had always hoped that in these great Colonial questions we should observe a continuity of policy which would survive in spite of changes of Government. I greatly regret that in this instance we are apparently—and that is the only inference we can draw—going to be confronted with a volte face on the part of our successors in office. The noble Lord who spoke last seems to think that this attempt to establish British settlers in these Colonies is inspired by a feeling of hostility to the Boer population. I deny it altogether. We have always desired that there should be found in these Colonies a mixed population, and we believe that there is room for a mixed population in South Africa. But how are you going to have a mixed population if you allow the British element to be eliminated, to be squeezed out?
  The noble Lord referred to the disappointment of the expectations with which this great experiment was undertaken. There have, no doubt, been failures, but there is also no doubt about one thing, which is that these people have had to contend with extraordinary difficulties. They have had to establish themselves, to build up their homesteads, and to encounter no fewer than four consecutive years of drought. I must say
  1410
  that I heard with regret what I can only describe as the sneer with which the noble Lord opposite referred to the exceptional nature of their sufferings. He seemed to dispose of it in this way. You will always have bad seasons in South Africa if the existence of a bad season is to justify you in coming to the rescue of the farmers.
  I do not think this experiment is one which should be lightly dropped because of initial difficulties. What these settlers ask for is that they should be treated considerately. I recall an analogy to their case—I mean the efforts made by Parliament to come to the assistance of those Irish tenants who at a particular moment were overburdened with arrears. In that case the most liberal terms were made to extricate them from their difficulties. Why not in this case also give the same assistance in the same practical form? There is only one way in which these people can be saved from the fate which is apparently impending over them, and that is that some special precautions should be taken, in the new arrangements made for the government of these Colonies, to safeguard the settlers from the ruin which may overtake them. That. is the policy which, as we know, finds favour with Lord Selborne. It was put forward by Lord Selborne, as we had reason to believe, with the full concurrence of His Majesty's Government; and it is most regrettable that the Government have not had the courage of their opinions and have not insisted on making an arrangement of this kind a fundamental part of the new departure which we are approaching. It would be far easier and far less offensive to the two Colonies to deal with it in this way, to deal with it ab initio, than to find yourselves compelled later on to interfere on behalf of the sertlers.
  If the language which has been referred to to-night does indeed represent the views of the Boer leaders, then there will be fulfilled the anticipations which were made in a letter quoted last summer in this House by a British resident in the country, when he said the time would come when the British would have to "trek." If that should ever happen, if it should ever come to pass

  1411
  that owing to our desertion these men are driven from the homes they have occupied under our guidance and with our approval, then it seems to me that lasting discredit will be cast on the Government of the Empire.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, it is not my intention to prolong this interlude unnecessarily, for I am well aware, as my noble friend has said, that the House must be anxious to get to the important Bill which stands behind. Although I may regret that this question should have been raised at this moment, I am not in the least inclined to make any complaint of the noble Lord or the noble Viscount on the cross benches for having brought the subject forward. I admit its importance and its interest, and I also acknowledge the sincere feeling which animates the noble Lords I have referred to with respect to this question. And I am not inclined to say that the discussion has been altogether without advantage to the Government. It is an advantage to the Government that they should have heard the views of noble Lords well qualified to speak upon this matter. But I must take exception to the right of the noble Marquess opposite to draw any conclusion as to our views from the speech made by my noble friend behind me (Lord Elgin).
  The Government hold that this matter is closely mixed up with the question of the Letters Patent. Those Letters Patent will probably be issued very shortly. If when they are issued your Lordships think fit to object to the course we may take, your Lordships will know very well how to deal with his Majesty's Government on the subject. We have not much doubt about your willingness to make an attack, but we do not think that it would be for the public interest, or in accordance with our duty, that we should make any statement in regard to a matter which must be dealt with by the Letters Patent until we are prepared to lay them as a whole on the Table of the House. That is the reason why we abstain from going beyond what we have said to-night. But what has fallen from noble Lords will be carefully considered by the Government. Something
  1412
  was said in a rather fiery passage by the noble Duke about dividing. I do not know what it is proposed to divide upon. With regard to Papers, I believe my noble friend is inclined to lay Papers on the Table, but with reference to the Report of the Ridgeway Commission, that is a strictly confidential document, and we do not consider that it would be consistent with our duty to lay that Report on the Table.
  LORD LOVAT: Before my Motion for Papers is put I should like to quote the Report on Land Settlement in reply to the statement of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Countney) that land settlement had been a failure in South Africa. The Report contains this passage—
  "The main fact remains that the majority of the men who were allotted land three years ago still occupy it and mean to remain; and when land does become vacant there are a number of suitable applicants for it."
  With regard to Papers. I only desire to move for the portion of the Report of the Ridgeway Commission which appertains to land settlement.
  On Question, Motion negatived

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AXD WALES) BILL.
  House again in Committee (according to Order.)
  [The EARL of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question is that sub-section (1), as amended, of Clause 8 stand part of the Clause.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he was disposed to think-that the Amendment made in the subsection on Monday night on the motion of Lord Cawdor would make it hard on the local authority in some few cases to manage the conduct of the schools satisfactorily. He therefore proposed on the Report Stage to propose words in qualification of that Amendment, so as to make it fairer to the local authority.
  On Question, sub-section, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved to amend the second sub-section of the clause by inserting after the first "shall" the words "be appointed without reference to religious creed or denomiation, and shall." He thought the subsection as it stood would leave it open to a local authority by private or underhand ways to make inquiries as to a teacher's religious persuasion before they appointed him. A similar Amendment had been put on the Paper in the House of Commons, but was not reached owing to the operation of the closure. He proposed to press it to a division in order to prove whether the professions of noble Lords opposite that the teachers should have freedom from tests were genuine and sincere. No doubt the great majority of public authorities would administer the sub-section as it stood equitably. He had not the slightest doubt that the largest local authority in England, which controlled the schools of London, would not go back from the very stringent regulation which was laid down during the great theological controversy some years ago, and which provided that—
  "the religious opinions of teachers are not to influence their selection, nomination, appointment, or promotion; nor are teachers and candidates for appointment as teachers to be subjected to any questions with reference to their religious belief or as to the possession or otherwise of certificates which might be taken as indicative of belonging to any particular denomination; nor are inquiries to be made into the religious beliefs of teachers."
  That Resolution was passed by the unanimous consent of the London School Board and with the support of the denominationalists. He felt sure that the large majority of local authorities would act in the spirit of that Resolution. But the notices on the Paper of their Lordships' House indicated, so far from a desire to carry out in good faith the declaration that teachers should be exempt from all tests, a very strong desire again to set up tests in one form or another. The object of his Amendment was to make it clear that teachers should have complete freedom from tests.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 3, after the word 'shall' to insert the words ' be appointed without reference to religious creeds or denomination, and shall.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I have received so much and such invaluable support from my noble friend behind me that it is a serious grief to me not to be able to accept his Amendment on this occasion; and if we do not do so it is not because we are less convinced than he is of the propriety and necessity of freeing teachers from religious tests. It is simply that we prefer the words which we have in the Bill. They have been very carefully considered, and, as I think I can show your Lordships, carry out as fully as can be carried out by any words in an Act of Parliament the object which I believe we all have at heart. My noble friend said that he had extracted his words from Clause 7 of the Education Bill of 1902. There it is stated that assistant teachers and pupil teachers may be appointed, if thought fit, without reference to religious creed or denomination. I have always taken that to mean that in voluntary schools under trusts teachers not of the denomination to which the school belonged might be appointed, and that might involve a distinct inquiry as to what their opinions were. I am afraid my noble friend's analogy is, therefore, not a complete one.
  What my noble friend says is that teachers shall be appointed without reference to religious creed or denomination, and he quoted the very striking and powerful Resolution on the subject adopted by the late School Board for London. It is one thing for a body to lay down a certain ordinance of conduct for itself and quite another matter for a central body such as Parliament to say that all similar bodies must act in the same way. For instance, it would be quite possible, and we should all applaud the act, if a political association in a constituency announced that it was always going to choose its candidates for Parliament without reference to their social position or their balance at the bank; but in you were to attempt to lay down from any central authority that all candidates must be appointed without reference to their social status or their wealth you would be doing something which it is obviously impossible for a central body to do. What my noble friend is trying to say is that certain

  1415
  people must not be influenced in the appointment of a teacher by certain moral considerations.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: There is nothing moral in it that I know of; it is theological.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: it is of the nature of a moral consideration. In other words, my noble friend asks that people should be told to dismiss from their minds certain matters should they come to their knowledge. That, it appears to me, is a totally impossible thing for an Act of Parliament to do. Therefore, my noble friend, in his great anxiety to save all teachers from tests, is imposing on local authorities a test of an absolutely impossible character. Supposing that in applying for an appointment in a school a teacher happens to state what his religion is. What is to be the attitude of the authority in that case? It is no good telling them that they are bound to dismiss it from their minds. If they are sensible people they would, I should hope, in the majority of cases, dismiss it from their minds; but to tell them by Act of Parliament that they must do so is to ask something which is impossible. On the general question, of course, I am in entire agreement with my noble friend, but when it comes to inserting his words I am bound to point out that it is not to my mind the character of injunction which ought to be imposed on anybody by Act of Parliament.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he was glad the noble Earl had refused the Amendment. So far as entering the profession was concerned, he quite agreed the teacher should not be subjected to religious tests. He desired to know whether the Amendment meant that a county authority which was in favour of giving religious instruction which included the Apostles' Creed was to be precluded in appointing a teacher from asking him whether he conscientiously believed those doctrines. He agreed that the teaching which was permissible under the Cowper-Temple clause might be, and often was, most excellent in its character, but he submitted that the excellence of it was
  1416
  entirely dependent on whether the teacher who gave it honestly believed what he was teaching.
  LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEYthought the question which the noble Lord had raised would be best discussed on the Amendment to be moved by the most rev. Primate. The Bill as presented by the Government gave absolute freedom to every teacher to give, or not to give, religious teaching. The religious teaching was as much outside his obligation to the persons employing him as playing the organ on Sunday or teaching in the Sunday school. And, just as all extraneous duties were prohibited by law from being made part of the contract, he submitted that it would not be competent for the local authority to bargain with a teacher on appointing him that he should give certain religious instruction.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid it was quite probable that in some schools all the teachers would refuse to give any religious teaching. In that case, how would the teaching be given?
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDthought the Amendment, so far from securing the object of the noble Lord, would tend to some of the evils he deprecated. The noble Lord had said that they ought to do all they could to secure that when appointments were made the body making the appointments did not adopt an underhand way of finding out the theological views of the applicants. He ventured to think that the insertion of the words in the Amendment would be the most likely of all methods to lead to that result. His own feeling was that in many cases the teacher did require some protection in this matter, and he ventured to think that a natural protection, to give, if it could be given anywhere in the Bill, was to say simply and in the plainest possible language that it should be the duty of all those who appoint teachers to have regard only to their obligatory duties. His belief was that in practice that would cover the whole case and go quite as far as it was possible to go in an Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OP CREWE: There is apparently a good deal of confusion as to what is intended by the phrase "no tests for teachers," and perhaps it will be just as well if, in answering the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Salisbury, I just state what the actual circumstances will be in the case of a council school. In the case of a council school the teacher appointed will be asked no question in the nature of a test as to his religious opinions, or whether he is prepared to give religious teaching. Whether he can or cannot will have nothing to do with his appointment. After he is appointed, if he is told off to perform this particular duty, he will be asked whether he is willing to do so, and if he expresses his unwillingness to give the teaching he will certainly not be compelled to give it, and the local authority will have to find somebody else. In the case suggested by the right rev. Prelate the local authority would go through the various teachers in the school until they came to somebody who was willing to give it. In the event oi their finding no such teacher—and I think that is a most improbable suggestion, looking to the experience in the past in board schools— they would have to obtain someone from outside to give it, supposing they wished it to be given.
  On that I should like to correct, on behalf of my hon. friend Mr. Lough, a misapprehension which arose in the course of a debate on this matter in another place. Mr. Lough was put a long series of questions, to which he was invited to reply at very short notice. When my hon. friend said that the local authority, if the teacher refused to fulfil his contract and give religious teaching, would get rid of him and get another, he was referring, not to the regular teacher, but to someone from outside who had been engaged to give religious teaching, and who was not one of the teachers in the sense in which the word is habitually used. Undoubtedly if in that case, after giving the teaching for some time, a person who volunteered to come in and give the teaching changed his religious belief, or, for some reason, or another, was unable to give it, the local authority would have to get somebody else, supposing the wished the
  1418
  teaching to be given. It must, of course, be clearly understood that, in the sense in which the word "teacher" is habitually used, that person would not be a teacher at all. He would have been called in for this particular religious purpose, and, consequently, the fact that his services were terminated on his becoming unwilling to give the teaching would be quite irrelevant as regards the question of tests for teachers. My right hon. friend Mr. Birrell also gave an explanation of what would occur. He said—
  "The local education authority might perfectly well and, safely be left to exercise its own discretion in the matter of the duties which it would impose on its own teachers. These teachers might protect themselves from any conscientious burden by refusing to give the religious teaching, in which case the local authority would have to find somebody else."
  That is to say, to find somebody else to give the teaching, but not to find somebody else as school teacher. That, I imagine, would not be misunderstood. I think I have answered the light rev. Prelate's Question, and I have nothing to add at this stage.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the Answer given in the House of Commons as now explained was no Answer to the Question asked. That Question was this—supposing they had three teachers in the school, two of whom refused and one undertook to give the teaching and subsequently declined to give it, what was to be done then? He was referring to the case of a regular teacher.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: He certainly would not lose his appointment as a teacher. He would be put to some other work and another person would be brought in to give the teaching.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYasked who the person to be brought in was who was to fulfil the contract that the outgoing teacher had refused to perform. He had listened with considerable surprise to the noble Earl's explanation of the Answer given in the other House by the Parliamentary Secretary. He had never imagined that that construction could have been put

  1419
  on the Answer. It was not possible to get men at a moment's notice to give this instruction, and he was still in the dark as to who the person was who was to be brought in.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is obvious, in view of the explanation of my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, that the contract he was referring to was not what we know as the teachers' contract, but the agreement made between the local authority and the person who volunteered to give this particular teaching.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he should like to know how they could differentiate between the teacher who had been appointed and the person who was proposed to be called in. This was another of the inconsistencies between the speeches of Ministers and the clauses in the Bill.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sthought the necessity of bringing in outside teachers to secure the efficiency of Cowper-Temple teaching in council schools might be more frequent than the noble Earl seemed to think, and he should like to know how that teaching was to be given by a smaller number of teachers than those engaged in secular! instruction. By the sub-section as it stood His Majesty's Government, in order to abolish tests, restricted popular control and absolutely prohibited the local authority from freedom of contract. He was sincerely anxious that Cowper-Temple teaching when given should i be efficiently given, and one of the chief objections he had to the present Bill was that His Majesty's Government with all the most sincere intentions to make the teaching efficient, had not succeeded in embodying their good intentions in the Bill. He had been very much impressed by the patience and courtesy with which Lord Crewe had answered the many questions put to him, and he hoped he might be pardoned for having called attention to what he considered a practical difficulty in the Bill as it stood.
  *LORD AVEBURYpointed out that simple Bible teaching was to be given in
  1420
  all schools, but if the applicant was not to be asked whether he would be willing to give such teaching the local authority might find that they had to appoint a second person and even a third. He did not understand how the appointments could be made unless it wore permissible to ask the candidate whether or not he j would be willing, if appointed, to give that teaching.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord who has just sat down said he did not think it would be unfair and unreasonable to ask a teacher before he was appointed whether he was prepared to give ordinary religious instruction under Clause 14. The reasonableness of that may be a matter of opinion, but there can be no doubt as to its constituting a direct and distinct test. It is pretty obvious that a man who had no particular religious belief, and was honest enough to say so, would not get the appointment in many cases, and if that is not a test I do not know what is. I must remind the noble Lord that in taking this point I am obliged to argue it in relation to the Bill as introduced. Various Amendments have been inserted, which in my opinion, practically institute tests for teachers, but the defence of our clause as it appears on the Paper can only be properly made by taking it in connection with the Bill as introduced. The right rev. Prelate, for whose kind expressions about myself I am indeed most grateful, seemed to indicate that the possibility of all the teachers in a council school refusing to give simple Bible teaching, or whatever you like to call it, would frequently occur.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: I did not say all the teachers. My point is that you cannot give religious teaching by a smaller number of teachers than those engaged in secular instruction.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My impression is that the number of teachers who would have a conscientious objection to giving the ordinary syllabus teaching as given in the council schools would be exceedingly small. We are asked, Why not grant all-round facilities? We feel that if all-round facilities were

  1421
  introduced and properly worked it would mean that five or six different kinds of religion might be given at the same time. There is no comparison between that state of things and allowing one person to be brought in to give this simple religious teaching.
  LORD AVEBURYasked how they could bring in outsiders to give simple religious teaching without asking whether they were willing to give that teaching.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: These people, not being regular teachers, would not come under the question of tests at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:But who will they be?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: They might be anybody; possibly the clergymen.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But the clergyman would not be able to give instruction to the whole school.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It seems to me that it would be a strange state of things in this Christian country if people cannot be found, in these very rare instances, to assist in giving this simple religious teaching in the council schools.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: Would the outsider in that case not be a teacher?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: No. Perhaps I can put the matter more clearly by reminding noble Lords of that kind of religious teaching which we intend to be given. During what is known as the "religious hour" in the council schools Cowper-Temple teaching might, and in a good many cases would, be given. In other schools Cowper-Temple teaching would probably be given on three days a week and facilities teaching on two days. The only effect of this rare case of having to introduce outside assistance would be to approximate the Cowper-Temple teaching to the facilities teaching which we intend to be given in Clause 2 schools.
  1422
  I do not mean approximate in its nature but in the fact that it would be given by an outsider. The point, it seems to me, is exceedingly simple, and I honestly do not think it deserves the weight laid upon if by the right rev. Prelate, because these cases will occur very seldom indeed. After all there is no reason why the teachers should object to give Cowper-Temple teaching under this Bill any more than they do in the present state of things. Those who object will, as I say, be unbelievers of a very pronounced type who think it wrong to give the teaching. There may be instances of such teachers, but there is no reason to imagine that they would be in any way multiplied under this Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYappealed to their Lordships to have regard to the Amendments on the Paper, and to bear in mind that Lord Bristol's Amendment, as well as that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, dealt with many of the points that had been raised on this Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I really must add my appeal to that of my noble friend behind me. There is a great deal of irregularity in the proceedings as they are conducted at the present moment. I am sure your Lordships do not desire it, but from time to time the real question before the Committee is forgotten, and, if I do not take too much upon myself, I would venture to suggest that the point under discussion should be borne a little more in mind. I must say that I do think it very inconvenient for noble Lords to interpose questions in the middle of a speech, especially as we are in Committee and noble Lords are not confined to one speech on any particular matter.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: With reference to what has been said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I think it probably would be more convenient that the sense of the Committee should be taken at once on Lord Stanley of Alderley's Amendment, That will not preclude us from following

  1423
  up the interesting points which have been raised when we come to the Amendments dealing with them.
  On Question, "That these words be here inserted," their Lordships divided: —Contents, 10; Not contents, 191.

  CONTENTS.

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Eversley, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Coleridge, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Onslow, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Plymouth, E.

  Braye, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Radnor, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Scarbrough, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Bedford, B.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Grafton, D.

  Stamford, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Manchester, D.

  Temple, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Clinton, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Crawshaw, L.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Bath, M.

  Denman, L.

  Bute, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Camden, M.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Dormer, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Cross, V.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kin-

  Lansdowne, M.

  Falkland, V.

  cardine.)

  Northampton, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Emly, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Hill, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-

  Faber, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  more.)

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Albemarle, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Fingall, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  (E. Fingall.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Gage, L. (F. Gage.)

  Camperdown, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Gerard, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Harris, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Haversham, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Hemphill, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Hylton, L.

  Craven, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Kelvin, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Dartrey, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and

  Denbigh. E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Mount-Earl.)

  Devon, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  and Queensberry.)

  Abinger, L.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Addington, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Guilford, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Manners, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Jersey, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Newton, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  North, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Belper, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Morton, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Boston, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-

  Robertson, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  borough.)

  Sanderson, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. E.

  Rathmore, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Galloway.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Reay, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Shute L. (V. Barrington.)

  Welby, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  LORD HYLTON,LORD HYLTON, in the absence of the Marquess of Bristol, who had the following Amendment on the Paper—
  "In page 7, line 4, to leave out 'as part of his duties as teacher' and after 'any' to insert 'denominational,'"
  said he had been asked to move the noble Marquess's Amendment; but, after the debate that had taken place and the sentiment that had been expressed that the Amendment would involve to a certain extent the imposition of a test, he did not think the noble Marquess would wish to proceed with it. He therefore would not move it.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHmoved to amend the sub-section so that it would read as follows—
  "A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not be required to give or to abstain from giving any religious instruction, etc."
  The effect of this Amendment would be to give the teacher perfect freedom and independence.
  Amendment moved—
  "In sub-section 2, to leave out the words 'as part of his duties as teacher to' and to insert the words ' to give or to abstain from giving."—(The Lord Bishop of St. Asaph.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYquestioned whether the right rev. Prelate's object had not been met by the Amendment which had been inserted on the motion of Lord Cawdor, in which appeared the words "shall be permitted."
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid his object was rather that they should give freedom to the teacher than impose restrictions on the local education authority.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is obvious, of course, that we cannot agree to this Amendment, the practical effect of which is to give the facilities
  1426
  teaching in all transferred schools. That is no doubt the object. As the Committee are aware, we have already stated our reasons for not permitting the teacher to give the teaching in the ordinary facilities schools. There is no need for me to repeat those arguments. If the right rev. Prelate presses his Amendment to a Division we shall be compelled to vote against him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFmoved an Amendment providing that a teacher might give religious instruction "if he is willing to do so." He asked whether, supposing a teacher said he was willing to give religious instruction, he was to be debarred from making a bargain to give it. If so, that was another example of the great spirit of liberality in which His Majesty's Government had approached this matter; and if that additional disability was intended to be imposed on teachers he would be glad to know what defence could be made for it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 5, after the word 'instruction,' to insert the words ' but he may give such instruction if he is willing to do so."—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the Amendment was unnecessary having regard to the changes already made in sub-section (1) of Clause 8, where a positive affirmation had been substituted that the teacher should be permitted to give the special instruction. Where the local education authority wished the teacher to give the instruction and the teacher was willing to do so he was at liberty to give it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend behind me is perfectly right. If the Bill had remained as we introduced

  1427
  it the words of the noble Viscount would have effected an addition by allowing the teacher to give facilities teaching as well as Cowper-Temple teaching, but that has already been done by the Amendment to the sub-section moved by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Cawdor. That sub-section now reads—
  "A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall be permitted by the local education authority to give any religious instruction of a special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870'"
  and so on. So far as council schools are concerned, where only Cowper-Temple teaching is given, there is no doubt whatever about teachers being allowed to give that instruction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the words in the noble Viscount's Amendment were necessary. They had enacted that the teacher might be permitted to give the special instruction, and unless they said that the teacher might also give the general instruction the question might be raised hereafter whether the only instruction which the teacher was not allowed to give was instruction under the Cowper-Temple Clause.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no opinion of my own on that point, and, although I do not think the words are necessary, I shall not object to their insertion if the noble Viscount persists.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFthought the words were necessary even in the present state of the Bill. Moreover, they were not sure that the present state of the Bill would be its permanent state.
  LORD BELPERmoved to insert in the sub-section after "instruction" the following words—
  "If he at the time of his appointment (or in the case of an existing teacher before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eight) shall have expressed in writing to the local education authority his conscientious objection to give such religious instruction."
  He pointed out that the clause as it stood might easily place the authorities in a most difficult position, because it was open to the teacher at any moment to
  1428
  refuse to give the religious instruction. He did not wish to impute that a teacher would take any unfair advantage, but if it was not part of his duty to give the religious instruction he might turn round any morning and refuse to give it, especially if he had had a little difference with the managers or the local education authority. He further pointed out that the clause as it stood would place a most powerful weapon in the hands of the National Union of Teachers; if there was any reason for it, they might send round word to their teachers in a particular district ordering them to withdraw from the religious teaching, and dislocate the whole arrangements for such teaching. If there was the least idea that his Amendment was for the purpose of getting in any question of tests, he would alter the first words to read, "If he, as soon as possible after his appointment." This would make it quite clear that the teacher should not be asked the question on his appointment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 5, after the word ' instruction,' to insert the words" if he at the time of his appointment (or in the case of an existing teacher before the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and eight) shall have expressed in writing to the local education authority his conscientious objection to give such religious instruction.' "—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the Amendment involved a discrimination in favour of Cowper-Temple teaching. But it went further than that. It proposed to limit the right of the teacher to refuse to give such instruction, should he conscientiously object to it, to the moment of his appointment. In other words, the teacher was to have a right of conscience but once in his lifetime. Should he modify his theological views in course of time, so that the religious teaching became distasteful to him, the local authority would have power to say to him, "You failed to object on your appointment; you are now under contract to us, and you must give this teaching." The result would be that the teacher would go on giving the religious instruction reluctantly, because if he did not do so he would lose his situation. It was absolutely impossible that any Liberal, with his objection to religious

  1429
  tests, could listen to such a proposal for one moment.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid there was no doubt that the Amendment was in a sense a discrimination in favour of Cowper-Temple teaching. But it must be remembered that, while there might be a strong desire on the part of outsiders to give Church of England, Jewish, and Roman Catholic religious teaching in the schools, there was no such desire on the part of outsiders to give Cowper-Temple teaching in council schools. With all its wish for the abolition of religious tests, he thought the Government had gone further in. that way than the country really desired. Surely no one would contend that the general desire for the abolition of tests went so far as to ask that a teacher should not be required to give Cowper-Temple teaching in any council school to which he had been appointed. He therefore thought the principle of the Amendment reasonable.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMsaid that from his knowledge of young men it was the greatest possible mistake to suppose that their religious difficulties were concerned with questions that divided denominations. He was persuaded that the religious opinions of a vast number of young men in this country were totally unsettled, and there was no class to which that observation applied more than to the class of young men who were preparing to become teachers. The religious difficulties which presented themselves to these young men —as they themselves would admit with the utmost frankness—were exactly the kind of difficulties that disqualified them from giving, not any particular kind of denominational instruction, but religious instruction of any real kind at all. Therefore, whatever sort of protection they desired to give to the consciences of teachers, they would want to give it in respect to any kind of undenominational or Biblical teaching just as much as in respect to denominational instruction.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I have very little to add to what has been said by my noble friend behind me and affirmed by the right rev. Prelate
  1430
  who has just sat down. I am sorry that the noble Viscount thinks we have been almost pedantically careful in his matter of tests, but we have also considered the feelings of those who are very anxious that this particular teaching could be given by qualified men in the manner pointed out by the right rev. prelate; and it is undoubtedly the case that if you are to make it part of a teacher's duty that he must give this particular religious teaching you will run the risk of straining a good many consciences, whereas, if the matter were left, not as an explicit declaration, but as a choice to the teacher, that straining would not take place. I think the possibility of any great administrative difficulty has been over-rated. I imagine that the local authority would put the teacher to teach something else at the same salary. It is extremely un-likely that the local authority would be so weak as to give way to a threat that the teacher would refuse to give the instruction unless his salary were increased. We cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid the Government were accepting one part of Mr. Chamberlain's Amendment, and declining the other. Unless something like this Amendment were accepted it would not be competent for the Government to say that the Bill secured simple Bible teaching in every school in the country.
  LORD BELPERsaid he was by no means convinced by the arguments that had been used against his Amendment. It seemed to him pretty certain that they would have to pay the teacher for giving the religious instruction or they would have to pay someone brought in from outside. He would not, however, put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid that owing to a misapprehension he had voted in the wrong lobby upon the Amendment moved by Lord Stanley of Alderley.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to add the following proviso—"Provided that no addition to nor deduction from a teacher's salary shall be made on the ground that he does not undertake to give any religious instruction in the school." This Amendment was to enable the teachers to exercise freely the option given to them in the earlier part of the clause. Under sub-section (1) as altered by their Lordships a teacher was permitted to give denominational religious instruction. Sub-section (2) stated that "a teacher shall not be required to give any religious instruction." That left it in the teacher's discretion whether he would or would not offer to give religious instruction. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had stated that when a teacher applied for employment, according to the Bill it would not be legal to ask him what were his religious convictions or whether he was or was not prepared to give religious instruction. Did it not follow from that that his salary ought not to depend on the manner in which he exercised the option given to him by the law? He did not see how it could be otherwise. What was a teacher's salary? What was it paid to him for? It was given to him for a certain number of hours' work and he was bound to. carry out every instruction which the managers of the school desired with the exception of religious instruction. Whether he would or would not give religious instruction depended entirely upon himself, That was not only his own personal opinion, but it was also the opinion of the Board of Education, for Mr. Birrell had said so in the other House. In one of his speeches the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The salary of the teacher must be paid to him by the local education authority."
  Probably when they came to Clause 11 he would have reason to quote again Mr. Birrell's words with reference to that clause. It therefore followed that if a teacher chose to give religious instruction, it was a voluntary act on his part. If he declined to give religious instruction he received his whole salary just the same. If he said he would give Cowper-Temple instruction then it was said, "This is the proper sort of religion, and you shall receive your whole salary." But if the
  1432
  teacher proposed to give denominational instruction the Bill said, ''No, you are not to receive your full salary, and we are going to make a deduction from it on that account." He did not know from whose fertile but narrow and stingy brain the proposition had emanated that, because a teacher had been giving religious instruction of a denominational character, he was to have a deduction made from his salary. He did not see upon what grounds of justice that could be supported. A man's salary was his salary, and he received it because he was at the disposal of the education authority during certain hours. If he said, "I will not give denominational instruction or Cowper-Temple instruction," then he was put to something else, but his salary was given to him for the time he devoted to the education authority, and so far as he could see he ought to receive his salary. It had been said that a teacher might take this opportunity of blackmailing the local authority. Lord Belper had said that a teacher might take this opportunity and say, "No, I shall not teach religious instruction," foreseeing that the local authority would be bound to ask him to do so, and possibly to pay him more money. The Earl of Crewe had said that he felt sure that teachers would not blackmail the local authority on the one hand, nor was there any reason to suppose on the other hand that they would blackmail in favour of denominational instruction. Even if a teacher were to take that course he might find himself in a hole. Take, for example, the case of a Cowper-Temple school. The teacher might say, "No, I shall not give Cowper-Temple teaching." In that case the local education authority was empowered, not by law. but by the construction of the law, to employ another person who was not a teacher but a person who taught, and to pay that individual. It did not in the least follow that they would pay the money to the teacher who declined to give the instruction. To take another illustration—suppose it was a denominational body. If the teacher declined to give denominational instruction, the denominational body would be bound to find a person who would give denominational religious instruction, but it did not

  1433
  follow that they would employ the teacher. He believed that as a rule teachers would have far higher motives than a mere pecuniary one for giving instruction to the children. Noble Lords like Lord Stanley of Alderley, who knew far more of the working of schools than he did, were of opinion that the teacher was very anxious to give religious instruction for the discipline of the school, and to obtain influence over the children, and to retain his influence over them; and consequently a teacher would be extremely unwilling to do anything, or abstain from doing anything, which would bring in outsiders and diminish his influence with the children whom he taught. For these reasons it seemed to him that as the policy of the Bill was to give freedom to the teacher his salary ought not to depend on the manner in which he exercised the option given him under the Bill. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 8, at end to add the words 'provided that no addition to nor deduction from a teacher's salary shall be made on the ground that he does or does not undertake to give any religious instruction in the school.'" (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he took this Amendment as a necessary consequence of the clause as it originally stood. This clause had been called the charter of freedom for the teacher, but if one was to follow the natural interpretation of the clause that claim seemed to be absurd, because a teacher was told that he was perfectly free to give or not to give religious instruction, and at the same time he was informed that, although he had perfect freedom, if he exercised it he would be liable to be fined.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl who moved and the noble Earl who has just sat down both support this proposition on the ground that its acceptance would strengthen the conscience clause for teachers, and that it would relieve them from a temptation to undertake religious teaching when they would naturally prefer not to do so. I quite admit that at first sight that appears to be the case, but I should just
  1434
  like to put this to my noble friend opposite, and he will see that the matter is not quite so simple as it appears at first sight. I gather from my noble friend that whatever the teacher does or refuses to do he is to get the same salary whether he agrees to give Cowper-Temple teaching and facilities teaching or whether he refuses to give either.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid there was to be no agreement, and nothing was to be said at the time the teacher entered upon his duties.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If the teacher expresses his willingness on his appointment to give both or to give one, or if he expresses unwillingness to give either, he is to receive the same salary. If the noble Lord will look back to Clauses 3 and 4, he will observe that the facilities teaching is not to be paid by the local authority but in each case by the denomination. I do not quite see if the salary is to be identical in each case how that can work out. Does the noble Lord mean that in addition to a fixed inclusive salary if the teacher likes to give Cowper-Temple, or at any rate facilities teaching, he is to receive something extra from the denomination? The same difficulty will arise, and the teacher will be under the temptation to give it whether he really wishes to or not. It appears to me that the only way in which this particular machinery can be worked is by making a double agreement with the teacher, namely, that all teachers should have an agreement for secular education. As regards the religious hour from nine to nine forty-five in the morning or as the case may be, if the teacher is employed during that hour, no matter what at, he will have to be paid by somebody. He will be paid if he gives Cowper-Temple teaching, but he will be paid by the local authority. If he is in the school at the time when religious instruction is being given, he will be paid by the local authority. Of course we never intended that the teacher should give the facilities instruction in the ordinary sense, and we did not contemplate that the question would arise, because that instruction would have to be paid for by the denomination which gave it. If it so happened that the

  1435
  teacher was not required in the school at all during the religious hour, if he obtained an hour's leisure, it certainly seems reasonable that he should have an hour's less pay. ["Oh, oh."] It may, however, be taken that as a rule the teacher would be employed somehow during that hour. The case mentioned is very unlikely to arise, but if the teacher was not in the school serving the local education authority, why should he get the same salary as those who were doing that hour's extra work? I do not think any noble Lords opposite will consider that there is any injustice in that statement, and it seems a perfectly reasonable one. The teacher undertakes1 his contract for secular education, and if he is employed during that hour he will be paid for it. With one remark which fell from the noble Earl I am in the most complete agreement. I agree with him that the question of pounds, shillings, and pence is not the one which will operate most in the minds of the teachers in considering this matter. They will be very anxious to give this religious instruction, when not prevented from doing so by absolute conscientious motives, for the reasons stated, that they know very well the great influence they can get over the children by giving it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that after listening to the reply of the noble Earl, he had come to the conclusion that he must have been born in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for he had exactly taken up the argument and the position which the West Riding local authorities had taken up. He had said that if a teacher was engaged by a local authority and did nine hours work, he would receive nine hours pay, but if he was only called upon to do eight hours work it was clearly quite reasonable and proper that he should only expect eight hours pay. The noble Earl did not look at this matter from the side of the teacher at all. The teacher could not be expected to go off for a lark for an hour. When the religious instruction was going on the teacher must be there.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: And if he is there he will be paid.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the local authority did not say to him, "We engage you to come at a quarter to ten for secular instruction, and for secular instruction only." He was the teacher employed by the local education authority, and he was bound to teach anything he was instructed to teach except religion, and that was entirely at his own discretion. But the noble Earl, like his friends in the West Riding, wished to divide time into fractions and to say how much should be given to religion and other things, and he said clearly that they might make a deduction from the teacher's pay, that it was quite right that such a deduction should be made and that it would be quite satisfactory to the teacher. The noble Earl agreed with him on one thing, and it was that all teachers desired to gain influence over the children in order to maintain discipline in the school, and having that object in view they were willing to teach Cowper-Temple religion or denominational religion or any other religion. The teacher might be, and in many cases would be, willing to do this, but according to the noble Earl, if he taught Cowper-Temple religion, that was quite right and he would be paid for it, and would receive his whole salary.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: He would receive extra salary in consideration of that. All the teachers would be paid a salary, and those employed in any way whatever during that extra hour would receive extra payment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he was ignorant upon this point and perhaps the noble Earl would enlighten him. He wished to know if teachers in Cowper-Temple schools now received a salary. He would also like to know whether, if a teacher consented to give Cowper-Temple teaching, he would receive extra pay.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: No.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he was afraid the whole case of the noble Earl fell to the ground. He took it that the noble Earl was not speaking in a Birrellian sense, but was using words

  1437
  in their ordinary sense, and he understood him to say that a teacher would receive extra salary for teaching this Cowper - Temple religion. Where was that provision to be found in the Bill? That had not been the practice hitherto, and he should like to know where it appeared in this measure.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: A local authority can make any agreement it likes, and if it likes to pay the teacher when he is not in the school, it may be competent for them to do so, but my point is that whereas now teachers are engaged in those schools under a single contract, under our Bill probably the convenient and almost necessary course would be to have a double contract, that is, a regular contract for secular teaching and a separate agreement in respect of religious teaching if the teacher chooses to give it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he was beginning to understand the proposal. At present a salary was paid which covered Cowper-Temple teaching, but under this Bill that arrangement was going to stop and there was going to be another arrangement. That was the first he had heard of it. Now they found in the first place that a teacher was to receive a salary for secular instruction and he was to receive an extra salary for giving Cowper-Temple teaching. He should like to know if that was sanctioned by the Act of 1870. Was it sanctioned by the Bill of 1906, and, if so, where was it to be found?
  THE EARL OF CKEWE: There is nothing to prevent it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid they were just beginning to understand this Bill. Under Cowper-Temple teaching there was now to be a double agreement, one under which the teacher was to be paid for secular teaching and another under which he was to be paid for teaching Cowper - Templeism. It would be very interesting to know upon what scale the payment would be made. He wished to say a word or two about the teaching in the other denominational schools or transferred schools. What was to happen in that
  1438
  case? How would the teacher start? Would he be given a salary for secular teaching?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I decline to engage in a conversation of this kind across the floor of the House with the noble Lord. If he will put his points I will reply to them at the end of the debate.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNapologised and said he agreed that his questions were somewhat irregular. He would assume that the teacher was to be paid a salary for secular education and that that salary was to be paid for a certain number of hours work. He could not see upon what basis it was going to be calculated. If a teacher declined, and said, "I will not give any denominational instruction," he would have to be content with his secular salary whatever that might be, and he presumed that would be explained to him when his appointment was made. After all, if any denomination teaching was to be given he presumed that the cost would fall upon the denominational authorities, and not upon the local education authorities. That was exactly the opinion of the West Riding of Yorkshire Local Authority. He supposed the Board of Education was bound to stand up for the law as it was supposed to exist at the present time, but it appeared to him that what the West Riding of Yorkshire contended for was going to be the law of the future. He thought that would be very hard indeed upon the teacher, and it was for that reason he had begged to move the Amendment.
  LORD BELPERsaid it was certain that the first result of the teachers' not being obliged to give religious instruction would be that where there were contracts they would be raised, because they would have to pay the same salary they were now paying for secular instruction and an additional sum for religious instruction. On a previous Amendment the answer of the noble Earl was that there was not the slightest chance of that happening, that they might make themselves perfectly easy that the county councils would take care of themselves,

  1439
  and there was no chance of their paying anything extra. Now the noble Earl had stated that it was perfectly certain that the teacher would be paid so much for secular instruction, and that he would have to be paid in addition for the religious instruction he gave. He was very much surprised at this great change which had taken place in so short a time. He did not wish to make any reflection upon what the teachers would do, but it was perfectly clear that if a teacher was under contract to give religious instruction as well as secular instruction, and religious instruction was no longer to be part of his obligatory duties, the very first thing he would ask for would be to be paid extra for that religious instruction. The noble Earl had stated that the county council could very well take care of itself, but how? By going outside and bringing in some other teacher whom they would have to pay to give that religious instruction which the teacher in the school would not give He thought this was an important point, and he was glad his noble friend had raised it. He had talked to several people interested in the matter, and he had never heard any difference of opinion as to what the result of the clause would be; they all declared that it would have a very serious effect upon the financial arrangements of the county council. He had been shown several returns made by different county councils of their estimates for the amount of extra expenditure the Bill would entail, and in every one of them there was a considerable sum included in consequence of this clause. He hoped his noble friend would press this Amendment, because it seemed to him most important in the interest of the administration of the county councils.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid they were again brought face to face with the question of tests for teachers. He wished to remind the Committee of the case of the unfortunate secular-minded teacher who did not want to teach religion at all. They had been warned in very solemn tones, with which all of them must have sympathised, that they ought to put no constraint upon
  1440
  the conscience of the secular teacher to induce him to "stifle his conscience." As a matter of fact the noble Earl was going to do that because he was going to tell the teacher, "If you teach secular education only you will be paid so much." The noble Earl said there would be a contract for secular education, but if the teacher gave his services for the religious hour he would have something extra. There would be this financial inducement put upon the teacher that the secular-minded teacher would get more money if he stifled his conscience and consented to teach religion. He believed that the consciences of the teachers were made of sterner stuff than noble Lords opposite were willing to allow, and that they might be relied upon not to set their consciences against the amount of their salary. It seemed to him to follow that, unless the teachers were paid the same amount whether they gave religious instruction or not, a financial inducement would be put upon them to teach religion whether they believed in it or not, and this brought them once more face to face with the question of tests for teachers.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid it had been extremely interesting to see the dawning of truth on the mind of the noble Lord opposite after struggling for a while in the twilight of obscurity. He should like to turn from the speech of the noble Lord and his earnest attempts to elicit information by a series of questions across the floor of the House to the substance of the Amendment if. Noble Lords opposite on many occasions had shown a laudable desire for information, but it was a desire not always guided, in his opinion, by the best of judgment, because they had put questions to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill which were simply questions of administration that would fall upon the local authority which had to work the Bill when it became law. Therefore as all those questions were matters which the local authority would have to deal with they were not questions which the Minister in charge of the Bill-ought to be called upon to answer. If the Bill was plain and clear the House would judge of the measure, and the local authorities would have to bring

  1441
  their own judgment and intelligence to bear in order to work the Bill. Practically those bodies who, under the previous clauses of the Bill, agreed to bear the expense of their own special religious instruction were in substance now to get it for nothing. [Cries of "No"] That was so, because a charge was to be put upon the local rates which he had already pointed out was not a proper thing for their Lordships to do. He was only sorry that the noble Lord did not adopt the celebrated wear and tear Amendment which provided that no additional cost should be imposed upon the rates. It was perfectly clear that the local authority ought to pay and would pay for any services which it obtained. Those services might be obtained during the whole time the school was open, if the teacher was willing to give Cowper-Templeinstruction; or if the teacher was not willing to give religious instruction, and the local authority had use for his services in other ways, his services might be utilised giving secular instruction. There might be five or six children withdrawn from religious instruction, and the teacher whose conscience did not allow him to give religious instruction might be employed in teaching those children. Again, there might be homework to correct and other school work to do, and he did not think the head teacher would find it difficult to employ a teacher in carrying on the work of his employers during the religious hour, in which case probably the local authority would have no hesitation in paving a full day's wage for a full day's work. The object of this proposal seemed to be that the teacher should receive, the same sum of money for his services whether he rendered service during religious instruction or whether he exercised his legal rights to refuse. ["No."] He took it that the noble Earl opposite wished the teacher to receive the same amount of pay from his employer whether he was doing work for the local authority the whole of the time or whether he was working for some outsider. Take the case of Clause 4 schools. In those schools permission was given to the teacher to give special religious instruction every morning of the week, and they had put into the Bill that the local authorities should be compelled to allow him to do
  1442
  it, and that that special instruction was to be given at the cost of the private people and not of the local authority. Now they were laying down that the teacher was to be paid by the local authority, not for doing the work of the local authority, but for doing the work of some other person during the time when he might otherwise be engaged by the local authority sharpening slate pencils or performing any other work in connection with the school. Was it reasonable to ask an employer to pay a person for services which he was rendering to somebody else? The whole argument was that whether the teacher worked for his employer or for an outsider he was equally to be paid the same sum of money. It was not his business to explain to noble Lords how local authorities would deal with this difficulty, but there was not the slightest doubt that when noble Lords sat upon those authorities and were brought face to face with these questions they would overcome the difficulty. It was for another set of people altogether to carry out the working of this clause.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the Bill provided that no teachers were to be asked any questions as to their competency to give religious instruction, but if they declined to give it the local authority was to find somebody else, and presumably to find funds with which to pay them. He wished to know if that was so. That appeared to him to be the fact, and the Earl of Camperdown by his Amendment asked that no addition or deduction should be made to or from a teacher's salary on the ground that he did not undertake to give any religious instruction in the school. That was precisely the provision of the Bill. It appeared to him that the noble Lord opposite was entirely oblivious of the contents of the Bill which made religious instruction entirely outside the obligations of this measure, and yet it provided that the local authorities should find somebody to give religious instruction if the teachers declined to give it.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKsaid he could not help feeling that this matter was somewhat obscure, and they ought to get it made

  1443
  clearer than it was at the present time. He thanked the noble Earl for the tenacious way in which he had stuck to his point and brought things out with clearness and precision which before were involved in a good deal of fog. He thought a very great step had been gained by its being made perfectly clear that the series of impressive arguments which the President of the Council addressed to them about hypocrisy must now be extended a great deal further than he extended them. By the arrangement proposed he thought there would be innumerable cases in which a great temptation of a monetary kind would be put in the way of teachers to give Cowper-Temple instruction whether they agreed with it or not. He was quite aware that the peculiarly protean character of Cowper-Temple instruction might ease off the difficulty. It was quite clear that by this arrangement the Government did not dispose of the difficulty of putting a strain upon teachers' consciences. But it appeared to him that the effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that Churchmen would in practice be claiming what they had agreed not to claim, namely, payment from the rates for their own special form of religious instruction. When they had agreed that they would not do this, he thought it would be particularly unfortunate if, by this proposal, they appeared to be doing it in an evasive or indirect manner. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid he was in doubt as to what had been said in reference to double agreements. Sir William Anson, whose authority should carry great weight, had said in the House of Commons that according to the clause no contract could be made with a teacher with regard to extraneous duties. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, had said, and in this he agreed, that the second subsection made Cowper-Temple teaching an extraneous subject. He desired to submit for the consideration of their Lordships this point; when children were withdrawn from religious instruction in a council school, how was it competent for the local authority to make a second agreement with a teacher to
  1444
  give the teaching? It was not a question for the local authority, it was a question of law.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdesired to explain that he did not say it was incompetent for the local authority to teach general religion. What he said was that, with regard to the right of the teacher, the teacher was entitled to decline to teach it as much as he was entitled to decline to teach in a Sunday school. There was a difference between the right of a teacher to decline to give the teaching and the right of the local authority to pay for the teaching.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYthought it might be desirable to quote the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education dealing with the question. He said it would be the duty of the local authority to select at the beginning a teacher who had no objection to giving Cowper-Temple teaching. He thought that was the answer to the noble Lord opposite.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble friend the Earl of Camperdown said that he was beginning to understand this Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I said I was beginning to understand it better than I did.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: But the noble Earl has not begun to understand it very well, because he has overlooked the important fact that was pointed out by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, namely, that if the noble Lord means, as apparently he does mean, that the facilities teaching is to be paid for in certain cases by the local authority, in the first place he is moving an Amendment which is out of order, and in the second place he is trying to do something which his Party and, I imagine, himself, have explicitly refrained from doing. Both in Clauses 3 and † it is explicitly stated that the special religious teaching is not to be given at the cost of the local authority. How my noble friend proposes that all teachers should be paid an inclusive salary which is to cover the time during which they are

  1445
  giving this particular teaching, without infringing what has already been passed by your Lordships, I confess I am not quite able to understand. When speaking before I put that question to my noble friend, and although he asked a great many questions of me, he did not attempt to answer that one which I had put to him. How these teachers are to get the same salary as all the other teachers who will not give the facilities instruction, and in addition to that are to receive a payment from the denomination, and why they should be placed at that singular advantage, I confess I do not understand.
  My Lords, Lord Belper complained that I did not answer his question completely before the adjournment. Noble Lords at that time were obviously anxious to adjourn and, in fact, a great number of them had already adjourned on their own account. I did not enter into this question of the contract at that time partly on that account and partly because I knew I should have to do it again when the noble Lord the Earl of Camperdown asked his question. I do not think I misled my noble friend in any way. I said the local authority would not be blackmailed into paying, in addition to the salary which they at present pay for the whole school time, an extra salary for Cowper-Temple teaching. It is true I did not explain what I thought would occur, which is this, that it would be necessary for the local authority to split their contract and pay the major part of the salary in regard to the regular school hours and the minor part in regard to this religious hour.
  My Lords, I cannot help thinking that there has been a very great exaggeration in the attempt to show that necessary breaches of the conscience clause are likely to occur under this provision. The noble Lord the Marquess of Salisbury pressed that view and so did the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. It appears to me that it is in exceedingly few cases, even if the teacher wore not employed in giving religious instruction, that he would not be employed in the school at the time. If that is so, clearly that argument falls to the ground.
  1446
  He is paid for being there, and in our opinion he would almost always be there. I felt bound to mention the possibility that he might not be employed during that hour at all, but it seems to me exceedingly remote, indeed scarcely worth mentioning, because in almost all circumstances he would be employed in some work.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Suppose he were the only teacher?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If he were the only teacher I think it is extremely probable that a certain number of children would be demanding secular education which he would give during that time. It is, I believe, a case extremely unlikely to happen. I am bound to say as regards this matter I do not know that our discussions have been exceedingly relevant. Your Lordships have made many changes in this Bill, but that is not to what I allude. The discussions themselves have not always been kept very closely to the point at issue, and I am bound to say that I think that we have never employed our time to so little purpose as during the last hour and a half.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid he had endeavoured to follow what had been said that afternoon and evening and he would like to have an opinion from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. He had never before heard of these two contracts. Apparently there was to be a contract for secular teaching and a contract for the Cowper-Temple teaching. Was there to be one payment under the first and another payment under the second contract?
  THE EARL OF CAMPEEDOWNsaid he did not desire to take any exception to the remarks of the noble Ear], but he really thought that when he said that this discussion had been very irrelevant he was travelling a little beyond the fact. He was not aware that in the remarks he made he said anything that was not strictly relevant to his Motion and the sub-section.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not accuse the noble Earl of irrelevancy. I

  1447
  thought the discussion had involved a considerable waste of time because it dealt with conditions which would seldom arise.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought the noble Earl must have been referring to his noble friend, Lord Stanley of Alderley, because, with the exception of himself (the Earl of Camperdown), the noble Lord had conducted the greater part of the discussion. He merely wished to say that his remarks and questions had reference to what was or was not in the Bill, and had no reference to any impression which might have been produced by Lord Stanley of Alderley. On the whole he thought they had had a very interesting discussion, and he had learned one or two things he did not know before. He knew the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council did not share that view. He would not put their Lordships to the trouble of a division, because he did not think the result would be a good one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved the first of a series of Amendments, namely, to insert at the end of sub-section (2) the following words—
  "It shall be the duty of the local education authority to satisfy themselves as to the qualification of any teacher to whom is assigned by them the giving of religious instruction under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."
  Of all the important clauses in this Bill none was more important than that affected by this Amendment. As he understood it they had accepted, at least speaking for himself he had accepted, frankly, and without reserve. the idea of the total and absolute abolition, he would not say of religious tests, because he objected to that term, but of theological tests in any form as regarded the teacher as such, the teacher in his status, in his profession, or in his appointment to a particular school. He was not sure whether their Lordships willingly accepted that position. Willingly or unwillingly he was one of those who had declared his adherence to it, and he was perfectly
  1448
  prepared to stand to it. He felt a deep regret that by the changes which this Bill would bring about, the system whereby the choice of a teacher for the great task of forming the characters as well as instructing the minds of little children would pass out of the hands of those who had hitherto put in the foremost place, the duty belonging to them of carefully ascertaining by individual inquiry all that they could possibly learn about the man or woman who was to be appointed to so sacred a task. He said in the widest terms "all they could possibly learn," because they were not barred from any inquiry which they thought necessary, or from any inquiry which any of their Lordships would think necessary if to-morrow they were choosing a governess for their own children. Hitherto in the Church schools of England the duty of making the inquiry resulting in that choice had been willingly and carefully carried out to the great advantage of the public and to the enormous advantage of the little children. That would now practically come to an end. It was simply impossible for a local education authority to make the kind of inquiry which had hitherto been ordinarily made by the managers of what had been known as voluntary schools. Even if they desired to do so this Bill, by precluding any question of theological inquiry or, as it was called, a test, would rule out a good deal of the subject matter of inquiry which had hitherto in many cases been felt to be most necessary and desirable in the interest of the children. For good or for evil they had, or at least he had, declared frank acceptance of that result. So long as the appointment in so many schools turned largely upon those kinds of qualifications which were thus inquired into, it mattered far less if a distinction were, drawn between the duties assigned to a teacher as part of the ordinary governance and guidance in the school and the duties assigned to him or to her as a religious teacher. But now, if all those inquiries which were ordinarily, though he himself thought most inappropriately, grouped under the general heading of tests were to be put an end to, it became far more necessary than ever to insist that, before appointing teachers to whom was to be entrusted the specific duty of

  1449
  giving religious instruction of the kind which they had been often reminded in that debate might be so thorough under the Cowper-Temple clause and might on the other hand be so inadequate—the duty of inquiring into the qualifications of the person to whom that task was to be assigned was one of paramount importance.
  The duty of anyone who made the appointment of a teacher to an elementary school was to consider, among other things, what was the kind of what he might call pastoral power which that person, whether man or woman, possessed for giving guidance and direction to and upbuilding of the character of little children. That was a pastorate of a very true sort, often exercised much better by teachers than by those to whom they ordinarily assigned the term "pastor," and it was being carried on every day in many a school by a really qualified and skilled teacher eager to form, upon such lines, the character of little children. Such appointments and inquiries had been a great responsibility splendidly discharged, and he fully hoped and believed that it would go on being splendidly discharged in the years that were to come. The difficulty for the local authorities in satisfying themselves as to this kind of qualification on the part of the teacher was far greater than when the responsibility of making the inquiries resulting in the choice rested with those who were the ordinary managers of a voluntary school. They could not assure it now in making the appointments to general teacher ships either as head teachers or as assistants. He was sure everyone would try to do his best, but it could not be done with the same thoroughness as before. He ventured to think that they had had an encouraging object lesson in the division which took place that evening, when Lord Stanley only succeeded in getting eight or nine of his colleagues to join him in the lobby as against the rest of their Lordships' House, when he desired to say that every thought of the religious qualifications of the teacher must be banished totally from the minds of the persons making the appointments.
  The position now was that those on whom rested the duty of selecting
  1450
  teachers had two duties to discharge. One was to appoint a teacher; the other to appoint the giver of religious instruction. What he asked their Lordships to affirm by a vote to-night was that the man or woman to whom was to be entrusted by the local authority the giving of religious instruction as a specific duty must satisfy that authority, and that that authority must be bound to satisfy themselves as to the qualifications of the man or the woman for that work. It sometimes seemed to him that such a proposition ought not to require argument at all. tie was not speaking now of the duty of giving a man or woman the general governance or guidance of the school; he was speaking only of the choice of a person for a specific duty, the duty of teaching the Christian religion under the conditions that were permitted by the Cowper-Temple clause. If they were to say that while for every other subject assigned to that teacher qualifications must be proved to exist before he or she was entrusted with the duty, would anybody say that they were deliberately to rule out from the category of subjects about which any inquiry was possible the giving of religious instruction within the walls of the school? Would anybody suggest that they would employ a teacher to give drawing lessons without finding out by testimony, or by what had been done in the past, whether the instructor was able to draw? They were all accustomed to Swedish drill in their schools. Would anybody say that a person totally unfamiliar with that very recondite art was to be trusted to give such instruction without inquiries being made? That was what they would be saying if they did not deliberately state that the local education authority, or whoever that authority delegated its powers to, must satisfy themselves that the person who was to perform the highest and most sacred of all tasks was really qualified to discharge it.
  The teacher must be qualified first by knowledge. Evidence about that was quite easily obtainable, whether by past examinations or by reports upon the manner in which the instruction had been given elsewhere. The second qualification must be that

  1451
  kind of character, which, apart from the questions of being honest or dishonest and so on, was required of a person who was to give the most sacred and solemn instruction, instruction in religious duties, in the knowledge of God and His will as well as of man and man's laws. Further, there must be the qualification that was shown by a glad and eager readiness to give that kind of teaching. He did not go further than that. He did not want to specify the manner in which persons who had to make the inquiry were to carry it out. There might be different ways of doing it which would depend on circumstances, such as where the man or woman came from, what opportunities he or she had already had, and so on. They had to guard against the growing up of an idea that, because they had most rightly abolished tests as a qualification for Civil Service work, therefore they were barred from making inquiry, when dealing with religious teaching, as to whether or not the person was qualified to give such teaching.
  He did not want it to be thought that he was asking for the imposition of a test with regard to the appointment to a school. He was asking for nothing of the kind, and had carefully guarded himself against doing so. There was all the difference in the world between appointment to a school and appointment in a school to give religious teaching. They did assign to the local authority in a vastly greater number of cases than heretofore the duty of selecting teachers who would do the work, but the authority would not have the stimulus which had been given hitherto by the wholesome rivalry of the voluntary schools alongside them. He would probably be told that that kind of duty had devolved hitherto on many local education authorities, and that there had never been any practical difficulty in the discharging of it in a reasonable and proper way. Up to the present time the local authority, whether j it was the school board in the old days or the local authority now, had had this great help, sometimes known and recognised, sometimes not known or unrecognised— that alongside of the schools to which and in which they made appointments and
  1452
  assigned duties, there were other schools with teachers carefully trained and about whom inquiries were daily being made and from whom the general profession of teachers was constantly being augmented. These were men and women who fully expected that inquiries would be made, certificates being produced for the purpose. Now that would be gone. If they cut away, as they would do if the Bill passed in any form, that wholesome kind of rivalry with voluntary schools, they would find that, with the small exception of the four-fifths schools in which it was still intended that the special denominational character should remain, all the teachers would be appointed in one way. That being so, they were bound to see to it that at all events it should not be felt to be inappropriate for the local authority to ascertain that the qualifications which such teachers ought to possess did exist before appointing them to a particular duty. The noble Lord and others had quoted the rule laid down in 1894 by the London School Board as showing the temptations that should be avoided in the difficult task of making appointments. That rule laid down—
  "That the religious opinions of teachers are not to influence their selection, nomination, appointment, or promotion; nor are teachers or candidates for appointments as teachers to be subjected to any Question with reference to their religious beliefs, or as to the possession or otherwise of certificates which may be taken as indicative of their belonging to any denomination, nor are inquiries to be made into the beliefs of teachers by the council or board or any other persons connected with the board."
  He should not have put it in that way. but he was prepared frankly to accept the principle embodied in those words as regarded the appointment to a school or promotion, but he distinguished between that and the specific and definite duty of giving religious instruction. The religious instruction given in London under the London School Board and the London County Council was frequently excellent, and was given by persons for the most part trained in colleges which were now threatened and which, at all events, were not likely to find it easy to serve the nation so well as they had served it in the past. He hoped that that fear would be unfounded, and that everyone would rally to the support of the colleges,

  1453
  but if it should happen that colleges were to be multiplied in which teachers had no opportunity of gaining definite religious instruction, the difficulty of finding teachers properly qualified for the high and sacred work of specific religious teaching would become weekly and hourly greater. He desired to guard against the possibility of the idea that this Bill laid down some kind of implied or supposed embargo on the local authorities which prevented them from satisfying themselves to the full as to the qualifications of those persons who were to give definite religious instruction upon which almost everything else depended.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 7. line 8, after the word 'worship ' to insert the words, ' It shall be the duty of the local education authority to satisfy themselves us to the qualification of any teacher to whom is assigned by them the giving of religious instruction under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Earl of Camperdown did not think I was wanting in courtesy to him when I expressed the opinion that the last discussion had taken a time disproportionate to its importance. I ought to apologise to him—
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl need not.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Because I had in my mind the discussion likely to arise on this Amendment, which I think he will agree somewhat further relieves the situation on the particular point, of the conscience clause. We all find ourselves in general sympathy with the proposition as stated by the right rev. Primate in his speech. We have always drawn a marked distinction between the imposition of a test and the making of a discovery whether a particular person is fitted to give a particular kind of teaching. They are obviously different things. This was made clear by my right hon. friend so long ago as May last. Mr. Balfour then asked a question whether. the words in Clause 7, Section 2, as it then was, which said that—
  " A teacher employed in an public elementary school shall not be required as a condition of
  1454
  his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed,"
  excluded or were intended to exclude inquiries as to the fitness of the teacher to give the religious instruction contemplated under the Bill or whether they were merely intended to prevent such subscriptions to dogmatic formularies as used to be required in the case of University fellowships, but which have never been required in the case of elementary teachers. My right hon. friend answered—
  "So far as intention is concerned the answer must be in the negative. No restraint is intended to be placed on the local authority in satisfying itself that teachers who undertake to give religious instruction are not unqualified to give it."
  My Lords, I imagine that there will be no disagreement with that proposition. It is clear that the minds of all of us would recoil from the idea of teaching of this kind being given by people who ostentatiously professed disbelief in it. Anything which can be done along the lines that we have laid down to prevent that we shall cheerfully do. I have here an alternative form of words which we prefer to those of the right rev. Primate. He says—
  "It shall be the duty of the local education authority to satisfy themselves as to the qualification of any teacher to whom is assigned by them the giving of religious instruction under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."
  We are once more somewhat averse to placing this as a duty on the local education authority, a duty which it is perfectly obvious cannot be enforced. If the local authority take a different conception of their duty from that which we in this House might take, there is obviously no means of bringing the difference home to them. Consequently we propose these words—
  "Provided that nothing in this Act shall prevent the local education authority from satisfying themselves as to the fitness of any person who is willing to undertake to give religious instruction of the character permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."
  I think the right rev. Primate will see that the difference is not an important one, but we prefer that form of words for the reason I have mentioned, and we distinctly prefer the phrase "any person who is willing to undertake" to the

  1455
  phrase of the right rev. Primate "the teacher to whom is assigned by them."
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid the words had only just been given to him and it was difficult to say whether they were sufficient. Prima facie he felt that the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had gone some way to meet him, and he should be inclined to accept the words. The last thing he wanted to do was anything that imposed an unfair strain or difficulty upon the local authority. If they did anything to guard themselves against what experience had shown to be extreme action on the part of a few, it ought never to be said that they were trying to cast a slur upon the local authorities. Trusting them as he did, he was prepared to withdraw his own Amendment and accept the form of words suggested by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I understand we are only dealing with this particular Amendment of the right rev. Primate's without prejudice to the Amendments that follow it.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: That is so.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am glad to hear the right rev. Primate say he accepts the proposal of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. The Lord President's formula seems to be a weaker one than that of the right rev. Primate's, but I do not desire to quarrel with him as to the precise words of the subsection. What we care about is that the principle should be accepted. The words proposed by the Lord President of the Council do appear to us to accept the principle for which the right rev. Primate is contending. He draws, and I think rightly draws, a distinction between the conditions attached to the initial appointment of a teacher and the conditions under which a teacher may have assigned to him from time to time the duty of giving the religious instruction of a particular kind. I think we are all agreed that we do not desire, so far as the initial appointment is concerned, that
  1456
  there shall be, so far as these particular schools are concerned, anything which can properly be called a test, anything like a requirement to subscribe to certain formulas or creeds, but in regard to the discharge of the teachers' duties, when he is, as it were, told off to give religious instruction of a particular sort, then it does become the duty of the local education authority to satisfy themselves that the teacher is competent and willing to give the religion s instruction desired. That principle seems to me to be admitted in the formula suggested by the Lord President of the Council; therefore all that we desire is to reserve to ourselves the right to consider it further if we find there is any objection that can be raised to its wording.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid the noble Marquess had stated that they were all agreed on this point. He thought there were some noble Lords who could not assent to the proposition that in a Clause † school the teachers to be appointed should be appointed without reference to the doctrines they were to teach. The noble Marquess had drawn a distinction between teachers appointed to the staff and those appointed to give religious instruction. He could not assent to that distinction.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Duke will look at the Amendment he will see that it deals entirely with Cowper-Temple schools.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 8, after the word ' worship to insert the words ' Provided that nothing in this Act shall prevent the local education authority from satisfying themselves as to the fitness of any person who is willing to undertake to give religious instruction of the character permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: MY Lords, I had hoped that we should have made more progress to-night, but the subject raised by the right rev. Primate in his next

  1457
  Amendment is of such, great importance and so far reaching in its character that I think, subject to his desire to go on, it would be wiser to adjourn at this moment.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am quite willing to meet the noble Earl's wishes.
  House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, at a quarter past Four o'clock.