Lords Sitting of 19 May 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Lincoln Corporation Bill.—A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Rochdale Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Cambourne Water Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read la, and referred to the Examiners.
Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Loch Leven Water Power Order Confirmation Bill.—Brought from the Commons and read la,; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation
2
Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899,) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Herschell), and reported from the Committee. (No. 69).
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.—Brought from the Commons and read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 70.)
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.].—Committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PETITIONS.

  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PROHIBITION BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: Of Zoological Society of London; Linnean Society of London; Selbourne Society; Royal Society for Protection of Birds; and

  3
  persons signing (1); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S) REPORT.
  Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1907, by the Hydrographer:
  TRADE.
  Annual Statement of the trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions 1907, compared with the four preceding years. Volume I. Summaries, abstract and detailed tables of imports and exports.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3996, Russia (Batoum and District).

  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Second Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector under the Aliens Act (Part I.), and a statement with regard to the expulsion of aliens (Part II.) in respect of the year 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in London, Glasgow, Bolton, Devonport, Dover, Ilford, and Stroud for the Public Service, and for other purposes.—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 71.)
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to secure a weekly rest-day—Was presented by the Viscount Hill; read la, and to be printed. (No. 72.)

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PROHIBITION BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, this Bill has been introduced on behalf of
4
the Linnean Society, the Zoological Society, the Society for the Preservation of Birds, and last, though not least, the Selborne Society. I have also presented a petition from the members of the Royal Society. In fact, it has the general support of the naturalists of the country, and especially of all lovers of birds. It is no doubt of a somewhat peculiar character, but the circumstances are exceptional.
The most beautiful species of birds are being rapidly exterminated. At the plume auctions held in London during the last six months of 1907, I am informed by Mr. Buckland, who has done so much to promote this movement, that there were catalogued 19,742 skins of the birds of paradise, 1,411 packages of the nesting plumes of the white heron (representing the feathers of nearly 115,000 birds), besides immense numbers of the feathers and skins of almost every known species of ornamental plumaged bird. For the year the sales of egrets amounted to 190,000, and of birds of paradise over 28,000. At the June sale, held at the Commercial Sale-Rooms, 1,386 crowned pigeons' heads were sold, while among miscellaneous bird-skins one firm alone catalogued over 20,000 kingfishers. A deplorable feature of recent sales is the offer of large number of lyre birds' tails and of albatross quills.
The constant repetition of such figures as the above—and these plume sales take place at least every two months—shows that the Legislature must choose between the extermination or the protection of the birds in question. A precedent for legislation on this subject exists in the law that now obtains in the State of New York, where the entire feather trade of the United States has its centre; according to this law no wild birds, other than certain species named therein, and birds for which there is an open season, can be taken or possessed at any time, dead or alive, except under the authority of a certificate, and no part of the plumage, skin, or body of any protected bird can be sold or had in possession for sale. I understand from the Secretary of the Game Preservation Department of the Department of Agriculture in the United States that the example of the State of New York

5
has been followed by several other States.
We commend this Bill to the favourable consideration of the House on three main grounds:—(1) scientific; (2) æesthetic; (3) humanitarian; and I think I might add a fourth, namely, economic. As regards the first, it is evident that unless the slaughter is stopped several species of birds will be within a few years absolutely exterminated. Once destroyed they could never be replaced, and from a scientific point of view this would be deplorable. Then I come to the aesthetic aspect of the question. It is not only the fact that some species will be utterly annihilated, but that the victims are just the most beautiful; in fact, their beauty is their ruin. Moreover, birds' feathers in hats are, I submit, not ornamental, but, under the circumstances, repulsive. This is so self-evident that I feel I need not, and ought not to, occupy your Lordships' time in elaborating a proof of what no one will, I think, attempt to deny.
Lastly, I come to the humanitarian reasons for the Bill. We all know that birds, while beautiful at all times, are pre-eminently so at the breeding season. Just when our best feelings would induce us to give them a close time, they are most ruthlessly destroyed. The history of the snowy heron, from which the so-called egrets, or "ospreys" are obtained, is especially pathetic. They used to be a numerous and widely distributed species—harmless and beneficial to man. Now they are greatly reduced in numbers, and indeed in some places exterminated. At most times the birds are wary and difficult to approach, but at the breeding season their habits alter. They will run any risks themselves rather than allow their young to starve. Of this the hunters take a mean advantage. They wait under the trees and shoot down the old birds as they are bringing food for their little ones.
Mr. Pearson, Secretary of the North Carolina Audubon Society, has given a graphic description of the scene. He said—
"In the tall bushes, growing in a secluded pond in a swamp, a colony of herons had their nesting home. I accompanied a squirrel hunter one day to the spot, and the scene which met
6
our eyes was not a pleasant one; I had expected to see the beautiful herons about their nests, or standing on the trees near by, but not a living one could be found, while here and there in the mud lay the lifeless forms of some of the birds. They had been shot down and the skin bearing the plumes stripped from their backs. Flies were busily at work, and they swarmed up with hideous buzzings as we approached each spot where a victim lay. This was not the worst; in four of the nests young orphan birds could be seen who were clamouring piteously for food which their dead parent could never again bring to them. One little one was lying with its neck hanging out of the nest, happily now past suffering."
At this time the destruction of the parents means an even more cruel death to the young also. Thus, the 190,000 egret plumes sold last year mean at least 500,000 deaths.
The same thing is happening not only over Florida and the whole Gulf Coast of the United States, but also in California and great districts of South America. Dealers often state that "aigrettes" are manufactured, but this is not so; man has never yet been able to imitate successfully these beautiful plumes. All that are offered for sale have been taken from the backs of the smaller white herons. Even the stiff plumes, or "stubs," are not manufactured but are the plumes of a larger species belonging to the same family. The so-called "ospreys" used to be worn in the Army, but they were given up on account of the cruelty they involve. No one would say that our fellow countrywomen are less humane than the authorities of the War Office, but the fact is that they do not realise the suffering to which they are parties.
I am glad to see that this Bill has been most cordially and sympathetically received by the Press, but one or two writers have expressed the opinion that it would have little chance if women had votes. On the contrary, I firmly believe they would welcome it. Her Majesty the Queen, we gratefully recognise, has done much to check the wearing of plumes. The Englishwomen are indeed few who would wear an "osprey" if they realised that it involved not only the slaughter during the nesting time of the parent bird, but the starvation of the whole brood of young. Again, it is sometimes said that the only effect of excluding feathers here would he that

7
they would be sold abroad. If this were so, we should then at any rate have no responsibility; we should not be parties to this cruel trade. But if your Lordships and the other House pass this Bill, English ornithologists and lovers of birds will appeal to our brother naturalists abroad, and we believe they would initiate similar legislation on the Continent and thus put an end to this cruel, wanton, and barbarous slaughter.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Avebury.)
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will be able to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I can add but very little to that which the noble Lord has said. If there are any objections to this Bill they will probably come from the trade, that is from the dealers in feathers and plumes. The value of the plumes to the wearers does not consist in the fact that the feathers belong to rare birds, but that the manufactured plume is the fashion of the moment. At the present rate of destruction the extinction of many of the most beautiful creations of Nature is inevitable, and the prohibition of the use of the plumage now would be only anticipating what, as far as the trade is concerned, must be the result in a few years. This Bill seeks to bring about by the preservation of the birds now that condition as far as the supply of birds' feathers to the trade is concerned which must ensue on their destruction in a few years time.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am sure the objects of this Bill will commend themselves to every Member of your Lordships' House. This is a matter in which a great many of your Lordships will have taken a sympathetic interest; and it is impossible for anybody either to hear or read the account which has been quoted by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, and which I think I have read in the public Press, of the condition in which the herons' nests were found after a visit from some of the agents of the dealers, without feeling that some action ought to be taken.
8
My duty this evening is rather to express the hesitation felt by the official mind as to whether the Bill, as drawn, will entirely accomplish the object of the noble Lord. My noble friend will be one of the first to realise the distinction between the prohibition of imports and exports, and I venture to suggest that it might be more efficacious to prohibit exports from our Colonies rather than to prohibit imports into this country. Steps have already been taken in the Bermudas, Barbados, Trinidad, Fiji, Natal, St. Vincent, and elsewhere, to prevent the exportation of these birds and their plumage. Then, a large quantity of plumage is brought into this country, made up, and exported to the Continent, and it is not impossible that such legislation would divert that trade to the Continent without the advantage sought for being attained.
I am not sure that the noble Lord would have the entire sympathy of the public, or, at any rate, of the ladies, in the passing of this Bill, but I can assure him that His Majesty's Government are very anxious to assist him in securing the objects he has in view. There is one other consideration, and that is that there are some species in danger of extermination which, though very beautiful, are often a great inconvenience and sometimes a considerable nuisance in the countries in which they are found. An Australian experience occurs to my mind at the moment with regard to the sweet -briar. This is a plant which we all rejoice to see in our hedgerows, but it is one of the most inconvenient and obnoxious plants to the sheep breeder in Australia. In the same way a bird which we may think ought to be preserved for its beauty may be a great nuisance in the country from which it comes, and the people there may think it desirable that there should be fewer of them.
Therefore, the question arises, what will be the best step to take in order to give effect to this Bill? I would venture to ask your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading this afternoon, and I would then suggest that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord himself has admitted that the Bill is of an exceptional character, and I

9
think, in the circumstances, its reference to a Select Committee would be of considerable advantage. If the noble Lord would agree to that course the Select Committee would be able to consider the suggestion that representations should be made to foreign countries as to how far they would be willing to assist by preventing export, which I am not at all sure is not really the most efficacious way of preventing the distinction of these birds.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the course proposed by the noble Earl who has just spoken is probably the most convenient, and I hope my noble friend will agree to it. My noble friend made, I think, a very strong case both upon humanitarian and upon scientific grounds, for some effort to prevent the extinction of a number of interesting species of birds. I feel very decided sympathy with him, and I hope that I may be pardoned for saying that I believe I am one of the few who have taken a practical step in the direction my noble friend recommends; because, if I am not mistaken, it was while I was at the War Office that my military advisers agreed to accept a substitute for what used to be known as "osprey plumes," but which, I need not say, had not a single osprey feather in them, but which, nevertheless, were, I think, obtained by the destruction of a very harmless and interesting bird, the white egret. I think the noble Earl is quite right in suggesting that we should make it our endeavour to obtain the cooperation of foreign countries, for without that I am afraid the success of the Bill will not be very great.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, whilst desiring to support the object of the Bill I would point out that Clause 2 proposes to give certain powers to the Privy Council which my advisers tell me are not altogether what they should be, and I am going to ask your Lordships to accept an Amendment to this clause when the Bill reaches Committee. With regard to the general question, the only fault I find with the
10
Bill is that I am afraid its provisions will not carry out what is desired. You cannot prevent birds being killed in their own habitat; people will go on killing them just in the same way, and I think that if the noble Lord will make inquiries in the millinery shops of London he will find that a very large number of feathered hats come from Paris, and perhaps still more are sent from Germany marked as from France.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it is quite obvious that any measure purporting to interfere with fashion, and, to a certain extent, with trade, must be surrounded with difficulty. The noble Lord who has introduced this Bill has taken the only practical step that has yet been suggested to bring the matter to the notice of the public, and by that means to influence fashion. I think we are under a great obligation to my noble friend. I am sure that if he will preside over the Select Committee he will be able to guide it to a wise and sensible conclusion. I think this discussion will do a great deal of good. It puts the matter in a practical shape before the minds of men and women. We know that the highest lady in the land has done much to check the wearing of plumes, and I cannot help thinking that by degrees fashion will play a potent part in putting an end to the destruction of these birds.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has given a warmer expression of sympathy than was elicited from the noble Earl who represents the official mind in this matter. I do not think we can rely very much on the influence of opinion and fashion. This is undoubtedly not a new matter. It has been for a long time before leaders of fashion, and the great influence to which the noble and learned Lord referred has been exerted, but I am afraid the efforts that have been made have failed. I hope the treatment which it is proposed to give the Bill will not be a dilatory treatment, because we know not only that the thing wants doing but that it wants doing quickly.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to your Lordships for the sympathetic manner in which you have received the Bill. With regard to the point made by Lord Tweedmouth, if he will look at the words at the bottom of the first page of the Bill he will see that it will be impossible for milliners to bring over from Paris hats containing plumage; and as regards Lord Beauchamp's statement that it would be more efficacious to stop export, I would remind him that a great number of these birds come from South America, Russia, and China—countries from which it is impossible for us to stop export. It is only recently that these birds have been killed in these countries in such large numbers, and it has been largely owing to the fact that there has been such a profitable sale in this country. Therefore, if we stopped the sale in this country we should put an end to a very important reason for the destruction of these birds. We do not wish to prevent the agriculturists of the countries concerned from taking any steps that may be necessary to deal with birds that may be an annoyance, but I believe it is felt that on the whole birds do a very great deal of good to agriculture. As it is the opinion of the Leaders on both sides of the House that it would be desirable to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, I shall be very glad to adopt that course, if your Lordships are good enough to agree to the Second Reading.
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.

EAST HARDWICK (WEST RIDING) SCHOOL.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXrose to ask the President of the Council whether the Minister of Education, when he confirmed on appeal the decision of the West Riding County Council to erect a council school at East Hardwick, was aware of the following facts:—That the existing voluntary school was enlarged in 1871, when the population amounted to 282; that the present population is 144, and the average attendance thirty, of whom only twenty-six reside in the township, and that the accommodation
12
admits of 14 cubic feet per child; that the managers submitted plans to the education authority carrying out their requirements, viz., to provide a playground, cloak-room, and lavatory in accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Marvin, the Inspector of the Board of Education, made in November, 1905, and that such plans never received the sanction of the local authority, and the Board of Education refused to allow the work to be carried out until such sanction was obtained; that it was not until May, 1907, that the West Riding Education Committee definitely refused to sanction the improvements proposed to be carried out in accordance with the report of the Inspector of the Board of Education, and decided that a new school was necessary; that a petition signed by every ratepayer and parent of children attending the school protesting against this decision had been forwarded to the Board of Education, and that the cost of the proposed school, to accommodate sixty children, would inflict a burden on the ratepayers of East Hardwick of 1s. in the £ in addition to the existing education rate of 8d. in the £ in a purely rural hamlet; that under Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902, the Board of Education in deciding on appeal as to the provision of a new school shall have regard:—(1) To the interests of secular instruction; (2) to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children; (3) to the economy of the rates.
"To ask further, how, in view of the fact that the plans submitted by the managers to carry out the requirements of the Board of Education, which had met with the full approval of the district Sub-Committee, to whom the West Riding County Council submitted them, were never returned by the Board of Education to the managers so as to enable them to carry out the requirements of the Board, and have been in the hands of the Board ever since March, 1907, the Board can now condemn the Managers for delay, and propose to take compulsory powers in order to grant the demand of the West Riding County Council for a new council school, when they have never given the managers a chance of carrying out the requirements of their own inspector, by giving their sanction to the plans in question."

13
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if, in asking the Lord President of the Council the Questions which stand in my name on the Paper, I give a very short statement of the facts of the case. I know the locality perfectly well, and I think the facts which I shall put before your Lordships do not admit of any dispute. The East Hardwick school has been carried on for 250 years as a Church of England school, and it has served a small rural hamlet comprising some 627 acres, with a rateable value of about £600. In 1872 when the population reached 282, which is its highest point, the school buildings were considerably improved and enlarged. Since then the population has decreased—in 1881 to 228, in 1891 to 193, in 1901 to 155, and at present, I believe, the population is 144. The average attendance in the school is, I believe, 30; this allows 14 superficial feet for each child. If 10 feet were allowed there would be room for 50 children in the school.
For some time prior to June, 1905, correspondence had been going on between the Education Committee of the West Riding and the trustees of the school with regard to the necessity of providing a cloakroom, lavatory, and playground. There was great difficulty in finding accommodation for the playground, and the managers referred to the Board of Education. The Secretary to the Board, in a letter dated 10th July, 1905, wrote in regard to the playground—
"I am, however, to inform you that in the opinion of the Board the local education authority have no power to require your managers to provide a playground."
That was the opinion of the Board of Education in 1905. The managers, however, did their best to provide a playground. The difficulties which they encountered postponed their being able to make definite proposals for a playground until some time later than that at which they did send in plans for the other improvements; but they were eventually able to send in definite plans for a playground, and not only that, but to offer to the local education authority the exact piece of ground which the inspector of the local authority had said
14
would be sufficient and desirable for the purpose of a playground.
On 21st June, 1905, the trustees, after consultation with the vicar, the Charity Commissioners, the Board of Education, and the West Riding Education Committee, authorised tenders for the work of constructing the lavatory, cloakroom, etc., as soon as the plans had been sanctioned by the local education authority and the Board of Education. On 29th September, Mr. Marvin, on behalf of the Board of Education, visited the school, approved of the proposed alterations, and reported accordingly. On 8th November an inspector would the school on behalf of the West Riding Education Committee, and his report approved them also, with certain provisos as to the playground. On 10th November of that year plans were submitted by the trustees to the West Riding Education Committee, and in January, 1906, the trustees, having overcome the difficulties, agreed to lease a portion of the glebe land for a playground to enable them to carry out the necessary conditions. In accordance with this agreement, plans for the playground were subsequently submitted to the local education authority. So that definite plans, considered sufficient both by the inspector of the Board of Education and by the inspector of the local education authority, were submitted to the West Riding Education Committee.
All this time the plans for the building, submitted to the local education authority, had neither been approved nor returned to the managers, and they were advised by the Board of Education that they had no power to improve the school without the sanction of the West Riding Education Committee. On 16th November, 1906, that body, though they had never returned the plans or communicated with the managers, announced their intention to provide a new school to accommodate sixty children. The managers remonstrated, and in March, 1907, the West Riding Education Committee's architect attended the school—that is more than a year after the plans for the improvement of the buildings had been sent in—and proposals to erect a cloakroom and lavatory and to provide a certain amount of glebe land for a

15
playground were again discussed, and the managers' willingness to provide the same without cost to the ratepayers when their plans were sanctioned was again brought forward. The managers were prepared to do this at their own cost, and the architect promised that the proposals should receive the early attention of the West Riding Education Committee.
Two months later the Education Committee definitely refused to sanction the plans submitted on 10th November, 1905, and never returned them, and intimated their intention, with the consent of the Board of Education, to compel the building of a new council school to accommodate sixty scholars at a cost of £14 per head, making a total cost of £1,000 for the whole work. Upon this a public meeting of ratepayers was held on 22nd June, 1907, to protest against the county council's proposal to saddle the hamlet with a council school which they did not wish to have, and all were unanimous in condemnation of the proposal. The managers appealed to the Board of Education and supported their appeal by a petition from all the inhabitants of the district and the ratepayers, but the Board of Education, under Mr. McKenna, refused to alter its decision and that of the local education authority, and did not grant a legal inquiry in accordance with its powers. Nor did Mr. McKenna consider, as I submit he was bound to do in making his decision, under Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902, first, the interests of secular education; secondly, the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children; and, thirdly, the economy of the rates.
When this decision became known a lady who lives in the locality very generously offered to build a new school to accommodate fifty children, the school to remain a voluntary school similar to the one it was to replace. The West Riding Education Authority, however, refused the offer, the chairman stating that it was a deathbed repentance, whereas the delay in carrying out the alterations was entirely due to the county council and not to the managers of the school. An appeal to the Board of Education met with the same result,
16
the vicar of East Hardwick, who attended on behalf of the offer to build a new school, being told that Mr. McKenna had already decided that there was to be a council school. The Board of Education, on the petition of the West Riding County Council, has now introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House, on 5th May, asking for compulsory powers for the purpose of compelling Mr. Thornton, of Pontefract, to sell part of his land for the site of the proposed new council school, the West Riding Education Committee having failed to find a single owner of property in East Hardwick willing to sell and for such a purpose.
The cost to the ratepayers of a council school will amount to an additional rate of 1s. in the £, making a total education rate of 1s. 8d. in the £. That is a plain statement, I believe, of the facts. There is no pretence for saying that there is not adequate accommodation for the children who attend the school. There is accommodation in the school for fifty children. The Education Blue-book, published in 1907, shows accommodation for fifty children in the existing school, and, in point of fact, only thirty children attend. All the children who attend the school, with the exception of one, are over five. The figures supplied by the local education authority to the Board of Education as to the number of children of school age whom the new provided school would serve, include all children over three, two boys attending the Pontefract grammar school and who would not attend this school at East Hardwick, and eleven children who are in the habit of attending a school belonging to another parish. No legal inquiry into the matter was granted by Mr. McKenna after he had received the petition from the inhabitants of the district.
In regard to the interests of secular education, if the proposed alterations were such as to make the school sufficient, as is admitted on the report of both inspectors, obviously the secular education would be quite as good in the one building as in the suggested new school. The wishes of the inhabitants have been entirely disregarded, as shown by their petition and their absolute refusal to sell any property for a provided school. And

17
in regard to rates, I have already told your Lordships that it will mean an increase of 1s. in the £ in the education rate paid by this poor and small hamlet. Disentangled from complications, the plain fact is that the local education authority required certain improvements to be made in the East Hardwick school, including the provision of a playground, which, as I have informed your Lordships, the Board of Education said they had no power to compel; that the proposed alterations were considered sufficient; that the managers did find a playground, though it was not necessary for them to do so; and that, in spite of all this, the local education authority, with the consent of the Board of Education, refused to allow the plans to be carried out and insisted upon building a new provided school, at a great increase to the rates and contrary to the wishes of all the inhabitants. In face of these facts it is almost impossible to deny that what really determined the action, both of the Board of Education and the local education authority, was the desire to substitute a provided school under the local authority for the non-provided school which had always existed in the parish. This is made sufficiently obvious by the fact that when the managers offered to build a new school their offer was refused.
I know what will be said in answer to my questions. It will be said, first of all, that the plans were retained by inadvertence, which I think is an extremely lame excuse; and, next, that the plans were carefully considered and deemed insufficient. If the proposed alterations, as is not denied, were considered sufficient up to 1907, what suddenly determined their insufficiency in May, 1907? I do not like to make the suggestion, but it is almost impossible that the thought should not occur to one's mind that it was the same administrative action which has been threatening the training colleges, which in this case was applied to an elementary school in a poor country village. In regard to the detention of the plans, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention, for it is an instructive comment upon all this, to what occurred in the neighbouring hamlet of Wentbridge. There there was a non-
18
provided school which was admittedly insufficient. The managers offered to build a new school, and submitted plans for that purpose. The plans were detained by the local education authority, and representations were made to the Board of Education that the managers were unwilling to take any steps to meet the requirements of the local education authority. Upon the strength of those representations, which were false, as I shall show in a manner that cannot be contradicted, the Board of Education sanctioned the erection of a provided school. The managers were subsequently able to prove to the Board of Education that the information supplied to them by the local education authority was incorrect, with the result that the Board of Education rescinded their Order. In their letter to the local education authority, a copy of which I have in my hand, the Board of Education state definitely that inasmuch as they had ascertained that the information supplied to them was incorrect they had rescinded their Order to erect a new provided school. The managers were in consequence allowed to carry out their plans, and this hamlet has now a non-provided voluntary school in the place of the provided school which would have been forced upon them if they had not been able to prove to the Board of Education that the information supplied by the local education authority was, to use a mild expression, absolutely incorrect.
It appears to me that when we are told, as we are constantly being told, that the inhabitants of this country are quite indifferent whether they have a denominational or an undenominational, school, the facts in the case of this little school of East Hardwick prove diametrically the reverse; and I would ask your Lordships what chance of peace there is likely to be in regard to this education question if in all the single school districts in the country, in which the single schools are largely Church schools, we are to have this sort of treatment adopted towards them on the part of the local education authority? I myself attach much greater weight to the question of the character of the school than I do even to the question of the rate; but I think your Lordships will

19
admit that the question of the rate is not an unimportant one, and that it is absolutely intolerable that the rate should be raised against the wish of the whole of the inhabitants when everything that the parish itself wished for, and was necessary for educational purposes, could be got without difficulty and without adding a penny to the rates. I must say I think it a very astonishing thing that proposals of this sort should come from those who profess that the wishes of the inhabitants should be respected, and that such proposals, so diametrically opposed to the pecuniary and other interests of the parishioner, should be sanctioned by the Board of Education. I now beg to put the Questions standing in my name, and I would ask the President of the Council whether, in view of these circumstances, he will not withdraw the Bill for taking compulsory powers and give the managers an opportunity of carrying out the improvements which they are quite ready to do.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I find myself in rather a curious position in regard to the House and the Questions of the noble Viscount. I have no official knowledge of the subject at all, I have only been at the Privy Council now for about a month; and this matter has not been brought under my notice before to-day. In any case I do not know whether the Privy Council has any power to deal with it. So far as I can make out, the Privy Council consists principally of secretaries and messengers. There is a splendid room, and a splendid inkstand, but otherwise I do not think the President of the Council has anything to do. At any rate, the control of education and the control of agriculture has been taken away from the President of the Council. In this matter, therefore, I must confine myself to reading the brief which has been supplied to me by the Board of Education. I do not think it is a good custom for Ministers to read typewritten replies, but I am sorry to say that in this case I am compelled to follow that course, and I apologise to the House therefor.
It appears that in 1901 the Board's attention was called to the absence of a playground for this school. In 1903
20
the Board were informed that the state of the premises was unsatisfactory (there was no cloakroom, lavatory, or water supply, and the roof was leaking) and that there was no playground. The attention of the managers was called to these defects, and they were warned that, unless the defects in the premises were removed, no further annual grant would be paid. On December 13th, 1904, the Board were informed that the defects in the premises had not been removed, and they again called the attention of the managers to the matter on 23rd February, 1905. It appears that plans were prepared by the managers for the improvement of the premises and submitted to the local education authority early in 1905, and the local education authority returned the plans to the managers, with certain additional requirements. Plans for the improvement of the premises, but not including a playground, reached the Board from the managers on 6th July, 1905. On 10th July, 1905, these were sent by the Board, in accordance with their universal practice, to the local education authority for their observations. Considerable discussion took place at this period as to the necessity for a playground. A special visit to the school was paid by His Majesty's inspector, and he advised that the requirement of a playground should be supported, and on 28th September, 1905, the Board endorsed his recommendation. The plans were again returned by the managers to the Board, still without provision for a playground, on 15th December, 1906, when they were again sent by the Board to the local education authority. The local education authority had previously, on 4th December, 1906, given notice to provide a new council school. On 8th February, 1907, the local education authority informed the Board that, on the advice of their architect, they were unable to approve the managers' plans. On 18th February, 1907, the Board received an appeal against the proposed new council school from the ratepayers and inhabitants of East Hardwick. The managers' plans, including the provision of a playground, appear to have again reached the Board from the local education authority on 5th March, 1907. These plans were at once sent to

21
His Majesty's inspector, who reported that, even if they were carried out, the premises would still be very poor. The local education authority expressed a similar opinion on 26th March, 1907. On 19th May, 1907, the Board decided, after consideration of all the circumstances of the case, that the proposed now council school was necessary. This decision was communicated to the local education authority and the managers, and, in letters dated 17th June and 18th July, 1907, the Board explained to the managers that they had taken the proposals of the managers into account in forming their decision that a council school was necessary, and that they considered that, even if the alterations, including the provision of a playground, were carried out, the premises would still be very poor, and not fit on that account for recognition permanently. The plans were, by inadvertence, not returned to the managers when the Board's decision was communicated to them, and the managers did not call attention to the omission until 16th April, 1908. The plans were returned on 30th April, 1908. It will be seen from these facts that this case was decided against the managers of the voluntary school on its merits and not on the ground of delay. Having decided that the proposed improvements in the voluntary school would not make it fit for permanent recognition and that the erection of a new council school was necessary, the Board had no alternative but to assent to the exercise of compulsory powers by the local education authority, since they were unable to acquire a site by agreement. I am afraid that is all the Answer I can give the noble Viscount. It is, I think, a very clear and definite Answer. As to the merits of it, I cannot take any responsibility.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to call attention to the reply which has just been given by the Lord President of the Council. What is the mode by which His Majesty's Government can be approached in your Lordships' House on educational matters? Here is a question brought up, and the Lord President tells us he is afraid he has no official knowledge on the subject and apparently has no access to such knowledge.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I have given the House the report of the Board of Education on the matter.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Are we unable to obtain any responsible replies to such Questions in this House?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I represent the Board of Education in this House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord says he represents the Board of Education. That being so, I do not understand why he has no official knowledge. I am puzzled by the statement of the noble Lord that powers in regard to education had been taken away from the Privy Council. Presumably powers with respect to education lie somewhere, and there must be some one in the House responsible for answering Questions in relation to education.
I pass from the frame that surrounds the Answer, and come to the Answer itself. As far as I could see, the noble Lord read an account corresponding in its entirety to the statement which had been previously made by the noble Viscount. If the facts are accurate, what is the explanation? The point is not so much the bullying attitude of the local authority as the endorsement given to that attitude by His Majesty's Government. We have been told over and over again that we should trust the local authorities in matters of this kind. We have heard many arguments in the last few years to that effect, and I plead guilty to being one of those who have constantly urged that our duty in these matters is to leave the responsibility upon the local authority who have been entrusted by Parliament with these important functions. In this instance it appears to me, as far as I can follow it, that the local education authority not only have no case, but have not even attempted to present a case.
But I confess that what staggers me is less the instance of the tyranny of the local education authority—though that is somewhat alarming and bewildering, for it is exercised contrary to the wishes of every ratepayer in the parish and of

23
the parent of every child in the school—than the endorsement given to such action by the Board of Education, who appear to have stated that they saw no ground for regarding the action of the local education authority as other than right. If I understood the reply of my noble friend just now, he stated that the Government had no alternative but to sanction a council school, that being, by the admitted facts, contrary to the wishes of all the parishioners and all the parents. But I would point out that a lady had offered to build an entirely new school, which would have saved the whole of the expense to the parish. The argument, therefore, as to the inadequacy of the old building entirely falls to the ground.
The Board of Education have taken up this position in the teeth of the Act of Parliament, which says that in deciding cases of this sort they are to have regard, first, to the interests of secular instruction (obviously not impaired by the nature of the building, which was to be new), secondly, to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, the parents being in this case unanimous; and, thirdly, to the economy of the rates, upon which must be placed now the whole expenditure which a private individual would have been willing to bear. The statement which we have heard from the Lord President did not seem to me to be any attempt at a practical reply.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, while we are on this subject I should like to say a word or two as manager of a voluntary school under the West Riding County Council in connection with which we have suffered very much the same kind of treatment as that of which the noble Viscount complains. I approach the matter from a rather different point of view from that of the most rev. Primate. The most rev. Primate says he is not so much concerned with the tyranny of the West Riding County Council or the local education authority as with the answer of His Majesty's Government. I think the answer of His Majesty's Government really amounts to very little. My noble friend below me, Lord Tweedmouth, explained the
24
difficulty he was in, and that this was an intricate matter of which he had no personal knowledge. What I wish to ask is whether, where you have the tyranny of a body like the West Riding County Council, the Board of Education is of any use to us? Or is it absolutely powerless when it comes to close quarters on a matter of this kind with a strong and determined body like the education authority of the West Riding County Council?
In my particular case, the local education authority absolutely disregarded, not only the wishes, But the experience of the people for whom they were supposed to be acting. It was the case of a small voluntary school established in an old toll-house. I quite admit that the school was perfectly inadequate to the educational needs or ideals of the present day, but there were only twenty-five or twenty-six children in attendance, and sometimes the number went down to sixteen; it was never above twenty-eight. The other day we were told—and I was perfectly willing to recognise the justice of it—that we were to put up a new school to serve this side of the district. We suggested sites and gave reasons and so on, but the local education authority paid no attention to any suggestions we made, although they were accompanied by arguments which we thought to the point regarding a likelihood of a dislocation of population. They chose their own site and put up the school.
I do not mind so much their disregarding the site we recommended, but as a matter of fact they have erected a school which will accommodate sixty or seventy children, at a cost to the ratepayers of between £1,100 and £1,200. And now that they have done this and have discovered that there are not nearly enough children to fill the school, we are to be put to a large additional expenditure to provide a heating apparatus, because it is pointed out that the few children who will attend will be starved to death in the cold weather unless this provision is made. When I saw the plans I suggested one or two alterations; I suggested a limestone wall, but instead of that they have given us the sort of railings which you find round villas at Surbiton.

25
They paid no attention at all to our suggestions, and the building they have erected is the sort of thing you see in the Bois de Boulogne where you go and take tea. It has a chalet appearance with Surbiton railings round it. I gave the ground and was glad to do it, but when I was asked to be present and open the new school, I replied that I would have nothing to do with such wanton waste of public money. We did all we could to bring our views forward, but when the matter went to the Board of Education the Board were powerless or afraid to do anything. I should like to ask whether that is a desirable state of things.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I venture to think that this state of things is very unsatisfactory, both as regards this House and the information it gets, and also as regards the particular case brought forward by Lord Halifax. I am puzzled to understand the position which the Lord President of the Council takes up. When a Minister answers a question he is supposed to have looked through the Papers himself, and to deal with the House as one who is satisfied that the statement he is making is correct; whereas I understand Lord Tweedmouth has merely read to us a typewritten document supplied by the Board of Education, and with which he says he has nothing to do. He simply read it without having verified it in any respect himself, nor has he favoured us with his opinion upon the subject brought before us. I consider that a very unsatisfactory state of things. If the Lord President of the Council cannot answer for the Board of Education we should have some other noble Lord who can. The other point which seems to me to be very unsatisfactory is that we have had no answer to the question why, when an appeal was made to the Board of Education, backed up by all the inhabitants of the district, and the ratepayers, the Board of Education did not hold an inquiry under Section 9 of the Education Act of 1892 to verify the local statements, instead of simply upholding the local education authority without any inquiry at all. I consider these two matters extremely unsatisfactory, and I hope we shall have some further explanation of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I would be the last person to say anything of an unfriendly character towards the noble Lord who occupies the position of Lord President of the Council, but I agree with the most reverend Primate and the noble Viscount who has just sat down that our position is very unsatisfactory, and it will become impossible when the Education Bill comes up unless we are to have a representative of the Board of Education on the Front Bench opposite who can really go into the questions and answer points raised in debate. Until a short time ago the noble Earl who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies was Lord President of the Council, and I doubt if any one in your Lordships' House knew so much of Mr. Birrell's Bill as he did. Consequently I remember the noble Earl was congratulated on the manner in which he conducted the debates on that measure, and I venture to think that if another Bill of great importance is to come to this House, whoever represents the Board of Education on the Front Ministerial Bench should be, I will not say as conversant with the matter as the noble Earl, for I think that would be almost impossible, but at any rate thoroughly acquainted with the details of that measure.
The substance of the answer which has been given to-day in no way meets the case made out by Lord Halifax. If there is to be a combination between the local education authority and the Board of Education to tyrannise over voluntary schools, then indeed the greatest injustice possible can be anticipated by supporters of denominational schools. We have had put before us to-day a variety of reasons why the Board of Education should not have adopted the line they have, and I cannot think we have had one clearly-put argument as to the reasons why they have taken that course. I should like to ask whether the cost of this school, which is not wanted by the ratepayers and is objected to by the inhabitants, will come out of the £100,000 grant or out of the rates. In any case, the ratepayers of East Hardwick will be burdened with a rate which they do not desire. In

27
1905 the managers advised the Board of Education that they proposed to put the school in a satisfactory condition. The Board's architect thoroughly approved of their proposals, and they were approved by the architect representing the local education authority. Therefore, I would ask on what grounds the Board of Education declined to permit the managers either to improve the school or to build a new school. With regard to the playground, in all probability I was myself responsible for the answer that was sent, to the effect that no claim could be made upon the managers to provide a playground. But, in spite of that, so anxious were the East Hard-wick managers to meet any requirements, that they were prepared to provide a playground adequate for the purpose.
I come back to the main question. Why was the desire of the ratepayers not to have a new school entirely overridden by the Board of Education? Surely there must be some reason behind all this. It seems to me that the Board of Education have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1902 in dealing with this case; and on this point I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the Board has not been guilty of an illegality in infringing the provisions of Section 9, which enacts that—
"The Board of Education, in deciding an appeal as to the provision of a new school, shall have regard, first, to the interests of secular education."
Is the secular education insufficient or badly administered in this East Hard-wick school? Surely not, or the school would not be receiving the Government grant.
"Secondly, to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children"—
My noble friend has told us that meetings of the inhabitants and ratepayers have been held, and that they almost unanimously object to the proposal to build a council school. In that matter the action of the Board of Education is contrary to the Act. The section continues that the Board of Education shall have regard—
"thirdly, to the economy of the rates."
I do not think that any Member of the Front Bench opposite will assert for a
28
moment that they are considering the economy of the rates. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether by their action the Board of Education are not infringing the provisions of the Act of 1902.
I ask, on what grounds did the Board of Education refuse the legal inquiry for which the managers had every right to ask? Surely that is contrary to the spirit and desire of the Act. After all, the Board of Education is not a political body. It should decide impartially in the interest of good education, and therefore I again ask on what ground was an inquiry refused. I can only think that the action of the Board of Education, in combination with the West Riding Education Authority, is to squeeze out denominational schools. If that is the case, it is a most unfair way in which to deal with political opponents. It is nothing more nor less than introducing politics into education. I hope, before the conclusion of the debate, we shall have some further explanation from His Majesty's Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, this is a case which involves the administrative discretion of the head of a Department. It is one of those cases which, when I had to deal with them, always made me wish that a reform which, for all I know, may be some day proposed, had already been adopted—namely, that Ministers were permitted to deal with Departmental cases in either House of Parliament. These are, as I have said, purely cases of personal discretion in administration, and it is very difficult for those who are not immediately concerned in the business of an office to deal fully and adequately with questions arising out of its administration.
I think that the most rev. Primate and subsequent speakers were somewhat hard on my noble friend behind me, the Lord President of the Council. These are among the most difficult class of questions to understand and follow of any that I know. My noble friend has not long held his present office,

29
and I think it is not surprising that he has not yet mastered all the intricacies of administration which arise under the Education Act of 1902. If I had been confronted with a similar question when I had been only the same time in that office I should have found myself obliged to give what my noble friend frankly admitted was a somewhat formal answer instead of a reasoned argument of the whole case.
This, as I say, is a question of administrative discretion. This school is over 200 years old. That is, no doubt, an interesting fact, and a fact which, of itself, arouses some sympathy with the continuance of the school; but it is not a fact which, as such, can be said to appeal to the Board of Education. The Board of Education has to deal with schools as they are, and it is not disputed that for some considerable time this small village school was in certain respects behind the general modern standard of comfort for the children who attended it. For instance, for a long time there was no playground, and the managers argued, if I remember rightly, with some obstinacy against the idea of providing one at all. That is a point on which the Board of Education, though willing to do all they could, were obliged to put their foot down. Then the cloakroom and lavatory accommodation was for a considerable time inadequate, and it was not until something like four years after the attention of the managers had originally been called to that fact that plans were submitted and a change made.
The question, as I have said, is one of the administrative discretion of the Minister. The noble Marquess opposite has correctly pointed out three grounds on which the head of the Board of Education has to act under Section 9 of the Act of 1902 in deciding whether or not a new school is necessary. Those are, as we know, the interests of secular education, the wishes of the parents, and the burden of the rates. But, my Lords, the Minister for Education of the day can, as I have often pointed out from this Table, lay any degree of stress upon any one of those considerations to the exclusion of the other two. We have often held that the task imposed upon any
30
head of the Board of Education to decide between incompatible and very often opposing things was a really impossible task to perform. The result is that the matter is left to the discretion of the Minister of the day, and therefore when the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire applied to have a council school erected, my right hon. friend, Mr. McKenna, had to make that decision.
I think it is evident from, I am afraid, the little time I have been able to give to the subject, that it was a very nicely balanced case, and I cannot say what my own decision would have been had I been President of the Board of Education at the time. I should have been in considerable doubt on the subject, but my right hon. friend, in the exercise of his discretion, did decide—primarily, I take it, on the ground that even if the proposed repairs and alterations were made to the school it would be essentially un unsatisfactory school—in favour of the West Riding County Council. As I have said before at this Table, I hold no brief for the West Riding County Council in these matters of education, though I was once a member of that body in the happy time when complaints of this particular order did not arise; and I think I have said on former cases that the particular pressure which the West Riding County Council has occasionally thought fit to exercise upon voluntary schools was not one which I was in any way concerned to defend. As regards the Wentbridge case, I know nothing of the particular circumstances. Still less do I know anything of the illustrative case presented by Lord Ribblesdale, which did not bear directly upon this case but merely formed part of a general indictment against the West Riding County Council as a local education authority.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: It bears directly on one of Lord Halifax's main points, that of the rates.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I must again point out to my noble friend that this is a matter entirely in the discretion of the Minister of the day. That may be an unfortunate fact, but he gives such weight as he chooses, in relative proportion, to the three considerations

31
referred to. And when the noble Marquess opposite attempts to point out that the interests of secular education are satisfied by the fact that the school had been receiving the grant, I would point out that this is not the case. The interests of secular education must mean the general efficiency of the school, and would also, of course, include the condition of the school from sanitary and other points of view. Then the most rev. Primate said that my noble friend the Lord President had stated that there was no alternative to the action of the Board of Education. This, I think, was a misapprehension on the part of the most rev. Primate. Of course there is that discretion which I have already described. What my noble friend stated was this, that after the council school had been declared necessary no offer to build a new school had been considered. That, I think, was the only point on which that particular question arose.
The noble Marquess who has just sat down asked whether any part of the £100,000 grant would be devoted to the erection of this school. I understand not. This case is taken entirely on its merits as the provision of a council school in the ordinary manner, and therefore the whole sum will be provided out of the rates in the proportion with which the noble Marquess is, of course, familiar. Cases of this kind are, no doubt, usefully debated in your Lordships' House, but we come perpetually back to the point that the Minister of the day takes his own view as to how he will exercise his discretion. It is quite right, no doubt, that those who object to that exercise of discretion should comment upon it where they think the Minister has acted wrongly, but as the Act of Parliament stands the absolute discretion does rest with the Department, and it is clearly impossible to go behind what Mr. McKenna did in this instance.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl whether it is not possible for some steps to be taken to prevent the compulsory powers applied for being granted to the local education authority to provide a site. The Bill for compulsory powers has been referred
32
to the Examiners, and it will very shortly, I suppose, come before this House, when I presume it will be competent for any Member of your Lordships' House to move that the Bill be not agreed to. As to the playground, I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from the surveyor's report which was sent to the local education authority on this question. He first of all said, in regard to the suggested site—
"This site is available, and if the vicar will hand it over to the trustees it will provide the site necessary for the purpose."
That site for the playground was acquired for the school, and therefore there is no question that the playground could have been provided. The surveyor added—
"In the circumstances the question of adding to the rates by the provision of a provided school should not be brought forward until all other means of making the necessary playground provision had been exhausted."
This was the report of the surveyor of the local education authority itself. The necessary site was forthcoming, but, nevertheless, the local authority and the Board of Education insisted upon a provided school.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I feel that this is a very difficult matter to discuss without a fuller statement of the facts on both sides. The facts as presented by the noble Viscount opposite are, no doubt, very strong in his favour, and I should be inclined, if those facts were incapable of being refuted, to give him a rule nisi. But there are two defendants in this case—the Board of Education and the West Riding Education Authority. I should be perfectly willing to say, on the facts as presented to-day, that the local education authority, while it might have been perfectly right in the earlier days in pressing for a suitable school, used its powers oppressively at the latter part of the negotiations. We have not, however, a leading member of the West Riding County Council here to tell us from his own knowledge what passed, and therefore I do not like to condemn one party to a dispute when that party has not been properly heard.
But may I point out to the noble Viscount a course which he and his friends

33
might properly take whereby this question would be fought out in the best possible way? A Provisional Order is at this moment being promoted to acquire the proposed site by compulsion. That Provisional Order takes the course of an ordinary private Bill. The owner of the site proposed to be taken can oppose, and he can give any evidence he pleases to satisfy the Private Bill Committee that it is not a proper case for the exercise of compulsory powers. I understand that the Board of Education has not yet removed this voluntary school from the list of public elementary schools. Therefore it is quite competent for the owner of the proposed site to show to the Committee that this school is at the moment recognised, that the managers are ready and willing to do everything, to the extent of actually building a new school, and that therefore there is no occasion for Parliament to grant powers for the purchase of a site on which to erect a council school. If that were done both sides would be heard before an impartial tribunal. It cannot be satisfactory to debate a question where we have only the case, temperately put, I admit, of one side.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House apologised for the somewhat meagre explanation afforded by his colleague on the ground that the Lord President is a novice in his present Department. The Leader of the House cannot plead that he is a novice in regard to matters of education; indeed, he has, on the contrary, always been regarded by us as a high authority upon the subject. Therefore, when we find his explanation not more satisfactory than that of the Lord President, we may, I think, conclude that the Government case is not a very strong one. Neither of the two noble Lords can be surprised if we are dissatisfied with their explanations; and it is to be observed that both of them carefully avoided accepting an ounce of responsibility for the action of the Board of Education. The Secretary of State for the Colonies explained to us that this was a question involving the administration of a Department, and that the matter lay enttirly within the personal discretion of the head of that Department. I do not know whether we are to
34
expect in this House that whenever an awkward question is put to the Front Bench opposite we are to be told, if the head of the Department does not happen to sit on that Front Bench, that the matter is one concerning the personal discretion of the Minister at the head of the Department.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I explain that the peculiar character of the discretion which rests with the Minister for Education under the Act of 1902 is what made me draw attention to the point in this particular instance. I should by no means say that of every administrative act of every Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I accept my noble friend's interpretation of the matter; but if he tells us that the question is one concerning the administration of the Department, and that the administration rests with the head of the Department, then I say that it is the recent administration of the Education Department that fills us with apprehension. This is not a solitary case in which the administration of the Board of Education had been of an aggressive, and, I would almost venture to say, of a vindictive character.
I will not recapitulate the history of this case at length, but just let us fix our attention on the salient facts. Here is a small school in an out-of-the-way part of the country, but this episode has thrown a flood of light upon the educational policy of His Majesty's Government. This little school has been for 250 years a Church of England school; it is big enough, is admitted to be big enough, to meet the wants of the decreasing population. It requires only one or two alterations to bring it up to modern requirements, and it is quite clear to any reasonable mind that there is no difficulty in providing those modern alterations. The matter was investigated again and again; everyone was consulted, the trustees, the West Riding Education Committee, the Charity Commissioners, the Board of Education, and all went perfectly well until the month of March, 1907. Even the two architects sent down by the local education committee

35
and the Board of Education were satisfied with the alterations that were proposed. Then what we want to know is why, in the spring of 1907, there was a sudden change of front, and why at that particular moment this new, and, I venture to say, aggressive policy was set in force? What has happened? A new council school is to be built to accommodate sixty children, the present attendance being thirty, and at a cost of £1,000. The ratepayers naturally objected, but the Board of Education refused an inquiry.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Can the noble Marquess tell us what was the foundation of the original school—who built it, and who was responsible for it?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am informed that it has been a Church of England school for over 200 years. Is that challenged?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not know.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then why did the noble Lord interrupt me? I am assured by my noble friend behind me that there is no doubt whatever on the point.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: It was a non-provided school.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Even assuming that the alterations originally proposed and acquiesced in by everybody, including the Board of Education, are insufficient, and that something more must be done, we can fall back on the generous offer made by a lady to build a new voluntary school at her own expense. Why is that offer brushed on one side? Why are the ratepayers to be compelled to find the money? In spite of the local indignation aroused at this high-handed conduct, inquiry is refused. The noble Marquess behind me appealed to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Loreburn) who was sitting upon the Woolsack at the time the noble Marquess was speaking for an opinion as to the legality of the action of the Board of Education. I
36
should be perfectly ready to accept one from my noble and learned friend who is sitting upon the Woolsack at this moment (The Earl of Halsbury). The clause in question runs—
"The Board of Education shall, without unnecessary delay, determine, in case of dispute, whether a school is necessary or not, and in so determining, and also in deciding upon any appeal as to the provision of a new school, shall have regard to the interests of secular education, to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, and to the economy of the rates."
We want to know why an investigation upon those lines was
peremptorily refused by the President of the Board of Education. To my mind this case is of very peculiar importance, because it seems to me to throw a good deal of light upon the sincerity of the professions of Ministers who tell us that they are in favour of a reasonable compromise on the education question. Within the last few hours a colleague of the noble Lord opposite, speaking in another place, said that His Majesty's Government had an earnest desire to obtain a lasting settlement of this controversy. He said that the great majority of the public were anxious for peace, and he dwelt upon the prevalence of a spirit of practicability and common sense. How far has the action of the Board of Education in the present case been animated by a desire for compromise or by a spirit of practicability or common sense? I venture to say that unless the administration of the Board of Education shows a greater amount of consideration and a less aggressive tendency, the chance of a reasonable settlement of this most difficult of all questions will be enormously decreased.

INDIAN TRADERS IN NATAL.
LORD AMPTHILLrose to call attention to the statement concerning the Municipal Corporations Act and the Dealers' Licences Act of the Colony of Natal made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 6th instant, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, about a fortnight ago I asked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could lay on the Table of the House any correspondence concerning the two Acts of the

37
Colony of Natal which are named in my Motion. In doing so I refrained from comment for two reasons. The first was that the noble Earl had only just succeeded to his high office, and the second was that I thought it was desirable, if possible, that important questions of this kind should be discussed in the full light of official knowledge. The noble Earl declared his inability to present any Papers, saying that there were no Papers to give.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I said the Papers were incomplete.
LORD AMPTHILL: Anyhow, there were no further Papers to present. But the noble Earl went out of his way to make a statement concerning the situation which has arisen in Natal on account of those two Acts. That statement added nothing to the knowledge of the subject which is possessed by the general public, but it omitted a good deal. I am, therefore, raising the question again today in the hope of persuading the noble Earl to repair those omissions, and particularly to give us some indication of his policy. We cannot, in view of past experience, rest content to leave a matter of this kind to the unquestioned discretion of the Colonial Office. We should fear that the result would be very much what it was in a recent case, on which I need not at this moment enlarge. But perhaps I may say that we all hope the noble Earl will initiate a policy at the Colonial Office rather different from that which has been pursued during the past two years, and he will, I am sure, understand that if I make any criticisms of the policy of His Majesty's Government they are not directed at him personally, although, of course, they are directed at the Government of which he is a Member.
The noble Earl said that there had been no correspondence since September, 1907, when his predecessor had addressed a letter to the Natal Government, which at that moment still remained unanswered. What I have to ask, then, in the first instance, is, why there has been no further correspondence. There has been plenty of occasions for further correspondence, and I confess I was dismayed at hearing that this had not
38
been the view of the Colonial Office. If the Imperial Government have any duty at all towards His Majesty's subjects, wherever they may be under the British flag, if they have any responsibility for the unity and harmony of the Empire, there has been ample and frequent occasion for correspondence with the Government of Natal. The Dealers' Licences Act, which was passed in the year 1897, has placed the Indian trader in Natal completely at the mercy of his European competitors. It is not clear that this measure was originally intended as an anti-Asiatic measure, although it is being at present administered as such. Licensing boards composed solely of Europeans, and those Europeans often the actual trade rivals of the Indians, have unprecedented powers of granting or refusing trade licences or renewals. But, what is most serious of all, there is no appeal from their decisions to the Courts of the Colony.
Now, these boards have of late been using their powers in a manner which can only be described as most unjust and high-handed. They have been refusing licences, or rather the renewal of licences, on the flimsiest of pretexts. Some of the Indians who have just been deprived of their livelihood are well-known shopkeepers and tradesmen who have been resident in the Colony for as long as twenty or thirty years, and had made the Colony their home. There can be no doubt whatever that all this is part of a deliberate policy to drive the Indian trader out of the Colony, and to reduce the Indian coolie to a condition which would be described by the supporters of His Majesty's Government as one of slavery. Apart from the injustice and inhumanity of this policy, it is both short-sighted and ungrateful. It is short-sighted because the Colony cannot do without Indian labour, and cannot have Indian labour unless the Indian trader remains there. It is ungrateful because the Indians—it is not too much to say it—have actually made the Colony of Natal. Natal would have been bankrupt years ago if it had not been for the presence of our Indian fellow subjects. Natal would be bankrupt to-morrow if you removed all the Indians from the Colony.

39
We may leave it to the Colonists themselves to consider the improvidence of the step so far as it is a matter that concerns their own interests; but the ingratitude concerns us, inasmuch as it amounts to a breach of an Imperial compact, and is, therefore, a serious danger to the Empire as a whole. The Indians came to Natal rather more than forty years ago by invitation. They came in response to an invitation when the Colony was in dire necessity, and their advent saved the Colony from impending ruin. These Indians made the Colony their home, relying on the good faith, not only of the Imperial Government, but also of the Colonial Government. Since they have been there they have played an indispensable part in the development of the Colony. The actual position is that there is an Indian population of 100,000, slightly in excess of the white population. Of these 40,000 are indentured labourers, while the remainder are free Indians, of whom a great proportion are women and children.
Before proceeding, I should like once more to explain my attitude on this question generally, in order that there may be no misunderstanding. I do not deny, and never have denied, the right of any Colony to limit or restrict the immigration, either of Indians or of any other people, as that is a matter concerning their own property, and the right is analogous to the rights which we exercise in our own country, both as regards public and personal property. But what I do say is that if it is necessary on economic grounds, on commercial grounds, to restrict the immigration of any section of His Majesty's subjects, the measures to that end should be so framed that there could be no suggestion or suspicion that such exclusion as might be necessary was made on grounds of colour or race prejudice. The exclusion must be on economic or proprietary grounds, and on those alone.
I return to the Dealers' Licences Act, and I should like to say that the unfairness of the Act has been recognised by many prominent citizens of Natal; and some, indeed, have protested in very strong language their indignation at the manner in which it was being administered.
40
I will not trouble your Lordships with numerous quotations. A single one will suffice. A former Attorney-General of the Colony, M. Labistour said
"That town councillors were called upon to perform a dirty work, in that they were expected to tacitly refuse licences merely on the ground of colour,"
and he suggested that if the legislature intended such work to be done it ough to legislate in that direction and not leave the town councils to do it.
That is a fair sample of the opinions which have been expressed by other prominent Colonists.
Now I come to the other Act—the Municipal Corporations Act. Up to 1896 free Indians in the Colony occupied a position of equality with the white Colonists, but in that year they were deprived of the political franchise. This Municipal Corporations Act proposes to deprive them of the municipal franchise. The reasons for this are not apparent. There is no analogy with the circumstances which were said to disqualify Indians for the political franchise—namely, that representative government did not exist in India. Municipal institutions do exist in India, and Indians have proved that they are well fitted to make good use of them. The Indians in Natal have done absolutely nothing to justify this proposed deprivation, and it is difficult to see what reason there can be for it unless it is to humiliate them and to render their position intolerable.
His Majesty's Government have not, so far as we are aware, protested against this law, but they have, so the noble Earl told us a fortnight ago, reserved assent to it in order to bargain for an appeal to the Supreme Court under the Dealers' Licences Act. The next question I have to ask is, Why have His Majesty's Government not protested against this proposed municipal disfranchisement? The letter suggesting this bargain in relation to the Licences Act was sent in September, 1907, and since then it appears that no further action has been taken. But meanwhile the persecution of Indians under the Licences Act has been going on apace. Why have His Majesty's Government not protested? I have seen the inner life of the Colonial Office, and I know what has been done, and can be done, under similar circumstances. Mr. Chamberlain

41
knew how to protest in precisely similar circumstances, and he did protest.
THE EARL OF CREWE: He passed this Act.
LORD AMPTHILL: I will take that point now. Mr. Chamberlain allowed the Act to pass because it was not apparent at the time, nor was it, I believe, the intention, that the Act should be an anti-Asiatic Act, but when he saw how it was being administered he protested. His protest met with a respectful hearing and a corresponding result; and what I want to know is why His Majesty's Government have not done the same now that this high-handed action has recommenced?
It is idle to say that these are domestic concerns of the Colony with which we may not interfere. The fact that the South African Colonies are not alone concerned is amply demonstrated by the feeling in India on this subject. His Majesty's Government, above all, cannot offer that excuse after their determined and uncompromising interference in the matter of Chinese labour. His Majesty's Government interfered to save the Chinese, who are not our fellow subjects, from ill-treatment, for so they declared it to be. By no possible quibble can they deny that the right, the power, and the duty to protect Indians who are our fellow-subjects is far greater. I will tell His Majesty's Government why they have not done anything, and why they have not been able to do anything. It is because you are not trusted by the Colonies and because you are not on friendly terms with the Colonies. At the instigation of a meddling section of your supporters, you have interfered with these Colonies and treated them unfairly in matters which are really not of Imperial concern. That is why you cannot get a hearing now when really Imperial concerns are at stake. You have interfered in the administration of justice and the preservation of order, which are purely local concerns. I need only instance your interference in the case of the murder of the police inspector in 1906, in the matter of the administration of martial law, and at the present time in the case of Dinizulu.
42
It is on account of that interference that the Colonies are flouting you now in this matter, and that they will not listen to any protests which you may make. And what is the attitude of the Dutch, whom you believe you have made your friends by the concessions you have given to them? It is only in human nature that they should be glad to see a dispute between British colonists and the Home Government, and that they should tacitly encourage it. That is what is going on now.
This inaction of His Majesty's Government has encouraged the Transvaal within the last few months to follow suit to Natal. The new Gold Law and the draft Local Government Bill, of which we have seen accounts in the Press, are attempts to restore a tyranny even worse than that which existed in the Kruger regime. What I have to ask is, What are His Majesty's Government going to do now? That is what we want to know, and we should like to see the cards on the table. We shall be told again, I suppose, that nothing can be said because it is a matter of "diplomacy." We know that diplomacy, and we want no more of it. We have learnt that what is called diplomacy, so far as the administration of Colonial affairs are concerned, means, first of all, timid protest, then long inaction, and, finally, ill-graced acquiescence. It is the diplomacy which banged, barred, and bolted the door against Colonies that favoured a policy distasteful to the Radical Party, but which licked the boots of the Colony which was ready to play the Radical Party game. It is the diplomacy which interfered recklessly to stop Chinese slavery, but which dares not raise a finger to prevent Indian slavery; which grovels before an Afrikander Ministry, but bullies a British Ministry in South Africa; which pledged five millions of British money to redeem Radical electioneering promises, but which will not give preference on a single peppercorn to promote Imperial unity. It is the diplomacy which has dragged down Imperial affairs, so far as the Colonies are concerned, into the mire of party politics. We want no more of that diplomacy, and we hope that the noble Earl, who has now so appropriately

43
been placed in the high office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, will return to the old policy of that Department—the policy of candid and fearless assertion of the rights of British subjects and of the duty of the Imperial Government, a policy which is better calculated than this recent diplomacy to inspire the confidence of our kith and kin beyond the seas, and to win the co-operation of the joint inheritors of our great traditions of freedom and justice.
Moved, for Papers.—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I anticipated a somewhat simple question from the noble Lord, but in this House one sometimes enjoys agreeable surprises. We have heard a glowing oration. If I were in the noble Lord's place I should be half disposed to ask the gentlemen in the Press Gallery not to report this speech, in order that he might have the advantage of delivering it somewhere on a public platform, to which, I think, it would be more suited than to the peaceful atmosphere of your Lordships' House.
I really have very little to add to what I said in reply to the noble Lord, whose deep and absolutely honest interest in this matter I most cordially recognise, when he put a similar question to me the other day. There are two so-called Acts concerned in this matter. One is the Dealers' Licences Act, which is in force, and the other is the Municipal Corporations Act, which is not in force; and really the only complaint I have to make of the noble Lord is that he mixed those measures so completely together that he would have almost led anybody not acquainted with the circumstances to imagine that both of those Acts were at this moment the law of Natal. The Licences Act is, but the Municipal Corporations Act is not. It is a reserved Bill.
LORD AMPTHILL: I said clearly that His Majesty's Government had reserved it in order to make a bargain.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, but at the same time the noble Lord denounced us for allowing Indians to be deprived
44
of their vote when, as a matter of fact, they have not been deprived of their vote. It is true that when the Prime Minister of Natal was here my noble friend, Lord Elgin, did propose what the noble Lord calls a bargain, and the reason for doing so was this, that it might undoubtedly be somewhat of a grievance to the Indian to lose his municipal vote, but the advantage of getting an appeal as to the Dealers' Licences Act would have been, from our point of view, and, as we believe, from the point of view of the Indian settlers in Natal, so infinitely greater that if that bargain could be made it would be an extremely good bargain The Municipal Corporations Act is, as we have said, not the law of the land. It is a reserved Bill; nothing whatever has happened under it, and therefore the Indian still has his municipal vote. In September last, as has been stated, my predecessor, Lord Elgin, wrote the despatch to which the noble Lord has alluded. That despatch has not, so far, been answered, and the effect of its not being answered is that nothing has happened and that the law remains exactly as it has been since 1897, when the Dealers' Licences Act was passed. So that what the noble Lord asks us to do is not, I take it, to deal with the Municipal Corporations Act, which for all we know, is dropped—at any rate, it does not, so far as we are concerned, exist—but to make an entirely fresh and independent attack upon the Dealers' Licences Act with a view of getting it altered. My noble friend Lord Elgin thought that what the noble Lord calls a bargain was the better way of getting to work, and if that bargain could be carried out I should certainly proceed with the policy of my noble friend. The noble Lord said that when the Dealers' Licences Act was passed in the year 1907, it was not imagined that it was going to apply to Asiatics. That is to me a most astounding statement.
LORD AMPTHILL: I did not say that. What I said was that it was not supposed to be by intention an anti-Asiatic Act.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not exactly know what the noble Lord means by that.
Lord AMPTHILL: It is very simple. An anti-Asiatic Act is an Act intended to make the position of Asiatics less bearable, less tolerable—an Act intended to drive them out of the country.
The Earl of CREWE: All Acts of Parliament depend to some extent on the method in which they are administered, and if an Act is passed which in future years, when feeling becomes more pronounced, enables a colony to act in a more pronounced way, then those who gave their consent to that Act are responsible. That Act, as the noble Lord must surely know, was explicitly framed so as to include Asiatics. The wording of Section 22 is exceedingly ingenious, and includes all Asiatics without naming them; and Asiatics have, as a matter of fact, been under it ever since.
I do not propose to deal with that part of the noble Lord's speech in which he said that we were regarded in an unfriendly manner by the Colony. I have no reason to believe that that is so as regards the Colonial Office, and, indeed, I repudiate the suggestion. There is only one point of his speech in that connection to which I would allude. When the noble Lord accuses us of having lost the affections of some of the Colonies by having shown an interest in native questions, he should not forget, among all his very natural interest in, and devotion to, the cause of Indians, that there are coloured men of other races who are also the subjects of His Majesty the King, and in considering the interests of one, as I hope we shall, we certainly do not intend to sacrifice the interests of the other.
As to the reason why no further correspondence has taken place, there was no real advantage in pressing for an answer to Lord Elgin's dispatch of September last until the Natal Parliament met. The Natal Parliament has not sat for six months. It is, I believe, to meet next month, and we shall then be in a very much better position to give a full reply to the noble Lord's question than we are at the present moment. I have no hostility whatever to the idea of publishing Papers on the subject. Our reason for not agreeing to do so at once was, as I stated at the
46
time, that the Papers, if published now, would be incomplete; but I hope that before the end of the session it may be possible to lay Papers, and if the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion I will let him know if and when it may be suitable to lay further Papers on the subject.
Viscount St. ALDWYN: My Lords, as I happen to know something about the Colony of Natal, I should like to trouble your Lordships with a few observations on this question. I think it is not at all surprising that the noble Lord behind me, with his great experience and knowledge of India and his natural interest in the subjects of the King in that part of the world, should have brought this question before your Lordships, but I do not think he made quite sufficient allowance for the extreme difficulty of the Colonial Office in dealing with such questions as this in Natal. They have to consider, not only the rights and claims of our Indian fellow subjects, but also the feelings and the interests of the white population in the Colony.
It is very easy for us to talk of the rights of our Indian fellow subjects in a British Colony, but your Lordships must remember that it is a British Colony and not an Indian Colony. I cannot myself see that because Indians are our fellow subjects therefore they have the right to the position of what is, after all, the dominant race in the British Empire, and to be placed on the same footing in Natal as the British race or the Dutch race. But I think they have a claim—a very strong claim—to be treated with fairness and justice, having regard to the rights which they have acquired at the present time in that Colony. It must be remembered that the Indian population in Natal outnumber the white population, and that the white population have to deal, in addition, with an enormously pre-pondering number of South African native races. It is an extremely difficult position, and a position which is increasing in difficulty rather rapidly.
I myself believe that the time ought to come very soon when the immigration of Indians into Natal—the indentured

47
coolie immigration—should, for the sake of everybody concerned, be brought to an end. I think it has become something very like a danger to the future of Natal. But, however that may be, I entirely admit that any obligation entered into with the Indians already there ought strictly and rigidly to be observed. We must remember the feelings—you may call them prejudices if you like—of the Natal colonist in this matter. From my own experience, I know that the feeling of the white population in Natal, generally, might almost be called bitter against the competition to which they are subjected from the very virtues of the Indian trader. The Indian is an abstemious and frugal person, he lives upon very little, he is always sober, he is content with small gains, and he is fitted in every way to be a trader; and the white trader in Natal, as in other parts of South Africa, finds it almost impossible to compete with him successfully. So naturally there exists a feeling in Natal that they would desire, if they could, to limit the number of Indians who are allowed to trade.
The Colonial Office cannot ignore the fact of that feeling, and they must consider it in their dealings with a self-governing Colony. My knowledge of South Africa leads me to say that the less the Colonial Office interfere in any matter with the self-governing Colonies of South Africa, the better for this country, the better for South Africa, and the better for the Empire as a whole. There is the white Natal side of this question to be considered as well as the Indian side. The Colonial Office have to judge between them, and they should endeavour to do so with fairness and justice.
Lord AMPTHILL: I, of course, readily accept the noble Lord's suggestion that he should let me know when it is convenient to present Papers, but I would like to point out that I did not receive any answer to my question as to why there has been no further correspondence on the subject of this highhanded administration of the law and no protests against the deprivation of the municipal franchise.
The Earl of CREWE: The deprivation of the municipal franchise has not yet taken place.
Lord AMPTHILL: I meant to say the proposed deprivation. The Act is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl confined himself more or less to an argument as regards the nature of the Dealers' Licences Act—an argument to the effect that it ought not to have been passed by His Majesty's Government in 1897, and that they should have foreseen that it would be used as an anti-Asiatic Act. There was absolutely no reason to foresee that it would be applied for that purpose. It was an Act which, on the face of it, bore nothing more than the intention to restrain objectionable persons from trading, whether Europeans or Indians. It was only some time afterwards that it was used for the purpose of persecuting Indian traders.
The Earl of CREWE: It did not apply to Europeans and to Indians alike. It applied to people who had not got the Parliamentary franchise at home.
Lord AMPTHILL: At any rate it was not an anti-Asiatic Act, and protests on previous occasions have been successful.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.