Lords Sitting of 10 July 1907

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [H.L.]; Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Commons' Amendments considered and agreed to.
Central London Railway Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 20th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. [No. 106]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill. [No. 107]; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill. [No. 108.] Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Portobello and Musselburgh Tramways (Levenhall Extension) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
COLONIES-ANNUAL.
No. 527. Ceylon.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the accounts of local authorities.
Vol. I. Report.
Vol. II. Minutes of evidence; with digest of evidence and index to evidence.

TREATY SERIES.
No. 16. (1907.) Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium supplementing Article XIV. of the Treaty of Extradition of 29th October, 1901; signed at London, 5th March, 1907. (Ratifications exchanged at London, 17th April, 1907.)
No 17. (1907.) Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Costa Rica for the exchange of postal money orders; signed at San José de Costa Rica, 26th April, 1907.

TRADE REPORTS—MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
No. 662. (Imports into Mexico from the United Kingdom and Germany.)

LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade—
I. Amending the East Sussex Light Railway Orders, 1901 and 1905.
II. Reviving the powers granted and extending the periods limited by the Central Essex Light Railway Orders, 1901 to 1905, for the compulsory purchase of lands and extending the periods limited by those orders for the completion of the railways and works thereby authorised.
Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway Company to construct and work their authorised railways as a light railway under the Light Railways Act, 1896, and for other purposes.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUPERANNUATION.
Treasury Minute, dated 5th July, 1907, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Director of the National Galleries of Scotland professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service are required: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION (ROYSTON NON-PROVIDED SCHOOL).
Return of official correspondence relating to the appeal of the managers of the Royston Church of England School against the refusal of the local education authority to consent to the appointment of Mr. O. B. Milnes as head teacher of the school: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of the 27th of June last), and to be printed. (No. 103.)
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 104). Minutes of evidence, together with an appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.

THE MERCHANT SERVICE.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the alleged shortage of officers engaged in the merchant service; to the conditions under which those officers labour; to a resolution adopted at the last annual meeting of the Chamber of Shipping, calling upon the Board of Trade to remove any obstacles and give greater facilities to men desiring to obtain certificates of competency as second officers; to a proposal of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association that the qualifying time for a second officer's certificate be reduced from four to three years; and to ask what attitude the Board of Trade propose to adopt on these several matters.
I am calling attention to this subject, not so much in the interests of British shipowners—who are well able to look after their own interests—but in the interests of the country, of safety of life at sea, of the further development of our shipping trade, and in the interests of those who devote themselves to a hard life at sea. Though we are getting nearer to it every day, we seem, as yet, far from able to realise the importance to the nation of our merchant service and of those engaged in it. Our food supply mainly depends upon it: our Army depends upon it for transport, and without it our troops are useless for operations outside these islands; our ships in the Royal Navy and our Naval depots abroad depend on it for coal and
1540
all other supplies, whilst in its officers and men we have a Reserve which is certain to be called on whenever we are engaged in a maritime war. Therefore, when we hear of a shortage of officers in our merchant service it is, I venture to think, a subject which should be brought to your Lordships' notice. I say this more especially as the schemes which are mooted for the purpose of creating an artificial supply will tend to produce large numbers of inefficient and inexperienced officers, and this would greatly endanger life at sea.
When we are travelling on the high seas we entrust our lives to the care of the captain or officer on the bridge. We naturally expect that he is fully competent, careful, and, above all, an experienced and resourceful navigator. But if we allow these so-called schemes, proposing to make it much more easy to obtain certificates of competency, to slip through, we shall find that we have, without a protest, reduced the standard of safety and lessoned the efficiency of those who, as officers of merchant vessels, have such serious responsibilities vested in them so far as life and property are concerned. It is this attempt to tamper with efficient and safe navigation that has caused the Merchant Service Guild to address emphatic protests to the Board of Trade.
I understand that the proposal of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association is to reduce the period of qualifying time for a second officer's certificate from four to three years. I hope that the Board of Trade will not entertain this proposal for a single moment. It is a very serious change of front that the British shipowner, who hitherto has always required men of experience, should now urge that three years training is sufficient to enable a youth to become a full-fledged officer and take his place on the bridge with many lives in his hands. Then, again, the Chamber of Shipping, which is the representative body of British shipowners, requests the Board of Trade to remove obstacles and give greater facilities for second mates—the lowest certificated grade—to obtain such certificates. I trust that the Board of Trade are not going to allow themselves to be hoodwinked in this matter, and lend their aid

1541
to methods and schemes which are proposed, not in the interests of safety or efficiency, as we have that already, but for the purpose of once more glutting the market with captains and officers who will have to accept employment on any conditions.
We have a striking contrast to the present attitude of the British shipowner when we turn to Japan, where cadets for the mercantile marine are drawn from the most successful scholars in the higher schools. Two and a-half years they must spend at the Imperial National College at Tokio, and they receive there thorough instruction in navigation and seamanship. Then there is six months in gunnery training at the naval depot, from whence the youths proceed to a Japanese seagoing training ship for two years. Then a further six months must be spent on a steamship. It therefore takes them five and a-half years before they can pass for second officer, and, on doing so, they are entered in the Naval Reserve. Japan has lately taught a lesson in maritime war to the world. When war is going on between other countries we send accredited representatives of our forces to learn the lessons of failure and success. But what I would like to know is, do we ever send representatives to ascertain what part the merchant services of other countries play during the struggle? I venture to think that inquiries would show that Japan's merchant service officers proved a very valuable asset at the time to which I allude.
Reverting to our own service, I may say that our shipowners have now got hold of the wrong end of the stick. They will never do any good for themselves or their interests by promoting a a large supply of immature officers. The plain fact is that owing to their treatment of captains and officers in past years, the calling of the sea has become absolutely discredited so far as its conditions are concerned. it seems a pity to have to say it, but we cannot ignore facts, and the difficulty is best solved by looking them square in the face. Niggardly pay, inferior, insufficient, and perhaps insanitary accommodation, no guarantee of continuous employment, dismissals for trivial or no reasons, unjust suspensions of certificates, no leave from their arduous duties, continuous labour from day to day and night
1542
to night, frequent Sunday labour, long absences from home and friends and families, absence of proper rest through an insufficiency of officers on board — many ships carry only two officers—these and other reasons, combined with the fact that a good deal of the romance of the sea is dead, are responsible for the present position of which British shipowners complain.
Had I no regard for your Lordships' patience, I could give at great length the actual experiences of captains and officers which have been placed in my hands merely as samples, and which show what bad treatment members of the nautical profession receive. The existence of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild to-day is for no other reason than that members of the profession, tired of hoping for proper consideration, joined in forming; an organisation which, I am glad to say, has succeeded in doing an immense amount of good for them. But there is much more to be done, and it is for the Legislature and for British shipowners to co-operate in the work.
If your Lordships will allow me, I will refer to a few instances of the treatment of merchant service captains and officers. A case has lately come to my notice where a captain of a sailing vessel arrived home after a voyage of over four years. The size of the ship was over 2,000 tons and the owners, who are well known, assess his pay at £12 10s. per month, or we may say £3 3s. a week, whilst they deduct 15s. per week for the time his wife was on board. One of the leading shipowners on the north-east coast and a gentleman well-known in Parliamentary circles pays the masters of some of his large steamers at the rate of £13 per month, making them find their own charts, which are pretty expensive, and return to the owners all gratuities and commissions they may receive. From £15 to £16 per month is very common pay for masters of large vessels, and an accident usually means that they must start elsewhere as an officer at £6 to £7 per month. I have a letter from an officer who says—
"One hears a lot at present about the scarcity of officers, but I am thinking it is a bit of a fairy tale, for I can assure you for the last two months during which I have been out and looking for employment, I have come across a good number who are in the same position as myself at present."

1543
Quite recently, eight masters in the steamers of one of the leading and largest firms in the country threw up their positions and returned home rather than submit to the treatment they received. An announcement recently appeared in the Press to the effect that they had increased the pay of their officers all round, and the new rates were given. This has been a paper increase, as I am advised that in most cases the increase is conspicuous by its absence. As showing how little shipowners have advanced with the times in the matter of remuneration I may tell your Lordships that, according to official figures, and despite all the wonderful developments in connection with merchant ships, both in regard to size and the immense amount of additional work which has to be carried on on board of them by our merchant officers at the present time, their pay is much as it was twenty-five years ago.
A subject which I have previously brought to your Lordships' notice is that of accommodation provided on board for officers. In most cases, both in liners and other vessels, the accommodation provided for officers is very inferior. I have been looking over the annual report lately issued by Dr. Howard Jones, Medical Officer of Health for the port of Newport, Monmouthshire. These are certain observations in an extract from this Report referring to merchant ships. Dr. Jones says—
"After the vessels have been passed by the Board of Trade and arrive at a British port during a voyage, they come under the observation of the Port Sanitary Authority, and it is not an uncommon occurrence for the latter to insist on structural alterations, in order to remedy nuisances soon after being passed by the Board of Trade. This is naturally a source of annoyance and expense to the owners, and an unpleasant duty on the part of the Port Sanitary Officials.…Officers' quarters also frequently exhibit gross errors in design in this respect; as will be seen by the following example: —
" 'January 27th, S.S.M. — I—, newly launched. The officers quarters afforded accommodation for nine officers, etc; one w. c. adjoining captain's cabin, and separated from latter by thin matchboard partition, which allowed test gases to pass between the boards freely.' "
As illustrating the work that an officer is expected to perform, I have before me the case of an officer of a large steamer in receipt of £8 per month as pay. The steamer being at anchor, this officer had been tallying cargo from 8 a.m. until
1544
10 p.m., or rather, by the time he had seen that hatches were on and attended to other details, it was 11 p.m. On the following day he had to start work at 6 a.m. and tally cargo until 8.30 a.m.; after half an hour for breakfast he continued tallying until about 1 p.m. After an interval of an hour for dinner the tallying was carried on till 6 p.m., and after tea the work was proceeded with until 11.30 p.m., when this officer and the third officer were told that they would have to keep on working watch and watch—that is, one would require to relieve the other every four hours. In the steamers which carry two officers only—and there are very many—the approximate amount of duty an officer must put in per diem is something like fourteen or fifteen hours. In ports abroad, or where vessels are engaged in trading between a large number of ports only shortly removed from each other— such, for instance, as the Mediterranean trade—the physical strain imposed upon the officers in regard to hours of labour is intolerable, and whilst stevedores and others engaged in the work of cargo, as also seamen and firemen, are paid overtime, this, in practically all cases, does not apply to the officers.
I have a letter by me from a member of the profession, who speaks of his trade being one where they load out for five to eight ports and take others for loading homewards, frequently touching at twelve to fifteen ports in a six weeks voyage. This gentleman, who is a shipmaster, says that on Sunday work is becoming more and more prevalent instead of less, and though the owners in this case pay overtime, thereby setting, an example to many other lines of ships, yet it is said that the two officers of this particular ship are frequently very fagged when the ship is ready for sea. It does not say very much for the sea as a lucrative profession when we see officers with extra masters' certificates, Royal Naval Reserve commissions, and other qualifications, who have been four or five years in leading lines and whose total service at sea has been probably ten or twelve years, earning the munificent remuneration of £8 per month, with expensive uniform to provide.
We should remember that "tramp'' steamers—the word "tramp" is a very

1545
unfortunate and misleading appellation —represent over 80 per cent. of the shipping industry. It is not only in these, but in almost all the large lines that officers bitterly complain of their treatment. Promotion is very slow, their pay is poor and certainly not what it should be having regard to their enormous responsibilities, they are relegated to take their meals in inferior mess-rooms, lodged probably amongst steerage passengers and humiliated in other ways. They must provide them selves with expensive uniform, and altogether the lot of the "liner" officer is very different from what people imagine when they see him in uniform on the bridge or about the decks.
I say remove all this discontent and give proper inducements for the right sort of boy to outer on a sea life and the shipowner need never fear for an adequate supply of officers in the future. And let him treat them as men and as gentlemen and his interests will be well rewarded. The Merchant Service Guild tell mo that it is no uncommon thing to lay courteous representations before firms of shipowners which do not elicit even an acknowledgment. This sort of thing is not calculated to make things better or to promote that kindly feeling between employer and employee which is so desirable. Furthermore, I have it on the authority of the Guild that there is no real lack of officers. They inform me that for any position where, say, £8 or £9 per month is offered, any number of suitable officers can be had. Surely if such small pay as this can command an ample supply there is not much basis for the cry about a shortage of officers.
I hope to hear that the Board of Trade will unhesitatingly oppose any proposals which will tamper with the efficiency and safety of merchant ships. We require to maintain capable and highly experienced captains and officers in them such as we have now. It will be an ill day for this country when we reduce the standard in this respect, and thus not only still further endanger life at sea, but play into the hands of other maritime Powers whose fierce competition appears to be of such great moment to the British shipowners at the present time.
*THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I am sure we all admit our indebtedness to the merchant service in the building up of this great Empire and for their valuable services during the South African war. With regard to the points raised by the noble Lord, the Board of Trade are inclined to agree that there is no shortage of officers. There may be some slight shortage in the coasting trade, in regard to which we have received complaints from junior officers, especially as to the rate of pay and Sunday work, but the Board do not think that that condition is very prevalent in the foreign trade. I can give a very simple answer to the noble Lord's inquiry as to the intention of the Board of Trade with regard to the examination for second-mate's certificates. The Board have no intention whatever of departing from the present rule as to sea service before a man is able to take out his certificate. He will still have to serve four years at sea before he can go up for his second mate's certificate, though the rule is somewhat modified in the case of boys serving in the training ships "Conway" and "Worcester," who can sit for their certificates after three years. As I am on this point I may inform your Lordships that though the number of second-mate certificates taken out has shown a decrease in recent years, yet while in 1905 only 616 such certificates were issued, last year this number had increased to 759. With regard to the training of boys for the British mercantile marine, a Committee is now sitting at the Board of Trade with the object of, if possible, evolving some plan by which boys of British nationality may be more attracted to the sea. It seems to me that the only way to get boys for this purpose is to make the following of the sea attractive. Until that is done I am afraid we shall find it very hard to increase the number of British subjects serving in our mercantile marine.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I was exceedingly glad to hear so satisfactory an answer from the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade. I confess I was under some apprehension that the qualification, as tested by examination, of second mate officers was to be reduced. Such a course would

1547
have increased the dangers of navigation. I agree that there is no shortage of officers. There is, however, among many shipowners a shortage of inducements both to enter and to remain in the service, and that ought not to be met by any reduction of the standard of examination.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the Answer of the noble Earl was a satisfactory one, and I rise merely for the purpose of expressing my hope that the Board of Trade will adhere to their attitude, and be extremely careful not in any way to relax their requirements in regard to the efficiency and competency of these officers. The matter, as the noble Lord who brought this subject to our notice this evening truly said, is not one which we ought to consider merely from the point of view either of officers or shipowners. It is a question which concerns the carrying trade of the country and the lives of all who serve in these ships or travel on board of them. It is, therefore, of great Imperial moment. I understand that the shipowners allege a shortage of officers, and are putting pressure on the Board of Trade to obtain relaxation of the conditions on which the Board of Trade have insisted. On the other side it is urged—and, so far as I can make out, with much force—that this shortage does not exist, or is not so serious as has been represented, and that the inducements offered to young men to join the service have not improved in the same degree as those in other professions. I must say that some figures which have been shown to me seem to support the latter contention. I hope we shall bear in mind that the carrying trade of this country is a matter of the greatest possible moment, and that nothing will be done which might, directly or indirectly, tend to diminish the efficiency of the mercantile service of these islands.

IRISH EVICTED TENANTS.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose to move for a Return giving the names of the evicted tenants in Ireland whom His Majesty's Government intend to restore, the date of their eviction, a statement as to whether they were or were not Plan of Campaign tenants, whether they were judicial tenants or not, the amount of rent in arrear when they were evicted,
1548
the name of the landlord, and the town-land, parish, barony, and county in which their holdings were situated.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I venture to call your attention this evening for a few moments to a very important subject, but not one which His Majesty's Government considered of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament, although that Speech contained references of more than usual importance to Ireland. The Motion has been on the Paper for a considerable time, and was put down before the introduction of the Evicted Tenants Bill in another place, to which I have no intention of referring; I do not propose to criticise the machinery of of that measure or to comment on the debates in the other House, though I am very much tempted to do so by the speech delivered by the new Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture upon the Second Reading, which contained some of the most fantastic statements about this matter I have ever heard. I do not wish, however, to anticipate a debate that may very likely take place in this House later on in the session, though according to the progress His Majesty's Government are making with business in another place I do not think we are likely to receive the Bill until well on towards the end of September.
Your Lordships will remember that considerable notice was taken of the question of the evicted tenants in 1903 during the passing of the Irish Land Act of that year, and we are told that in that year a bargain was entered into for the restoration of the evicted tenants. But I do not think that some of the speakers who have raised the question of this bargain have entirely recollected what the nature of that bargain was. We are asked to believe that the bargain was that the evicted tenants were to be restored; we are almost asked to believe that that was the primary object of the Act of 1903, and we are accused of having broken that bargain.
Now, what was the bargain? It originated in a paragraph in the Land Conference Report saying that any project for the solution of the Irish land question should be accompanied by

1549
a settlement of the evicted tenants question upon an equitable basis. Your Lorships will notice the words "should be accompanied." It was distinctly agreed that the solution of this question should proceed pari passu with the solution of the whole land question. There was no suggestion that this question was to be settled in priority to all others; nor was it suggested that any inconvenience was to be caused to landowners or to other tenants by the settling of the question. The settlement was to proceed on voluntary lines, and upon the giving of, to quote the words of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, an honest price. I think we in Ireland have very great reason to be grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the use of that phrase, but I do not think that His Majesty's Government will be very pleased by the end of the session that the phrase was ever used. I am perfectly certain that some of their supporters will be extremely angry that it was used, because nearly the whole of the agitation which is now going on in Ireland has for its object the avoidance of an honest price.
We stated in 1903 that we had no objection to the restoration of evicted tenants, but we claimed that the restoration should be undertaken only on estates where sales were taking place; and that fact was recognised by the Government of the day, as is shown by the Regulation made by the Lord-Lieutenant to the effect that—
"The Estates Commissioners should only consider the question of providing a holding for a tenant evicted from any holding comprised in an estate, upon the sale of that estate."
That condition carried out the undertaking accepted on all sides in 1903, and it was broken by .Mr. Bryce, who entirely on his own initiative altered the Regulation so as to remove the limitation.
The second condition of the bargain was that the process should be entirely voluntary. Sections 2 and 8 of the Act under which these proceedings take place state quite clearly that parcels of land may be purchased for, among other purposes, the benefit of evicted tenants, and it was made quite clear that no loss was to be incurred by the landlord and that no pressure was to be brought on the landlord or on any other tenant. This part of the bargain has not been
1550
kept. It is common knowledge in Ireland that pressure is being brought to bear on landlords by the Estates Commissioners to restore their evicted tenants, under the threat that if they do not their estate will not be declared an estate and that they will not therefore obtain their share of the bonus. And whether that is so or not, we all know that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to break through this second condition of the bargain by legislation.
The third condition of the bargain was, in our opinion, equally important. We made it quite clear that whilst we would aid in the restoration of evicted tenants we would take no share in the dispossessing of those who had come forward during the bad times and assisted us by taking their places; and my noble friend Lord Westmeath, I remember, moved an Amendment to that effect while the Bill was passing through Committee in your Lordships House, and it was one of the few important points on which we, the Irish landlords, failed to beat the Government. But, although we failed to get these words inserted in the Bill, we obtained declarations from the Government of the day which left absolutely no room for misunderstanding. Mr. Wyndham stated in the House of Commons that the landlords' representatives had dwelt on the necessity of allowing nothing in the Bill to bring pressure to bear, directly or indirectly, on men who had taken up holdings which others had left; and to that he agreed. That position was accepted by Mr. Redmond a few days later; and the words used by the noble Marquess behind me, Lord Lansdowne, were that—
"He would be sorry to be a party to any arrangement which contemplated their abandonment and their exclusion from the holdings they now occupied."
Those were the three main features of the bargain. The first has been repudiated by the Government, the second the Government intend to repudiate, and I cannot help thinking that they would be glad to repudiate the third if they dared.
It is complained that the process of restoration under the Act of 1903 has been too slow. But it has gone on faster than that of dealing with estates, for it is stated in the special Report by the Estates Commissioners of their proceedings up to

1551
31st May last that the total number of evicted tenants, or other representatives, who have been restored to their former holdings or provided with new holdings up to date is 1,033, out of a total number of claims that the Government seem to have admitted of about 3,040. That rate of progress is slightly faster than the proportion of estates dealt with to estates in connection with which originating agreements have been lodged. And remember that the bargain was that the evicted tenants should be reinstated pari passu with sales as a whole. There is a remarkable paragraph in this Report in which the Estates Commissioners give their reasons for their failure. They say (paragraph 40) —
"The purchase of untenanted land under the powers given by the Act of 1903 is necessarily slow, inasmuch as it depends on the consent of the owner and proof of title to the purchase money."
I would ask permission for a moment to examine those reasons.
First, there is delay in administering the Act. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of the Government of the day in the first place, and, I suppose, of the Estates Commissioners in the second place. But is that any reason for breaking up the bargain which was acquiesced in by all parties in 1903? What is the next reason? It is that it is difficult to purchase untenanted land because it depends on the consent of the owner. Is that not left rather vague in the hope that the public will assume that owners have been recalcitrant in selling land? What is the real position? Not a single owner, at any rate but a very small percentage of owners—I have not heard of a case—have refused to sell untenanted land which was not part of their demesne if offered an honest price. But, as a matter of fact, the Estates Commissioners will not offer what I would describe as the market price of the day for the land.
I will cite a case within my own personal experience where a considerable piece of untenanted land was offered to the Estates Commissioners by a landlord for the purpose now under discussion. The landlord said to the Estates Commissioners—
"I approve of the policy of reinstating evicted tenants. The grazing tenants on this land are prepared to buy it at a certain price—at the price I want. But in my anxiety to
1552
help you I am ready to lot you have this land over their heads for the same price, because I consider it is public policy to assist you in this matter if I can."
The offer of the Estates Commissioners, given three or four months ago, was 25 per cent. below the price which the grazing tenants were ready to give, and 25 per cent., therefore, below the market price, or the honest price, to use the words of the Lord Chancellor. The Estates Commissioners cannot expect to buy grazing land, which is generally the best land in the district, unless they are prepared to give the price that the present grazing tenants are ready to pay. I am perfectly certain that there are other cases which could be produced from all over Ireland in which the Estates Commissioners have not been ready to give a fair price to the landlord, and, if that is so, it is not, I think, quite fair to state in a public document that the difficulty of obtaining untenanted land is complicated by the fact that so much depends upon the consent of the owner.
What is the position now? The number of claims have very greatly increased. At the time of the Mathew Commission in 1893 they had before them claims amounting in all to 3,639; the claims now which we understand have been made amount to 8,401. Since 1903 1,033 evicted tenants have been reinstated, and 2,000 more will have to be reinstated—a total of 3,033. Therefore it comes to this, that we are asked to believe that of the claims that were submitted to the Mathew Commission 83 per cent. were genuine. I believe nothing of the kind. If you have restored 1,033 tenants under this Act I do not believe another 2,000 genuine cases can be produced. That is why I have ventured to move the Motion standing in my name. The Government have all the information to hand. On page 10 of this Report appears a form—the form of application furnished to persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or their representatives—which practically gives all the information for which I have asked, and such being the case I hope the Government will consent to grant the Return.
The suggestion has been offered that if the Government published the names of the claims that were considered genuine now, they would got into awful

1553
trouble with their Irish supporters in the other House. But this state of things cannot go on for ever, and it would be much better to know now what claims were genuine and what were not. The Irish landlords are anxious to help the Government in restoring every genuine case under the terms of the bargain made in 1903. I realise also that the Government are in a difficult position. The failure of their Irish Council Bill has led to an estrangement among the Government, their supporters, and the Nationalists, and it has lowered the credit of the Nationalists in Ireland. It seems to be thought, however, that the proposals of the Government as to evicted tenants may be the means of re-establishing the old friendly relations, and that if the Bill were passed something would be done to rehabilitate the credit of the Nationalist leaders in Ireland. If it is the object of the Government to lend themselves to the support of such results I can understand that they will refuse the Return asked for. But if they are really anxious honestly to go forward with the arrangement of 1903 they can scarcely object to grant my request. I can promise, on behalf of my fellow-landlords, that we will continue to do our best to expedite the policy in which the Government are interested in accordance with the arrangements made four years ago.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return giving the names of the evicted tenants in Ireland whom His Majesty's Government intend to restore, the date of their eviction, a statement, as to whether they were or were not Plan of Campaign tenants, whether they were judicial tenants or not, the amount of rent in arrear when they wore evicted, the name of the landlord, and the townland, parish, barony, and county in which their holdings were situated." —(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
*LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in the effective speech to which we have just listened the noble Earl has stated some reasons, but not, after all, very many, why the Return for which he has asked should be laid on the Table. He dealt, in the course of his speech, with very many matters which are not strictly relevant to the Question he has placed on the Paper. He dealt with the Land Act
1554
of 1903, with what the Lord Chancellor had said, with what Mr. Bryce had done, with the Irish Council Bill, and with many other matters; and I would like to point out that a good many of the statements he made and the arguments he used would have been at least equally appropriate to the Second Reading stage of the Evicted Tenants Bill when that measure reaches your Lordships' House.
One thing the noble Earl said did particularly depress me. He expressed the opinion that the Evicted Tenants Bill would not reach this House until the end of September. I hope for all our sakes that that was a pessimistic and gloomy view to take, and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing that measure at any rate before the autumn is reached. I am not, of course, complaining because the noble Earl has chosen to go rather far a field from the Question on the Paper, as I know that is generally the custom in this House; but if the Committee on Procedure which is now sitting does in its Report recommend that discussion should be more strictly relevant to the Question on the Paper, and if your Lordships think fit to adopt that particular portion of the Report, I am sure no one will be more grateful than the individual, whoever he may be, who has the privilege—I suppose privilege is the right word—to be the unofficial representative of the Irish Office in your Lordships' House.
As regards the notice on the Paper, over 8,000 cases have been investigated by the Estates Commissioners, and it is estimated that some 2,000 of these will be reinstated under the Bill. The Government are unable to comply with the Motion of the noble Lord for the simple reason that it would enormously increase the difficult and the onerous task which the Estates Commissioners have already in hand. It is perfectly obvious that were we to publish the names of those 2,000 comparatively speaking fortunate people, naturally the Department would receive bitter complaints from the 5,000 or more persons whose applications had to be refused. They would compare their cases with that of those who were more fortunate than themselves. In other words, the thing would lead to endless commotion and disturbance. I am under the impression that there are plenty of people in Ireland already who have a

1555
grievance, and if we acceded to the Motion of the noble Earl we should immediately add an enormous number to that category. It is impossible for us to do business in this way. There is no desire for secrecy, but we have to adopt this course in order that we may expedite the policy of the Government of Ireland. Suppose we were to publish those names, then the 8,000 cases would have to be reopened. In the majority of cases I have no doubt they would have to be heard again. If only two hours were spent on each particular case, the labour entailed would amount to the work of years. Therefore, we say that the matter must be left to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, who are skilled in this particular class of work.
The noble Earl expressed the belief that a large proportion of the 2,000 cases are not genuine; in other words, he implied that the Estates Commissioners are not an impartial tribunal to adjudicate upon this question. As noble Lords from Ireland know, the Estates Commissioners are three in number, and owing to the large duties which they were given under the Land Act of 1903, a considerable amount of attention has been directed to their individual opinions on political matters. One of these gentlemen, Mr. Wrench, is commonly known as a landlords' man, and Mr. Bailey is, I believe, known as a tenants' man. The third Commissioner, Mr. Finucane, was a distinguished Indian Civil Servant, and has a very high record of service, having served for over thirty years with great distinction in that part of the Empire. I cannot see what ground there is for impugning the impartiality of these three gentlemen.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do not think I said anything which could be taken as impugning their impartiality. What I said was that I did not think there were 2,000 genuine cases remaining. It has been the common opinion in Ireland for years that the number of cases was very much less than 3,033.
*LORD DENMAN: I am glad to hear that disclaimer, but when the noble Earl said that a large number of these cases were not genuine, it did appear that he was making an attack upon
1556
the Commissioners. I am glad to hear that that is not so. I would remind the House that these gentlemen were appointed by the late Government to do almost identically similar work to that which they are now performing, and which they are performing in relation to the question of evicted tenants. As the noble Earl has mentioned the special Report which they have lately made, I would point out that they have all three signed the Report, and, so far as I know, they have been in complete agreement on the matter.
Then the noble Earl raised the general question of the policy of His Majesty's Government. I do not intend to go into that; it would perhaps, be hardly appropriate for me to do so in the subordinate position which I hold in relation to this matter. But I should like to call the attention of the House to some remarks which were made by a very distinguished authority on the subject when the Land Act of 1903 was before Parliament. He put it very concisely. He said—
"In dealing with the category of those who once had an occupying tendency in land and lost it, they must not stop to inquire for what reason, or under what circumstances, they lost their tenancies. They could not pick out here and there those who were misguided, others who had been fraudulent, and others who had been misled. If they did they were raking up the past. They must look beyond this, that it was desirable, if they could, to give these men another chance."
THE EARL OF MAYO: Who said that?
*LORD DENMANMr. Wyndham in the House of Commons when the Act of 1903 was before Parliament. That is exactly the policy of the Government to-day—to give these men another chance. It very often happens in the stress of modern life that men do not get another chance; but if hardship, suffering, and privation do give them a claim upon the sympathy of those whose lot in life has fallen in pleasanter places, then I believe there are no class of men to whom the average Englishman would more readily hold out a helping hand than the evicted tenants of Ireland.
*LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down invited your Lordships, in the closing

1557
words of his speech, to express sympathy with the evicted tenants in Ireland. I am not aware that my noble friend who moved this Motion said anything calculated to show a lack of sympathy with these tenants or of a desire that relief should be given to those who fairly came within that category. While sympathising with the evicted tenants and desiring to see a fair measure of relief given there should be no mistake as to the issues involved in this matter. It is said that we must trust to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners. We fully recognise, of course, that they are honourable men, and we are prepared to trust choir discretion in a reasonable way. But now it is proposed to make the discretion of the Commissioners boundless, in a way never contemplated when the Act of 1903 was passed. The Return already furnished is interesting and, so far as it goes, valuable; but it is not complete, and it needs supplementing. And with reference to the objection that the Return asked for would entail work, surely it is reasonable that a public Department should employ some of their public time in meeting a public demand, which is for legitimate information. There may be something in the objection to giving all the names, but there are other particulars for which we have a right to press with considerable insistence.
It is mentioned incidentally that there were seventeen Plan of Campaign estates, and that in fifteen of these the landlords have voluntarily settled. Does not that let in a flood of light as to the way in which the landlords have met the poor tenants who were duped into the action which led to their eviction? Surely it is creditable to the landlords to the last degree, and it indicates, as has been pointed out, that the landlords wore willing to meet the demand, subject only to the condition that they obtained an honest price. One of the two campaign estates in connection with which there has been no settlement is the Lewis estate, county Galway, and the reason for the efforts of the Commissioners to effect a settlement proving fruitless in this case was that the representatives of the landlord said they could not afford to sell unless they were given the price which they asked. The matter was ended by the Estates Com-
1558
missioners saying that they would not give that price. Surely that is a point which should be dealt with at greater length in the Report.
There has been an enormous increase year by year in the class of evicted tenants. It seems to have become a matter of business to be an evicted tenant. There are thousands of tenants in Ireland with farms of five, ten, or fifteen acres poorly equipped, and if it is declared that evicted tenants are to be given substantial farms, organised and well equipped, and have house and offices built for them, it is a great temptation to these people to become evicted tenants. Therefore it is desirable to know how the Commissioners have exercised their discretion in the past in reference to tenants who have been evicted, not only in the Plan of Campaign, but in the ordinary course of law for the non-payment of rent.
The reasons that have been given for delay are curious. In the paragraph in the Report which my noble friend Lord Donoughmore referred to the delay was attributed to the fact that the consent of the owner and proof of title to the purchase money had to be obtained; but in the earlier portion of the same paragraph it is pointed out that the evicted tenants were unwilling to take land at a distance from their former holdings. Surely it is rendered oven more desirable to become an evicted tenant if the tenant is to be not only restored to a bigger farm than before and to have it equipped, but to be given the choice of where he should be placed. The Report indicates that over 2,000 claims have been rejected, and the grounds on which they have been rejected suggest to me that many people did not know where to stop in making their applications. It seemed to be generally thought that a great many elastic claims would be considered, and that one man stood as good a chance as another. I do not think that the notice which claimants were required to fill up was sufficiently precise, and I think I should have required the applicants to sign a more detailed form.
We are also entitled to know the dates of eviction; that is a date of first-class importance which it could do no harm to anyone to publish. Surely in the case of a man evicted twenty-five years before

1559
the Act of 1903 came into force, who had been all over the world and done nothing in particular ever since, it would not be reasonable to consider putting him back on the farm and displacing the occupying tenant who had probably been working, and toiling, and tilling for the past twenty years. I do not discuss that, but it is obviously desirable to have these dates for our guidance in forming a judgment. Another point on which we want information is as to what arrears—this is not confined to Plan of Campaign tenants— were due by the evicted tenant when he left the holding. Then I think it would be important to know what is the present position of the applicant, what he has been doing from the time he was evicted, whether he has been thrifty or thriftless, what he is doing now, his age, and other circumstances about him; and it would also be desirable to know whether each holding on which evicted tenants have been placed was at the time of the restoration in the possession of another tenant. The date should also be indicated when the new tenants came into possession.
This is a large question, and I submit that it does not display a want of sympathy with the evicted tenants to ask how you are going to work the Code intended for their benefit. We cannot say, except by the merest speculation, how the Estates Commissioners have exercised their great functions without the information, or a good deal of the information, for which I ask. I take things as I find them. I take the circumstances of the case now before the country, and I say that we are entitled to further information to enable us to judge how the Estates Commissioners have exercised the vast discretion entrusted to them, particularly at a time when it is suggested that further discretion of a sweeping character, and without appeal, should be given to them. It is impossible not to disappoint people. I have no doubt that the 2,000 or 2,500 applicants whose claims do not stand investigation and who have to be sent empty away will be full of sorrow and grief, but in this world you cannot please everybody. The art of saying "no" is one of the things a Minister must learn, and the sooner "no" is said in this case the better, because it will prevent these men continuing to entertain hopes which are only
1560
doomed to disappointment. I have no desire to cause embarrassment to the Government, but I hope the Government will indicate willingness to furnish in some form the information upon which those interested can base their judgment.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, into the general question, however interesting and fascinating, I do not propose to enter. In fact, I do not see how anyone can very well do so without transgressing the rule against commenting on a Bill which is before the other House. But I wish to guard against the possible misapprehension that might arise as to my own views upon one point.
My noble friend Lord Donoughmore quoted a recommendation of the Land Conference to the effect that any measure for the settlement of the land question should be accompanied by a settlement of the evicted tenant question on an equitable basis; and my noble friend argued from that that the reinstatement of evicted tenants should proceed pari passu. with the sale of the estates. With that in a general way I do not cavil; but I do not wish it for a moment to be imagined that I assume that the evicted tenants, or a certain number of them, who ought to be restored to their holdings or given other holdings, are not to be so restored until the last estate in Ireland has been sold. That would be quite apart from my idea. On the contrary, I think this question of evicted tenants is an urgent phase of the agrarian question in Ireland, and I do not wish it to be assumed that in my opinion the restoration of evicted tenants should be delayed until the whole transfer of land in Ireland is concluded. Nor am I sure that I am quite in agreement with my noble friend as to one part of the bargain of the Land Conference being that restorations should only occur on estates as they were sold. That is not quite my impression. I agree with him, however, that the reinstatement of an evicted tenant should be solely for the purpose of his purchasing, but I do not go so far as my noble friend in holding the opinion that he should only be restored on the sale of the estate.
As to the Motion on the Paper, I must admit that I sympathise a good deal with the noble Lord who

1561
represents the Irish Office, for I honestly do not think that any one of your Lordships could have gathered from this Motion that my noble friend was going to call attention to the special Report of the Estates Commissioners. With regard to the Motion itself, I am not very much surprised at the Government's demurring to give these Returns. I should like to ask my noble friend this: Supposing he gets them, what will he do with them? My noble and learned friend who has just sat down mentioned other points on which he thought information was desirable, but the most important information is that asked for in the Motion itself. But what are your Lordships to do when you get the names and addresses of the 2,000 tenants whom His Majesty's Government propose to restore, and the various other particulars con-corning them? Are we going to sit in judgment on the list and comment upon the decisions of the Estates Commissioners and say whether those tenants should be reinstated or not? If that is to be the object surely we ought to know the particulars of all the claimants, otherwise how is it possible to judge properly?
What I think my noble and learned friend really requires is to know what data the Estates Commissioners took into consideration in settling whether a tenant should be restored or not, and I am bound to say I think further information on that point might be very useful to the House. As to the publication of the names and addresses and the other particulars of these 2,000 people, I confess that I think it would lead to a great deal of confusion and heartburning in Ireland, and I cannot see what practical purpose would be achieved by the publication of that Return. Therefore, I support His Majesty's Government in not agreeing to the Motion of my noble friend.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: Notwithstanding what the noble Earl who has just sat down, and who was chairman of the Land Conference, has said, I shall, as one of the members of that Conference, adhere to the statement of my noble friend Lord Donoughmore as to one part of the bargain being that any prospect for the solution of the Irish land question should be accompanied by a settlement of the evicted tenants question on equitable principles; and when the
1562
Evicted Tenants Bill reaches this House I hope care will be taken that it is dealt with on an equitable basis, and on the terms referred to the other day by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. We have asked for a Return of the 2,000 evicted tenants, and the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office said that if this Return wore granted they would have to go into all the claims of all the others and so again into the whole question. I should like to ask, have the Government settled who these 2,000 tenants are, or have they not? The murder will out some day. The Government seem to be in a funk lost the other 6,000 tenants fall upon thorn and say, "Pat Murphy is being restored; why should not another Pat be restored as well?" During the debate in 1903, Mr. John Dillon said the evicted tenants in Ireland were only about 400, and Mr. Redmond stated that £100,000 would settle the whole thing. That was very different from this scheme. This scheme will cost a million—
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): May I ask whether the noble Lord is not going beyond this Motion and discussing the Evicted Tenants Bill?
*THE EARL OF MAYO: The Government propose to reinstate 2,000 tenants, and I was dealing with that matter.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl is only entitled to deal with the question raised by the noble Lord on the Front Bench.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: I will, then, deal with another matter. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government labelled one Commissioner a landlords' man and another a tenants' man, and said that the third was an official from India. I have had dealings with these Estates Commissioners and can testify to the fact that they have acted all through those dealings in a straightforward manner. I think it is curious that the labelling of these Commissioners should come from the other side of the House. We have every confidence in the Commissioners, The reason the evicted tenants have had to be dealt with on this enormous scale is that the Government, through the Lord-Lieutenant, have altered the rules

1563
made in dealing with this question, and the efforts of the Commissioners have been diverted from land purchase to dealing with these evicted tenants. We have asked for this Return because we have a strong suspicion that a great many of these cases have been manufactured, and manufactured in consequence of the orders given by the Lord-Lieutenant. Lord Denman quoted from a speech by Mr. Wyndham in the House of Commons in 1903, in which he spoke of giving the evicted tenants another chance. I contend that it was giving them another chance under the bargain of 1903. But that is quite a different thing from dealing with evicted tenants in the present manner. Therefore I do not think the noble Lord had any right to quote the words of Mr. Wyndham in connection with the new state of things which has come about in consequence of the alteration of the rules of the Estates Commissioners.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl who has just sat down did not in any way resent my interrupting him, but, as a matter of fact, this debate has wandered over a somewhat large field, and even the noble Earl who initiated it, in spite of the self-denying ordinance with which he began, travelled at some length in his speech—his very interesting speech—over the greater part of this whole question of evicted tenants.
I should like to say one word about what has been called the bargain made between the landed interest in Ireland and those who spoke for the tenants before the Land Act of 1903. I was very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, for correcting what I can only venture to call, so far as one point was concerned, a travesty of that bargain as it has been understood by everybody, as I believe, from that day to this. I have never heard anyone before intimate, as I understood the Earl of Donoughmore to intimate, that this particular question of the evicted tenants was no more urgent than the general question of land purchase in Ireland, and that it might easily be possible that fourteen or fifteen years might pass before some of these evicted tenants were restored to their holdings. I cannot read this into anything that was said by the Government of
1564
the day, and I should be very much surprised if the noble Earl, or anybody else, could show me any passage in the speeches of the Irish Members of Parliament which showed that they put this colour on the statements which were made by Mr. Wyndham at that time. I think it is really beyond dispute that, although the whole question of land purchase was an urgent one in the sense that it was desirable to deal with it in as few years as possible, this question of the evicted tenants was considered infinitely more urgent, and that it certainly was the general expectation that it would be dealt with in a fewer number of years than the land question as a whole.
With regard to the large and ever-increasing number of people who claim to be evicted tenants, I think it is important to draw a distinction between an evicted tenant and a tenant who has been evicted. Evicted tenant has become—I am sorry it should be so—almost a technical term; and what I think is clearly understood by evicted tenants when they are spoken of as a class in Ireland are those who have lost their holdings owing to the agrarian disputes which have existed in that country, and that, therefore, when there was a desire that there should be a general eirenicon at the time of the Land Bill—as Mr. Wyndham said, that bygones should be bygones—these men were to be treated on precisely the same terms as those who were tenants of farms. But no one ever imagined that, when evicted tenants were thus spoken of, every man who had lost his farm, whether it was because he was an impossible tenant, or a bad farmer, or a generally undesirable person, should necessarily be reinstated. You have only to study the debates on this subject to see that, when the Irish Members of Parliament spoke of evicted tenants, it was to those who had suffered in the land war that they confined their remarks.
I am very glad to note that noble Lords opposite speak of the Commissioners in high terms. I have the advantage of knowing much of these three gentlemen, and I can entirely confirm everything that has been said in praise of their high character, of their ability, and of the devotion which they give to their work. The noble Lord opposite has said that this demand for a

1565
Return of the tenants whom His Majesty's Government intend to restore did not show any mistrust of the Commissioners. I join with Lord Dunraven in asking what is the object of having this Return, unless you mistrust the Commissioners? Our contention is that it is perfectly safe to leave to them the selection as between those who are genuine evicted tenants in the sense intended by the Act of 1903, and those who are not. If noble Lords ask for a Return of names, it can only be to look into the individual cases and, in some way, to revise the discretion exercised by the Commissioners. That shows you have not confidence in the Commissioners, and that you desire to constitute yourselves or somebody else into a Court of Appeal from the Commissioners.
It seems to me that the real question is, What do you mean by a genuine evicted tenant? I use the words in the sense I have just indicated, as that of a man who had been evicted owing to agrarian conditions in Ireland. But if by "genuine" you mean to go behind those conditions and to ask, in individual cases, whether a man is a generally deserving person, whether through all the changes and chances of life he has behaved exactly as he ought to have behaved, then you are in conflict with the declaration of Mr. Wyndham when he particularly said that you ought not to go into those matters, and that, so far as those matters were concerned, he would desire to allow bygones to be bygones. It seems to me impossible t o supply a sort of biography—a land of "Who's who?" —of all those evicted tenants, and I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Dunraven that, even if this list were produced at great trouble and expense, your Lordships would really not know what to do with it.
The noble and learned Lord opposite asked for some account of the principles on which the Commissioners had acted in the past. As to that, my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary said in the House of Commons that, so far as regards the evicted tenants or their representatives who have already been reinstated or provided with new homos, there was no objection to giving a Return of the particulars asked for. I stand, of course,
1566
by the declaration of my right hon. friend as far as the past is concerned, but, as regards the future, I, for the reasons which my noble friend has stated so clearly, am not able to give the Return.
The noble Earl Lord Donoughmore spoke of the dispossession of those who have taken evicted farms. It seems to me that the hon. Gentlemen who sit for Ireland spoke very fairly indeed on that subject in the course of the debates. I think both Mr. Redmond and Mr. O'Brien dealt with it, and that they held the view, which His Majesty's Government also hold, that where it is shown that a man is a bona fide farmer, working his farm to advantage and desiring to retain it, he certainly ought not to be dispossessed. But there were a certain number of cases where men were put into farms who were not bona fide farmers, to whom it was of no advantage to remain, and those cases stand on a different footing. I hope noble Lords opposite will be content with the interesting discussion that has taken place and will not press us for Papers beyond the extent to which my right hon. friend has indicated his willingness to go.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise with more than my usual feeling of trepidation because I feel sure that before I have proceeded very far with my remarks I shall be called to order by the Lord President, who so effectually checked the eloquence of my noble friend behind me. Lord Mayo is not, as a rule, very easily repressed, and I was somewhat surprised at the readiness with which, at a moment when he was making observations which seemed to me perfectly relevant to the Motion before the House, he was interrupted by the noble Earl.
I am not going to enter on a discussion of the famous so-called bargain of 1903. I would only say this of it, that there were two elements in it, the presence of which will not be contested. It was, in the first place, to be on a voluntary basis, and, in the next place, on what is spoken of as an equitable basis. A passage from a speech delivered by Mr. Wyndham has been quoted by the other side; but surely I may venture to quote, from a passage which really governs the whole of the policy of which

1567
Mr. Wyndham was then the exponent, these words—
"He had laid down three principles for dealing with this question. The first was that there should be no compulsion, the second, that they must give equal treatment to all classes of persons with whom the Act would deal, and the third, that there must be no special mention of evicted tenants."
That is a clear and succinct description of Mr. Wyndham's policy. At any rate, whether the scope of this supposed bargain was wider or narrower than we imagined, no one ever supposed that it was to lead to the kind of proposals which have now been placed before Parliament by His Majesty's Government.
I think my noble Friend is fully entitled to bring up this question. He does not desire at this moment to call in question the Government Bill, but he does rightly desire to call attention to the data on which this proposal or any other proposals for dealing with the. evicted tenants must be based. What is the position of this House? Is it not extremely important that the ground should be cleared for us by the production of some evidence at any rate as to the lines on which the Government intend to proceed? We shall have this Bill, a Bill of the most controversial description, embodying principles which no one has yet accepted(and least of all His Majesty's Government), in the last days, or even in the last hours, of the session; and it will be discussed under great pressure of time. It will certainly be discussed, too, under pressure, I will not say of threats, but I will say of suggestions that it is of urgent importance for the sake of peace and good order in Ireland that the Bill should be passed into law without further delay. Is it not natural that we should desire now to elicit information as to the very foundations on which the Government measure is supposed to rest?
With regard to our attitude on this side of the House, I may say that we are entirely ready to approach this question in no narrow or grudging spirit. We admit that, if there is to be a great settlement of the Irish land question on lines of purchase, that settlement may well include a measure for the reinstatement, under careful restrictions, of a number of those who have
1568
lost their farms owing to agrarian disputes during the last few years. But we certainly assume that, if a settlement of this kind is to take place in regard to the evicted tenants, it should be upon the distinct assumption that the other part of the bargain of 1903, that part which dealt with the sale and purchase of land, should be carried out loyally and in the spirit which characterised the negotiations which then took place. I have, however, vet to learn that any one on this side of the House, or on that, is in favour of an indiscriminate restoration of the whole of the evicted tenants who have lost their farms during the last twenty-five years. His Majesty's Government are evidently themselves not in favour of such a restoration, for they are selecting somewhere about 2,000 cases out of a grand total which is variously estimated at 6,000 or 8,000.
Are we too curious when we ask his Majesty's Government to give us some idea of the criterion which has been applied? Where have they drawn the frontier line between those who are to be admitted to these immense and unusual advantages and those to whom they are to be denied? Whom have they consulted? We know that agents of the Land Commission have been travelling about the country collecting information. Have they consulted any representatives of the owners of the estates from which these people were evicted? The noble Lord spoke of the confidence which was due to the Estates Commissioners; but he surely does not ask us to believe that every one of these 8,000 cases was personally examined into by the three Commissioners themselves. It is obvious that they depended to a great extent on local information.
I assume, as the noble Earl allows me to assume, that it is not intended that every broken down farmer who has lost his farm during the last twenty-five years is to be put back. If that were contemplated, it would involve as a consequence that the same privilege should be extended to unfortunate farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom as well as in Ireland, and no one proposes that. Nor, again, is the Government's proposal confined to those who are only spoken of as "Plan of Campaign tenants." We know that they

1569
have been virtually provided for already. Out of a total of 1,600, there are only about 160 unprovided for, and they belong to two estates only.
There must be a criterion of some kind which has been applied by the Estates Commissioners, and we want to get at what that test was. My noble friend proposes that the names of the selected tenants should be published. His Majesty's Government see a difficulty in that course. I can quite understand one difficulty which, no doubt, weighs very considerably with them, and that is the feeling of exasperation which will be produced when 4,000 find themselves left out, and only 2,000 find themselves left in. That will be a rude awakening which may be deferred, but which has to come; and I do not think the Government of Ireland will have a very happy quarter of an hour when two-thirds of the flock become aware that they are on the side of the goats and not on the side of the sheep. If we cannot have the names—and I admit that in some respects the information provided by the mere production of the names would not be of a very convincing or satisfactory character—can His Majesty's Government not give us the information which my noble friend seeks in some other shape such as that suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne? It cannot be difficult. We have been told during the last three days by a member of the Government that they now know the exact number of those who have a just claim to reinstatement. Let us be told how that exact number has been arrived at.
I hope noble Lords opposite will not think that the feeling of suspicion—for I can use no other word—with which we regard these proposals is altogether unreasonable. Look at the portentous, the immense growth which this evicted tenants problem has undergone within the last year or two. In 1894 Mr. John Morley announced that a sum of £100,000—afterwards raised to £250,000—would settle the whole question. In 1899 Mr. Michael Davitt estimated the whole number of tenants to be dealt with at a 1,000. In 1903 Mr. John Dillon said that, in his opinion, a sum of £200,000 would be sufficient to settle the question and to settle it in a generous way. What has happened since? How do His Majesty's Government account for the extraordinary
1570
increase in the number of those who are now applying for and of those who are now going to obtain this great privilege of reinstatement? We are alarmed at the manner in which the lesson which has been taught them has been learnt by the tenant farmers of Ireland. We are not less alarmed because we fear that the great sum which will be required to carry out this measure—a sum estimated at £2,000,000, to which must be added the expense (which cannot fail to be very great) of equipping the holdings which these tenants are to occupy and the expense of supplying them with capital with which to begin their enterprise—is likely to be diverted from funds which would be. more properly employed in carrying out the great operation of land purchase in Ireland. We doubt very much whether you will get these two or three millions as an extra allowance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if you do not, so surely will that sum be diverted from funds whose legitimate destination is the promotion of land purchase. That is why we have raised this question. Our feeling is that, unless you restrict this privilege carefully, and exclude from this boon all those tenants whose cases are not really deserving, you will put an immense premium upon the repudiation of contracts in Ireland, and that you will start all over the country a new wave of insecurity, owing to the compulsory shuffling of tenancies to which you will be obliged to resort if you are going to make room for anything like the contemplated proportion of these numerous applicants.
The seriousness of this matter cannot be overrated. And remember, the victims of this attempt will be, on the one hand, the sitting tenants, whom, unless I misunderstand the proposal, you are going to remove from their farms in order to make room for other and less deserving people whom you are to bring from a distance—on the one hand the sitting tenants, men who have fulfilled their obligations honourably and against whom not a word is to be said; and, on the other hand, landlords who, perhaps, have never had any difficulty on their estates, with whom everything has gone quietly and happily, and who yet may be called upon to give up land which is as much theirs as the clothes upon their backs, and to disposses tenants who have as much right to

1571
remain where they are as any tenants in any part of the United Kingdom. And all this is in order to facilitate this dangerous enterprise. I am afraid that unless it is carried out under the most careful restriction you will by this operation saddle the Land Commissioners —who will in future become the landlords of the greater part of Ireland—with a class of tenants who will owe their position, not to the fact that they are the survival of the fittest, but to the fact that they have successfully repudiated their obligations and extorted by participation in a dangerous agitation a privilege which honest and law-abiding farmers will never be allowed to obtain.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, after the speeches of my noble friends behind me I do not intend to press my Motion to a division; but I certainly hope we shall see the Return which has already been promised in another place. I shall, of course, consult with my noble friends as to whether we cannot move for a Return containing the data which have been asked for.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order.)
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4: —
THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the object of the Amendment standing in his name to this Clause was to bring the Bill on all fours with the Companies Act, in which it was enacted that a partnership carrying on the business of banking could not consist of more than ten persons, and in the case of general concerns of not more than twenty persons.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word ' partnership,' to insert the words' shall not consist, in the case of a partnership carrying on the business of banking, of more than ten persons, and, in the case of any other partnership, of more than twenty persons.'" — (The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD AVEBURYmoved to amend sub-section (2)—
"A limited partnership must contain one or more persons called general partners, who shall be liable for all debts and obligations incurred in the usual course of the partnership business by or on behalf of the firm, etc.,"
by omitting the words "incurred in the usual course of the partnership business by or on behalf." It was thought that the words as they stood might sometimes raise unnecessary and difficult questions.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words' incurred in the usual course of the partnership business by or on behalf.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
THE EARL OF GRANARD:accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AVEBURYmoved to amend the latter half of the same sub-section, which provided that the one or more persons to be called limited partners—
"shall at the time of entering into such partnership contribute, or undertake to contribute, thereto a sum or sums as capital or property valued at a stated amount, and shall not be liable for the debts or obligations of the firm beyond the amount so contributed or to be contributed,"
by omitting the words "or undertake to contribute." He said that these words were not to be found in any of the foreign codes, and they were objected to by many good judges.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'or undertake to contribute.'"— (Lord Avebury.)
THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the Board of Trade did not oppose the Amendment if the noble Lord desired to press it. He pointed out, however, that uncalled liability had been a source of strength in this country in banking and limited liability concerns.
LORD AVEBURYagreed, but said it would facilitate the passing of the Bill if the words were omitted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GRANARDhad an Amendment to Sub-section (3), which ran—
"(3) A limited partner shall not during the continuance of the partnership draw out or

1573
receive back any part of his contribution, and if he does so draw out or receive back any such part shall be liable for the debts and obligations of the firm as if he had agreed to contribute the amount so drawn out or received back, in addition to the sum (if any) which he is liable to contribute independently of this provision."
He moved to insert, after the word "partnership," the words "either directly or indirectly," the object being to prevent a limited partner receiving back by way of loan any of the money he had invested in a limited partnership.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 6, after the word 'partnership,' to insert the words 'either directly or indirectly.'"—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved the insertion of a now sub-section to enable a body corporate to become a limited partner.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 13, after the word 'name,' to insert as a new sub-section:'(5) A body corporate may be a limited partner.'"—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6: —
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the object of his Amendment to Clause 6 was to give to a limited partner power to have an audit of the accounts, which was obviously a matter of very great interest and importance to him.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 21, after the word 'thereon,' to insert the words' and he may also require that the said books shall be audited by a person who publicly carries on business as an accountant.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the Board of Trade were very much opposed to the insertion of these words, as a limited partner was already fully safeguarded. He could inspect the books of the company with an agent, and there was nothing to prevent the agent being an accountant. Moreover, a limited partner
1574
could make any arrangement he liked before investing his money. If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that the expense of the audit would fall on the partnership.
LORD JOICEYsupported the Amendment. He thought it desirable that the limited partner should have the power of insisting that the books should be audited by a public accountant. The cost of the audit was not a serious matter, and he hoped the Board of Trade would withdraw their opposition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Loreburn)said that already a limited partner could, by himself or his agent, from time to time inspect the books of the firm. If he liked to employ a public accountant for the purpose the clause as it stood enabled him to do so. Anyone who was at liberty by his agent to examine the books could get an audit made, and the only question was whether he should pay for it himself or be able to impose it on the partnership. He thought the limited partner should pay for it himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to delete Clause 6, and to insert a new clause which had been suggested by Lord Lindley.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 6, and to insert the following new clause: —6. — (1) A limited partner shall not take part in the management of the partnership business, and shall not have power to bind the firm; provided that a limited partner may by himself or his agent at any time inspect the books of the firm and examine into the state and prospects of the partnership business, and may advise with the partners thereon. If a limited partner takes part in the management of the partnership business he shall be liable for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he so takes part in the management as though he were a general partner. (2) A limited partner shall not be entitled to dissolve the partnership by notice. (3) A limited partnership shall not be dissolved by the death or bankruptcy of a limited partner, and the lunacy of a limited partner shall not be a ground for dissolution of the partnership by the Court unless the lunatic's share cannot be otherwise ascertained and realised. (4) In the event of the dissolution of a limited partnership its affairs shall be wound up by the general partners unless the Court otherwise orders. (5) Subject to any agreement expressed or implied

1575
between the partners— (a) Any difference arising as to ordinary matters connected with the partnership business may be decided by a majority of the general partners, (b) A limited partner may, with the consent of the general partners, assign his share in the partnership, and upon such an assignment the assignee shall become a limited partner with all the rights of the assignor, (c) The other partners shall not be entitled to dissolve the partnership by reason of any limited partner suffering his share to be charged for his separate debt, (d) A person may be introduced as a partner without the consent of the existing limited partners. (e)Applications to the Court to wind up a limited partnership shall be by petition under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900."—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD AVEBURYexpressed his indebtedness to Lord Lindley. The new clause was an improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8: —
Drafting and verbal Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9: —
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10: —
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11: —
Verbal Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 105.)

ALL SAINTS' SCHOOL, HALIFAX.
*LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the action of the
1576
Board of Education with regard to All Saints' School, Salterhebble, Halifax; and to move for Papers. In doing so it is necessary that I should refer to the facts relating to the case. For some sixty years past a national school has existed at this place. Naturally in the course of that time the building had become old and out of date, and in the month of February, 1904, the managers recognised this and instructed their architect to prepare plans for a new building and at the same time to ascertain whether the municipal authorities wanted any of the site for road widening; and in April of that year they informed the Board of their decision. On 28th May in the same year—that is, three months after their decision—they received from the Board of Education a copy of the inspector's report on the premises, which naturally was not very flattering. The Board intimated that the grant to the school could not be continued after 31st March, 1906—
"Unless by that date satisfactory progress has been made towards providing suitable accommodation to replace it."
Not that the new building should have been erected, but that satisfactory progress should have been made towards providing fresh accommodation.
Flans were shortly afterwards sent in to the corporation. Various delays occurred, for which the managers disclaim all responsibility; and in the course of the negotiations the corporation changed its attitude two or three times. No less than three sets of plans had to be prepared and approved, the corporation admitting that they were to a great extent wrong in the matter by paying the managers £30 for one set of plans. At last, in November, 1905 the plans were approved by the corporation. They were forwarded to the Board of Education and had to be sent back again for some slight alteration; but eventually, on 26th March, 1906, the Board of Education returned them. They were, I believe, not actually received by the local education authority till a little later, but that authority finally approved them on 2nd May. You will mark that the Board of Education in March, and the local education authority in May, finally approved the plans, and to all intents and purposes the matter was absolutely settled.

1577
The House will remember that in the interval the Education Bill had been introduced, and it could hardly be expected that the managers would proceed, with that Bill hanging over their heads, to spend a considerable sum of money on a new school the fate of which they could not at that time foresee, and consequently they suspended their operations. This view of the matter was fully understood both by the Board of Education and the local authority, for during the interval neither of those bodies moved a step in the matter. In the month of December, 1906, as your Lordships well know, the Education Bill was withdrawn by the Government. In the following month the proceedings began again. The local education authority wrote to ask the Board of Education—I suppose their tempers had not been rendered extra pleasant by the fate of the Bill—for authority to discontinue the maintenance of this school.
At that date, however, the Board of Education took a very fair and proper view of the position. They wrote first of all to the managers and said that the local education authority had approached them and had pointed out that nothing had been done. The Board asked the managers what they were doing. Thereupon the managers explained to the Board of Education the reasons why they had suspended operations, and stated that they had actually arranged to proceed at once with the erection of the school, which, as a matter of fact, they did the same week. This answer—and this is the most important point in the whole of the proceedings—was evidently satisfactory to the Board of Education, for the Board wrote to the local education authority forwarding a copy of the managers' letter and stating—
"This Board of Education ion hope that this assurance of the managers will enable the authority to reconsider their decision to discontinue the maintenance of the school."
That was an absolutely fair letter, but it did not at all meet the wishes of the local education authority, who, from all that I have been able to ascertain, were thirsting for the blood of this wretched little Church school.
What happened next no man knows. And that is my reason for trying to obtain further information from the Government. At any rate, the local education
1578
authority immediately after that pressed the Board and urged that no buildings had actually been begun. They also said that another year must elapse, and, although the architect and the managers had explained very fully that they could have half the school ready and in occupation by the end of the summer, they brought all the pressure they possibly could to bear on the Board of Education. The next step which the Board of Education took was to give two days notice that they would send down an inspector. That inspector visited the school, but the principal manager, who had had to do with the business, had other matters to attend to and could not be present. In due course the inspector sent in his report to the Board of Education, and the result was that on 1st May last, in spite of their previous letter, they wrote that in consideration of all the facts they were not prepared to oppose the local education authority in their desire to close the school.
It is obvious that some pressure was brought to bear on the Board of Education to induce them to change their mind. I would remind your Lordships of the parallel case referred to the other day by my noble friend Lord Dartmouth. The present position is this. The local people—as the local Press would show—are naturally very sore about this. Their school, as a matter of fact, is closed, and they consider that they have been very badly treated. They think that either some secret and unfair influence has been brought to bear on the Board of Education in London, or that the Board must have some information which has induced them to change their mind which has not been communicated to the public.
There are two reasons which may be asserted for the action of the Board. One is the delay, but I think I have explained sufficiently the cause of the delay and shown that the Board of Education were satisfied that the delay was not an insuperable objection so late as February last. The other reason may be the assertion of the local education authority that the buildings were unhealthy and unsafe. The managers admit that the buildings were not up to modern requirements, but they have the authority of their own architect, who has known the buildings for years, for stating that they are

1579
neither unhealthy nor unsafe. Sufficient repairs have been done to make them adequate for all temporary purposes, and for the few months which would elapse before the new building would be ready for occupation. The parents of nearly all the children in the school have memorialised the Board of Education to preserve the school to them. They say they have no opportunity of getting such Church of England religious instruction as they desire within reasonable distance if the school is closed. Here the people wish to have certain religious instruction, and are told by a Government Department that they cannot have it. I think in this matter the will of the people, of which we have heard so much lately, should be supreme. We were told yesterday in the discussion on the Army Bill, when the question of giving military drill to children under sixteen years of age was being considered, that the opinion of certain Members of the House of Commons must be regarded because it expressed the wishes of the parents themselves. Well, why should not the wishes of the parents be considered when they express a determined wish to have Church of England instruction?
Another point I should like to press very urgently on the attention of the House is that this case absolutely differs from the typical case which politicians frequently declaim, in which it is said that the clergy and the Bishops are at the back of it all. From the beginning to the end of this matter the Bishop has never been mentioned, and by a curious coincidence the vicarage became vacant during the course of the proceedings. The late vicar was not mentioned at all, and beyond the fact that the new vicar presided at a recent meeting no clergyman has taken any part in these proceedings at all. I would like also to draw your Lordships' attention to the extreme energy of some of the managers and others interested. This is not a "one man show." A working man took the trouble to come up to London from Halifax to see the Minister for Education in order to try and induce him to change his views. This is a case in which working men and women have determined to do their utmost to try and retain such religious teaching for their children as they desire, and which, so far
1580
as I can ascertain, they are being entirely denied.
The information which, I venture to submit, the Board of Education ought to place before the public in this matter is such official documents as contain the evidence which induced them to change the views they so clearly expressed in February to the views they expressed in their later letter of May, in which they declined to press the local education authority to continue the maintenance of this school. The principal evidence in the matter would be the instructions given to the inspector and the report of the inspector. I know that it is not always convenient to give the whole of the report of an inspector, but in a question of such vital importance as this so much of the report could be given as would justify the action of the Board of Education. The Board of Education is one of the greatest Government Departments, and unless that and all other Government Departments can maintain the confidence of the people of this country I fear that the administrative duties of Government will become very much more difficult for both Parties in the State in the future than they have been in the past.
I trust that His Majesty's Government will see fit to grant my Motion, and so not only meet me but other Members of this House who wish to be satisfied that no unfair or undue influence has been brought to bear in effecting the crushing out of this small Church school. I for one shall feel perfectly willing to acquiesce in any evidence that may be given across the floor of the House which can satisfy me on that point. Failing that I fear that the people of this district, as well as the Members of your Lordships' House and the public at large, will have to come to the conclusion that the decision of the Board of Education was dictated, not by the interests of the children, but by political expedience; not by the welfare of the public, but by sectarian malice and Party spite. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House papers relating to the Salter-hobble, Halifax, All Saints School. —(Lord Barnard.)
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am anxious not to trouble the House

1581
with any repetition of the circumstances stated by the noble Lord. He informed the House that in the spring of the year 1904 the managers recognised that the school was in a somewhat dilapidated and ancient condition and proposed to rebuild it. But he did not state that what induced them to do so was a letter from the Board of Education in September, 1903, declining to recognise the school except temporarily. Then negotiations proceeded, as the noble Lord has described, and the most important point was that in May, 1904, the Board received a further report on the premises from the inspector, and then informed the managers that no grant could be made to the school after 31st May, 1906, unless by that date satisfactory progress had been made in the provision of proper accommodation to replace the old. Surely that was adequate notice. The extension to 1906, under the circumstances, was exceedingly liberal, as I think must generally be admitted.
Then the plans were sent in in January, 1906, and were approved by the Board of Education at the end of March. The local education authority then wrote to the Board of Education and said that nearly three years had passed since the original notice was given to the managers, and they did not see any sign of a new school being erected. Three years is a considerable time, when all is said and done, and in considering this case it is important to bear the fact in mind when either the local education authority or the Board of Education are accused of having exhibited partiality in this matter. They went on to say that the premises were quite unsuitable for teaching purposes, and there were grave doubts about the safety of the roof. They proposed, therefore, to discontinue maintenance. The Board of Education on that desired to put it to the local education authority whether, having shown considerable patience, they might not show a little more, and the local education authority replied that they could not see any reason for departing from the course suggested in their letter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What date has the noble Earl got to?
*THE EARL OF CREWE: 15th February of this year. They proposed, therefore,
1582
to notify the managers at the expiration of three months that they would no longer be responsible for the maintenance of the school. Then the Board of Education, anxious still to act as peacemakers, entered into communication with the managers, who agreed to advertise at once for tenders. The Board informed the local authority to that effect, adding that if any unnecessary delay took place in carrying out the work the Board would be prepared to support the action of the local authority. The local authority replied that the school was unsafe, and that already three years had passed, and it would be another year before this insecure school could be replaced by another building. They added that for all the children attending this school there was ample room in a school within a few minutes' walk where there were all the advantages of modern equipment. Taking all these points into consideration the local education authority decided that, in the interests of the children, it was their duty to refuse further responsibility for the maintenance of this school. The Board of Education finally replied that they saw no reason for interfering with the decision of the local authority.
I do not think it is disputed that the buildings are entirely unsatisfactory. That will be admitted by all who have knowledge of the circumstances. The noble Lord said that it was not to be expected that the managers could proceed with their building while the Education Bill was in a hopeful, though precarious, condition. That, under certain circumstances, might be a good and sound argument, but it really is not relevant to the question the Board of Education had to consider, which was whether they were prepared to take the responsibility of saying that for one year more this school should continue; and upon that, of course, the question of the condition of the school is the material fact. On that there were, as I am afraid very often happens in such cases, directly contrary statements of fact, and the Board sent an inspector to inquire what the condition of affairs really was. He visited the school in December, 1906, and his further Report stated that plaster was falling from the walls in a dangerous way, and he also stated that in his opinion the roof was insecure. Therefore, my Lords, you will see that the answer to the noble

1583
Lord's Question really is not whether the managers did or did not do all in their power to build a new school in time— that is a separate point, on which the noble Lord may have one opinion and other people may have another—but could the Board of Education take the responsibility of over-ruling the local authority when the local authority said that the condition of the school was not such as to make it safe that it should be continued as a school for another year, and when the Board's inspector confirmed that opinion? The noble Lord seemed to consider it a matter of complaint that the inspector went down at two days' notice.
*LORD BARNARD: I did not complain, I only tried to point out that it placed the managers in some difficulty.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: When the question was as to the stability of a building the point as to whether the inspector went at two days' notice or a week's notice could not very much affect the fact. The question of notice might be relevant in some cases, as it was in the ease brought forward by Lord Dartmouth the other day, but I cannot see, when it is a question of the stability of the roof, that notice has very much to do with it one way or the other. Then the noble Lord said that the parents desired the school to continue. I do not dispute that fact. I do not suppose that ever a school is closed or discontinued but that you will find some parents who would desire it to remain open.
The noble Lord really invited me, I think, to reopen the whole of the question as to how far the wishes of the parents ought to be considered in the question either of the provision or the continuance of schools. The opinions of the Government are very well known on that point. You have to set the wishes of the parents, even by the present law, against the question of the rates, and upon that, where a new school is concerned, the President of the Board of Education has to form an unassisted opinion. I do not know that I have anything further to add except to say this, that my right hon. friend is certainly not prepared in a matter of this kind, which lies within his discretion to decide upon the facts of the case as presented to him, to
1584
present the Report of the inspector with regard to the building, which is the one I presume the noble Lord means; and I think the noble Lord will have noticed that my right hon. friend has already expressed his regret in another place that he was unable to give that information.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl has based the very unsatisfactory answer which he has given to my noble friend mainly on the condition of the building. Now, why will the Government play with this subject? Do they really expect your Lordships and the country to believe that the whole of this question merely arose because the building was bad, and that there were no other considerations which governed the local education authority in Halifax, and made them anxious, if they possibly could, to get rid of the only Church school which was left in that town? Why does the noble Earl treat us like children, as if we were really going to accept from him the idea that it was merely on account of the badness of the building that the school was abolished? The original warning which my noble friend has related to us set forth that if something substantial were done by May, 1906, the Board of Education did not think that any case arose.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: That warning was given by the late Government in 1903.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let me repudiate at once, in a matter of the Departmental administration, this division between one Government and another. It is not a matter to be decided as a Party question whether a school building is or is not in a fit condition. The same Department and the same officials were concerned, and the same sanitary rules bound both Governments. The first intimation was that if something substantial were done by May, 1906, the Board saw no reason why the school should be closed. As a matter of fact, as far as the Church managers were concerned they were well ahead of their time. They pushed forward the matter with great despatch, and the delay which arose was not from their fault but was due to the local town council. That council—a hostile body—delayed the

1585
plans as long as they could, and placed the managers in a position of great difficulty. But, notwithstanding these difficulties thrown in their way by their enemies, the managers were up to their time, and by the period of grace which was allowed them they had made substantial progress and had got the plans passed both by the Board of Education and the local education authority.
Then came the policy of the present Government, which, I think, involved a very natural delay on the part of the managers. They felt that they could not proceed with their work while the Bill of last year was pending before Parliament, but the moment the fate of that Bill was settled they proceeded with the work. The noble Earl says the present Government are not responsible. How can he explain the letter which was sent by the present Government in February of this year expressing the hope that the assurance which had been received from the managers would enable the local authority to reconsider their decision to discontinue their maintenance of the school? In other words, the Board of Education, having considered a communication from the managers, decided in their favour, and were of opinion that the local education authority ought to continue the school. That was in February of this year. I forgot whether Mr. Birrell resigned before May. I think it is very possible he did, and passed to the other Department. It then appears that the policy of the Government had changed, and that this letter which they had written to the managers in February was to be repudiated. What my noble friend has asked is, "What passed in the interval?'' What material fact arose in the interval which caused the Government to change their mind? And if no material fact took place except the change in the presidency of the Board from Mr. Birrell to Mr. McKenna, then we want to know from the Government what possible ground they had for changing the decision at which they arrived in February.
What makes this case particularly hard is that in this part of Halifax there is only this single Church school. We
1586
heard a great deal about this question last year. The local education authority at Halifax does not allow any syllabus of religious education. The religious instruction given is of the most jejune character. Very little is allowed at all, and that which is allowed must be given by the head teacher, and the head teacher alone. Anybody who has had experience of a large school knows what that means. Halifax is a town where religion in the elementary schools is treated with this marked disrespect; yet this single church school is the one selected by the present head of the Board of Education for this harsh blow. I wonder that the Government are not ashamed of themselves that they use this Departmental pressure in order to oppress the religious consciences of the people. At any rate, this discussion has been of importance because it has shown what we have to expect in our schools from the action of the present authorities at the Board of Education. The country will take note of the kind of treatment which is to be meted out, and I am quite sure they will know how to meet such oppression with the resistance which is appropriate to the occasion.
*LORD BARNARD: I very much regret that the noble Earl the Lord President has been unable to remove the very bad impression which this action on the part of the Board of Education has created amongst the working-class Church people in Halifax. My noble friend Lord Dartmouth pointed out a few days ago that there were several cases of this kind. I have also received information which has led me to the same conclusion; in fact, I personally know of one other case. Therefore, I suppose we are to take it that Church people must bow their heads to oppression of the character which these unfortunate people in Salterhebble, in Halifax, have suffered without having any reason or explanation whatever given to them of the course pursued by His Majesty's Government. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter be for Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half past Ten o'clock.