Lords Sitting of 5 April 1911

VISCOUNT BANGOR.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Maxwell Richard Crosbie, Viscount Bangor, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
ROCHDALE MARKET BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WINCHESTER CORPORATION (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CROYDON AND SOUTHERN DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order for the Second Reading To-morrow discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (HERTFORD SEWERAGE) BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order for receiving the Report of Amendments on Thursday the 11th of May next, discharged.

SIGHT TESTS IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to call attention to the tests in colour and form vision to which candidates for Board of Trade certificates as master or mate are at present subjected, and to the form vision test which it is proposed to introduce in the year 1914; to refer to the composition of the Departmental Committee which has been appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and advise upon these tests; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the session of 1909 I brought this question of sight tests to your Lordships' notice. But in view of the immense importance of it, not only from the point of view of safety of life at sea, but that under the present system it may result in men losing their means of livelihood most undeservedly through its uncertain and faulty nature, I feel that I am justified in calling attention to it once more.
As your Lordships are aware, all candidates at Board of Trade examinations for certificates qualifying them to command or officer British merchant vessels must first undergo a test as to their competency and efficiency in both colour and form vision. The Board of Trade before instituting these tests consulted experts, and the present tests were adopted by the Board of Trade on the recommendations of a Committee appointed by the Royal Society for this special purpose in the year 1892. A distinguished member of this House, Lord Rayleigh, was Chairman of this Committee. I trust that nothing I may say about the Committee will be accepted in anything but a purely general sense, and I certainly

1013
would not presume to cast a scintilla of doubt upon the noble Lord's profound knowledge and on his undoubted impartiality and good faith. But I think that the noble Lord must admit that, of late years, these eyesight tests which are applied by the Board of Trade examiners have raised a storm of hostile criticism, and there are renowned ophthalmologists, not to mention all captains and officers, who, of course, are competent to treat the matter in a sound practical light, who are emphatically of opinion that these tests are miserably inefficient and provide a ready source of grievous injustice. They may result in the failure of men whose colour and form vision are perfectly normal, whilst, on the other hand, it is contended that they may admit of dangerously colour-blind men qualifying for a certificate. An eminent ophthalmologist told me that he brought several colour-blind people to Sir William Abney, who tested them with the present official tests and declared their colour vision was all right.
Your Lordships may remember the now celebrated case of Mr. John Trattles, a remarkable illustration of muddle as regards these eyesight tests. This officer went to sea in 1897. In 1904 he passed the tests and also the rest of the examination, and was granted a second mate's certificate. He served for over twelve months as second officer of a large steamer, and then presented himself for a first mate's certificate. The examiner failed him in colour-vision. On appeal to the Board of Trade he was re-examined in London by Sir William Abney and Captain Harvey, who both confirmed the failure. The Board of Trade then requested Mr. Trattles to surrender his certificate as second mate. He declined to do so, and demanded an Inquiry. In September, 1905, the Board ordered a Local Marine Board Inquiry in London. After hearing both expert and practical evidence and testing Mr. Trattles themselves, the London Local Marine Board decided that he was perfectly competent in colour-vision. Mr. Trattles then went to sea, and in April, 1906, again presented himself for examination for a first mate's certificate. He was examined in colour and form vision by the Board of Trade examiner and passed. He then passed the rest of the examination consisting of navigation, seamanship, and other matters. After passing, the Board of Trade declined to grant him his certificate on the ground that on a previous occasion
1014
he had been failed in colour-vision. Naturally, by this time the case was arousing a considerable amount of public interest.
Fortunately fox Mr. Trattles, he was a member of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, who spared neither effort nor expense in protecting him. Whilst withholding his first mate's certificate, the Board of Trade continued to demand the surrender of his second mate's certificate. Mr. Trattles continued, on advice, to decline to comply. Not content with the result of a previous Inquiry which they had ordered, the Board of Trade then ordered a further one under Section 471 of the Merchant Shipping Act, appointing for this purpose Sir Francis Mowatt, assisted by Mr. John Dickinson, one of the metropolitan Police magistrates. To shorten the story, amongst other practical evidence strongly upholding Mr. Trattles, both the owner and the captain of the steamer in which he had served for some considerable time were emphatically of opinion that he was perfectly competent. The Board of Trade's chief reliance rested upon their expert adviser, Sir William Abney, and the Court witnessed the tests which were applied by Sir William Abney and also by Captain Harvey, who cooperated with him. The defence rightly insisted that as the Court, had witnessed these tests they should also give Mr. Trattles the opportunity of a test of a practical nature. The Court, agreed to this, and, a Trinity steamer being lent for the purpose, the examiner appointed by the Elder Brethren of Trinity House at the request of the Court, Commander Wilson Barker, R.N.R., commanding the "Worcester," put Mr. Trattles through a searching practical test on the River Thames and its outlying waters. This test was personally witnessed by Mr. John Dickinson, a member of the Court. After this test Commander Wilson Barker gave evidence to the effect that he was convinced that Mr. Trattles was perfectly competent. The decision of the Court was to the same effect, and Mr. Trattles's certificate as second mate, which had been surrendered to Sir Francis Mowatt at the commencement of the Inquiry, was returned to him. The Imperial Merchant Service Guild then caused an application to be addressed to the Board of Trade that they would grant him his certificate as first mate, the examination for which he had passed. This was acceded to by the Board.
I mentioned this particular case in a previous debate when moving that a Select

1015
Committee be appointed to consider the conditions under which eyesight tests for mercantile marine certificates are conducted. Were it the only instance where most serious trouble and complications have arisen, I would not have laid too much stress upon it. I quoted it to serve as an illustration. When I moved for a Select Committee my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade in this House informed us that the Board of Trade were of opinion that these tests as at present carried out are efficient and that they did not consider that I had made out any case for a Select Committee. But, as in the case of certificates for the coasting trade which I dealt with last week, they have had to alter their views, and have been forced to give way to public opinion. They have appointed a Select Committee, or rather it is called a Departmental Committee, which has been carrying on its duties for some little time. Needless to say, the announcement that a Committee would be appointed gave, great satisfaction. But this satisfaction gave place to dismay when the actual constitution of the Committee was announced.
One would naturally imagine that any Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, especially one dealing with a subject of such grave importance, would be an absolutely impartial one and untrammelled by anything which might hitherto have transpired. I feel confident that your Lordships will agree with me in this. But I trust to prove that this has been far from the case. The present eyesight tests, which were adopted on the recommendations of a Special Committee appointed by the Royal Society, have been condemned root and branch by many people whose opinions must command the greatest respect and weight. Further than this, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade must also accept considerable responsibility, as it is they who are given the powers by Parliament and who have ordered certain inquiries with the object of forcing officers to surrender the certificates which represent their livelihoods. I suggest, therefore, that any Departmental Committee appointed should bear no taint of suspicion as to undue influence being used, and that those composing the Committee should not have had in the smallest degree any connection whatever with either the Royal Society or the Board of Trade in so far as concerns the tests which
1016
are now forming the subject of investigation.
But what is the case? Lord Rayleigh, the Chairman of the Committee of the Royal Society which recommended these tests, is a leading member of the new Committee. In the course of a previous debate I was informed that the Board of Trade had communicated with Lord Rayleigh prior to its taking place in this House. It seemed that the noble Lord had written to the effect that unfortunately he could not be present, but he informed the Board that he did not think that they could be wrong in following the advice of their expert adviser Sir William Abney. It was Sir William Abney who originally failed Mr. Trattles in colour-vision, and it was he who appeared as principal witness-for the Board of Trade when they sought to take away Mr. Trattles's certificate. But from the result of the case it was clear that the Court did not accept his evidence or his tests as proof of Mr. Trattles's incompetency. Sir William Abney has not been appointed to sit on the present Committee, but one of the Secretaries of the Committee is Dr. William Watson, a Fellow of the Royal Society, who I understand was, and possibly still is, chief technical assistant to Sir William at the Royal College of Science. It is only human that Fellows of the Royal Society sitting on the present Committee will be possessed of a natural disinclination to cast any reflections on the eyesight tests which were previously recommended by the Royal Society.
On the present Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, apart from Dr. William Watson, of the Royal Society, no fewer than five out of eleven of the Committee are Fellows of the Royal Society. Let me go further. One of the experts who had witnessed the tests applied by Sir William Abney when he failed Mr. Trattles was Dr. J. H. Parsons. Dr. Parsons attended the special Inquiry into the case of Mr. Trattles and strongly supported Sir William Abney's justification of the present tests. I find that. Dr. Parsons has been appointed a member of the Committee now sitting. I would ask your Lordships in all seriousness to consider whether a Committee of this sort can command the confidence of anybody. Certainly not of those connected with shipping. There is a very strong suspicion of, I will not say

1017
jobbery, but of engineering of a very improper character, and one has reason for strongly suspecting that an effort has been made to whitewash the present tests and the action of the Board of Trade in respect to them.
The appointment of the Departmental Committee is unquestionably the outcome of the great outcry raised by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. Naturally those whose livelihoods are at stake—the captains and officers of our mercantile marine—have a right to demand every possible consideration in this matter. But the Guild were given no opportunity of nominating a representative on the Committee, and indeed were satisfied when assured by the Board of Trade that they wished the Committee to be a perfectly impartial one. I think I have proved that the Board's assurance was a very empty one. It is true that the Committee have invited the Guild to tender evidence, but the invitation has been refused, the Guild declining to commit themselves in any war to the doings or recommendations of the Committee, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt that they could have given some very valuable information which is now lost to the investigation which is in progress. I regret that it has been necessary for me to refer at some length to this matter, but I deem it my duty in the interests of safety of life at sea and also of those who command and officer British merchant ships and who are so badly off in the way of representation in Parliament, to bring to the notice of your Lordships the extraordinary methods which are sometimes pursued by the Board of Trade, and I suggest that before the recommendations of this Committee are acted on they should be submitted to a Committee of independent and practical men.
I will conclude my remarks by a brief reference to the new tests in form-vision—that is, distinguishing certain objects at a certain distance—which are to be introduced by the Board of Trade in the year 1914. The Board have even gone further than the original Committee of the Royal Society. Their hands were forced by the last Colonial Shipping Conference, as can be seen by a reference to the Blue Book. Why our Colonies should step in and dictate to the Government on such a matter seems incomprehensible to me, but it is decided that the new tests shall be introduced. The new proposals have excited the greatest
1018
indignation on the part of those representing captains and officers. This indignation is also shared by the shipowners of our country. Various of their great representative associations have with complete unanimity adopted resolutions condemning the proposed tests; there is absolutely no evidence whatever that any accidents have ever arisen at sea through inefficiency in form-vision. Under the new tests, which are of the utmost severity, it amounts to a certainty that a very great proportion of candidates for certificates of competency will be failed. It is also quite certain that a very large number of those now holding certificates would be quite unable to pass the test were they subjected to it. Your Lordships will appreciate the results of all this. There will be a vast amount of suffering of a most grievous kind inflicted upon a deserving class of the community who are entitled to all possible protection and sympathy at our hands. There will be a very serious inadequacy of certificated men. If only for our safety and welfare in time of war it is imperative that there should be a full complement of responsible and certificated officers in the mercantile marine. I would ask the Government to pause in this matter before they create a sorry state of affairs. The tests which are suggested are ridiculed, and I am at a loss to understand the theory that, because a man cannot read certain letters—each eye being separately tested—at a distance of sixteen feet, it must therefore be assumed that his seafaring vision is defective and that he cannot discern objects or pick up lights at sea with perfect efficiency. In all earnestness I ask that renewed consideration should be devoted to this matter now, when there is ample time for doing so. If our shipowners are fully satisfied with the present tests in form-vision, surely it is folly for any Government Department to interfere at the risk of doing incalculable injury to our greatest national industry. I move for a Return showing what accidents, if any, have occurred at sea in our mercantile marine through a deficiency in form-vision amongst officers in charge of ships. I also move that the Board of Trade should furnish their reasons for adopting the new test for form-vision, and state who has recommended it.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the tests in colour and form vision to which candidates for Board of Trade certificates as master or

1019
mate are at present subjected, and to the form vision test which it is proposed to introduce in the year 1914.—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, before I enter into the other details to which the noble Lord has referred I should like to say a word with regard to the gentleman around whose name this discussion has ranged. I refer to Mr. Trattles. The noble Lord has given the House a perfectly accurate account of what happened in the case of Mr. Trattles. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade has dealt with the case, which, as you have heard, was decided first one way and then another. Mr. Trattles's vision, I think we may take it, is not quite normal, though it has been decided that it is safe. My right hon. friend referred it to a further Court, and the result of that inquiry was that Mr. Trattles was given back his certificate. I should like to take this opportunity of saying, on my own behalf, that I am very glad that this gentleman, who I believe is a very efficient officer, is now in a position to carry on his profession again.
I am afraid I cannot, enter into a discussion to-day on the merits or demerits of the Board of Trade sight tests. I hope, in saying that, that the noble Lord will not think that I am in any way trying to detract from the importance of this question, or that I am in any way discourteous to him. The reason, as your Lordships will have gathered from listening to the noble Lord's speech, is that my right hon. friend has referred the whole question to a Departmental Committee, and I think that until that Committee reports any discussion of the sort would be not only unprofitable but perhaps undesirable as well. I think I had better read to your Lordships the terms of reference to that Committee. The Committee are invited—
"to inquire into what degree of colour blindness or defective form vision in persons holding responsible positions at sea causes them to he incompetent to discharge their duties, and to advise whether any, and if so what, alterations are desirable in the Board of Trade sight tests at present in force for persons serving or intending to serve in the merchant service or in fishing vessels, or in the way in which those tests are applied."
Your Lordships will see that the terms of reference cover the whole field of inquiry in this matter, and I am sure that when that Committee has reported my right hon. friend will review the whole matter most
1020
carefully, not only the colour tests, but also those tests of form vision to which the noble Lord has referred, and as to which notice has been given that it is proposed that the new tests should come into force the year after next. The whole matter will be reconsidered when this Committee has reported.
The noble Lord has criticised the composition of this Committee. I can only say that my right hon. friend has no ulterior motive in this matter. He really is not guilty of any deep laid scheme. He has appointed a Committee to advise him on a highly scientific and technical matter connected with his Department, and he has done so with the object of ascertaining what is the best course for him to follow. I think I must read to your Lordships the names of the gentlemen who compose the Committee. The Chairman is Mr. Dyke Acland, whose name is well known to the House. Then there are Mr. Raymond Beck, the Chairman of Lloyds; Captain Thomas Golding, an Elder Brother of Trinity House; Professor Gotch, Professor of Physiology at Oxford; Mr. Norman Hill, the Secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association and Chairman of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee on Shipping; Mr. Edward Nettleship, whose name is well known as a distinguished ophthalmic surgeon now retired from practice; Dr. Parsons, to whom the noble Lord has referred, another distinguished ophthalmic surgeon who is still in practice; Professor Poynting, Professor of Physics of Birmingham University; Lord Rayleigh, who is well known to your Lordships on account of his scientific attainments; and Sir Arthur Rücker, a distinguished physicist. The other member was Professor Starling, who has unfortunately been obliged to resign his position owing to ill-health, and whose place has been taken by Professor Sherrington, Professor of Physiology at Liverpool University.
That is a very strong Committee, and my right hon. friend's object in appointing it was that he believed, and he still believes, that it is a thoroughly impartial Committee which will be able to give him the best possible advice on this matter. The noble Lord has referred to the fact that some half dozen of the gentlemen composing the Committee belong to the Royal Society, and he appeared to think that members of the Royal Society might be prejudiced in

1021
this matter because the present sight tests are founded on the Report of the Committee of the Royal Society which sat twenty years ago. I do not think that is an argument which will weigh very much with the House, particularly when we consider that science is always advancing, and I do not think that the members of the Royal Society are in the least likely to be of opinion that there is any imputation on their body if what was acknowledged to be the last word in science twenty years ago is now found to be not quite up to date. Besides, it would be as absurd to say that in composing a scientific Committee you should have no members of the Royal Society upon it as it would have been to say, when the Constitutional Conference was being got together last year, that you would have no members of the Privy Council upon it. With regard to the other two gentlemen whose appointment the noble Lord criticised, it is quite true that Dr. Parsons did give evidence against Mr. Trattles in one of the many cases with regard to Mr. Trattles, but I can explain his presence on the Committee in a manner which I am sure will be perfectly satisfactory to the House. Dr. Parsons is at present there because his name was furnished to the Board of Trade by the Royal College of Surgeons when they were asked to suggest a suitable person as a member of it. The other gentleman—Dr. Watson—is not really a member of the Committee at all, but is acting as Secretary. It was thought that his scientific knowledge might be of advantage to the Committee, and that is the only reason why he was appointed. I do not believe your Lordships will think that in appointing this Committee, as my right hon. friend has done, to advise him with regard to this highly scientific and technical matter and to help him in carrying out a duty which is imposed upon him by Act of Parliament, he has been actuated by any but the most transparent motives of wishing to arrive at what was the best and what was the truth in regard to this question.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one word, in reference to the Committee that has been referred to, in support of what has fallen from my noble friend who has just sat down. In the first place, if you are to have the highest scientific knowledge you must take members of the Royal Society, because the Royal Society is composed of those who are most skilled in scientific matters in all depart
1022
ments of science, and to suppose that the members of the Royal Society who have been appointed would be in any improper manner influenced by a Report of a Committee twenty years ago, is my noble friend will forgive me for saying, really absurd. They certainly would be influenced, of course, so far as it was right that they should be influenced, by the Report of the Committee of twenty years ago; but where advances have been made in science they would not feel themselves in the least bound by that Report or the least indisposed to take a different view if evidence was advanced in favour of a different view being taken. I happen to know some of the gentlemen on the Committee who are interested in science, and with some of the, others I am connected in matters of business, and I must say it seems to me to be a strong and excellent Committee, and one which would take a reasonable view of any matter brought before it. I think, therefore, that my noble friend who has brought forward this Motion may very well be satisfied that the matter is in very good hands, and that the Committee will certainly take a reasonable view of the whole subject, on which they are thoroughly qualified to advise the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords. I would ask, Ought not the vast body of officers concerned in this important matter to have a perfect confidence in the tests to which they arc to be subjected, and on which their whole future life depends? When one hears of a man being condemned because he cannot pass certain theoretical' tests on land, and then when taken out on the ocean in a ship and tested in the practical exercise of his vocation lie is found to be perfectly competent, one naturally asks whether it would not be possible to devise some practical test in the exercise of a. man's duties as a commander or an officer to prove whether he can properly fulfil his duties or not. Surely it would not be difficult to take a malt out on a ship on a dark night and see whether or not he can properly distinguish lights, and so on.
LORD MUSKERRY: I do not think the noble Lord dealt with my Motion for Papers or said anything with regard to form vision.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I have only just seen the paper the noble Lord has handed in, and I think I must

1023
have time before I can give him the information for which he asks.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I wish to say a word of reply with regard to what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Avebury. If a man is put on the bridge of a steamer and is taken down a river that he does not know and is able to distinguish correctly the colour of every light on shore that he passes, the lights of every vessel that he meets, and the colour of the stars, all I can say is that if all the scientific men in Europe or in the world said that that man was colour blind it would not alter my opinion that he was perfectly competent, so far as colour vision goes, to take charge of any ship. I beg to withdraw the Motion which stands in my name.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WHEELWRIGHT GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH rose to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his consent to the scheme settled by the Board of Education in the matter of the Wheelwright Grammar Schools at Dewsbury, in the West Riding of the county of York.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must ask your indulgence in putting forward the Motion of which I have given notice, because it deals with a rather difficult and technical question, and I may have to detain your Lordships for some little time in endeavouring to bring the case fairly before the House. I look upon it as one of the most serious actions of the present Board of Education with which we have had to deal. The scheme which is the subject of my Motion was settled by the Board of Education and proposes to alter the trust of a portion of a certain Yorkshire charity. The scheme is made under the powers granted by the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, and has to be laid on the Table of both Houses for two months in order to give either House an opportunity of objecting if it desires to do so. This particular scheme was laid on the Table of your Lordships' House on February 13 last, and I do not think the Government can object to my action in calling attention to the matter, because, after all, we are only exercising our statutory right. There
1024
have been many precedents for successful resistance to these schemes, and I hope that I shall be able to induce the House to add one more to the list. There have been a good many different authorities entrusted with the control and management of these matters, but I do not think it is necessary to go through the whole history from the days of the special jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery and of the Charity Commissioners, who made their first appearance in 1853, up to the year 1899, when their powers were transferred to the Board of Education, in whose hands they now remain. Nor is it necessary to deal at any length with the various Acts affecting charitable educational trusts.
It is, perhaps, as well to remember that the original Endowed Schools Act was passed in 1869 as the result of the Report of a Commission which sat in 1867. The Report of that Commission recommended a good many changes extending the power of the old Court of Chancery on educational lines where the original form became unsuited to the changed circumstances of the day; and I think it is important—from my point of view it is very important—to bear in mind that the main principle, as I think I may call it in view of the various extensions, was that where changes were made they were still to carry into effect the wishes of the original founder. That will be found, I believe, in the Preamble of the Act of 1869. So that, no matter what body has been in authority, the principle that has guided these alterations is the principle that the powers of the Board are judicial and not political.
Now, my Lords, with regard to the present scheme, the only clause in it that we need deal with is Clause 2. It is a very important clause, and it proposes to repeal Clause 47 of the scheme of May 3, 1888, which clause ensures the carrying out of the wishes of the founder of the charity that the religious education given in these particular schools shall be Church of England education. I would ask your Lordships to bear that in mind. I will now leave the general question and come to the question of the particular charity which is proposed to be dealt with by this scheme. The name of it is the Wheelwright Grammar Schools at Dewsbury. On October 14, 1724, John Wheelwright by will left property to trustees to found and maintain two schools, one at Dewsbury and another at Rishworth, for the

1025
children of the poor. One of the principal clauses of that will contained these words—
"I also will and desire that the said children be religiously and virtuously brought up and educated according to the doctrines of the Church of England."
That, my Lords, represents what were the wishes of the original founder. There is no uncertainty about it.
I come now to the first scheme of alteration, the scheme to which I have briefly referred, of May 3, 1888. There is some rather interesting correspondence in connection with that scheme. The scheme, roughly, was to appoint a separate body of trustees for a new part of the school in question, the school affected by this particular scheme, and it was proposed to be done by the Charity Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act to which I have referred. The correspondence which took place between the trustees of the school and the then responsible authority, the Charity Commissioners, shows exactly what were the views of the trustees and the governors and those who were responsible for the conduct of the school. They did not approve of the scheme as suggested by the Charity Commissioners, and they stated that if the Commissioners desired the reasons why, they would give them. The Trustees went on to say—
"We think it sufficient to say that the charity was formed and endowed as a Church of England charity, and such it must remain. There is no confusion or ambiguity in the direction contained in Mr. Wheelwright's will. He directed that the children be religiously and virtuously brought up and educated according to the doctrines of the Church of England as by law established. The trustees are determined, therefore, that they have no alternative but to oppose every scheme which the Charity Commissioners may propose unless the scheme is one which, in their opinion, is within the lines of Mr. Wheelwright's will."
That was the position of the trustees, and that was accepted by the Charity Commissioners, who replied—
"With a view to secure that the Church of England character of the Foundation shall not be impaired by an accidental majority among the governors the Commissioners have accepted the proposal made by the committee, and approved by the trustees, for a retirement by rotation of the co-optative governors first appointed. Having this provided that the first, governors shall, to the number of nine out of fourteen be members of the Church of England, and taken security against the possibility of an accidental majority the other way, and having directed in Clause 47 that religious instruction in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England shall be given in the school the Commissioners have in
1026
this respect made such provision as to them appears proper and sufficient for the maintenance of the Church of England character of the Foundation."
That was the answer of the Commissioners, and that is the explanation for the introduction of Clause 47 which it is now sought to repeal.
The next step took place in 1899, when the authority for dealing with these things was transferred to the Board of Education; and in 1900 a new and a much wider scheme was introduced by the then authorities, which proposed an amalgamation with certain governing bodies of three other educational charities, the trust, remaining practically the same. There were grave objections to this course on the part of those representing the Wheelwright Charity on account of the alteration of the balance of the governing body, which removed the security for the maintenance of the Church of England character of the school as promised by the scheme of 1888; but an undertaking, a definite and most formal and binding undertaking, was given by all those concerned, with the approval of the authorities, especially emphasising the fact that Clause 47 was not to be interfered with. Therefore, under these various schemes the main point was driven home by those concerned—namely, that the character of the teaching in the school should be that of the Church of England and none other; and we then said—
"Religious instruction therefore continued to be given in the school, and, it may be added, the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire continued to make grants to the school under the Technical Instruction Act"
That is a point to which I shall refer later.
By Section 4 of the Education Act, 1902, it is enacted that a county council, when making grants out of a county fund to a secondary school, shall not require as a condition of such grants that any particular form of religious instruction shall or shall not be given in the school. Therefore that entirely debars from a county council the right to decide as to what form of religious education should be given. During all this time the West Riding County Council were giving£335 a year to this particular school. Now I come to the trouble with the West Riding County Council, which is really the cause, I take it, of the introduction of this extraordinary scheme. In. 1907, in spite of this section

1027
to which I have referred, the West Riding County Council required the governors of the Wheelwright Grammar School to discontinue the Church of England religious teaching if the grants were to be continued, and for that purpose to apply for a scheme for deleting Clause 47. I will once more, if you will allow me, refer to the correspondence that took place between the Board of Education of that time and the various bodies concerned. There is a letter from the Board of Education to the Rishworth Trustees dated August 10, 1908, pressing on the trustees of this school the desirability of the governors allowing this scheme to go forward, because if they did not they would lose the grant and suffer accordingly. The words they use are these—
"The authority [the local education authority] have up to the present year continued to aid the schools to the same extent us before the passing of the Education Act, 1902, (i.e., by a grant of£335 per annum conditional upon the provision of a certain number of free places to county council scholars), but they have recently intimated that unless the governors take steps to have the provision referred to removed from the Scheme—
that is, the desire of the founder to carry on Church of England education in the schools—
"they will withdraw all pecuniary support from the schools, and cease to recognise them for the instruction of pupil teachers and county minor scholars."
Then the letter goes on to urge upon the governing body the desirability of agreeing to this proposal on those lines, and it concludes by saying—
"As the matter is, in its financial aspect, of vital importance to the Dewsbury Schools, which could hardly continue to exist if all county council support were withdrawn from them, the Board would be glad to have an opportunity of conferring with the Wheelwright Trustees in the matter at an early date."
That appointment took place. I would point out that what is obvious is that the Board of Education were anxious to avoid enforcing the law which required that the county council should not impose these conditions regarding religious education, and further this desire on their part to get the Rishworth Governors to do what is an illegal action was merely to save themselves, as it seems to me, and to avoid any trouble they might have had in dealing with this local education authority.
Then, my Lords, we get a step further. There is a further letter written from the
1028
Board of Education on November 13, 1908, with regard to the interview which had taken place. It proceeds to state—
"In view of the position which has been taken up by the above-named trustees, it appears to the Board that it now rests with the governors to decide what is their duty in the circumstances, having regard on the one hand to the arrangement which was made at the time when the scheme of 1900 was established by the Charity Commissioners, and on the other to the discharge of their duties to the grammar schools. It is for the governors now to consider how far this arrangement is to be regarded as permanently binding upon them, or how far it may be necessarily liable to revision in view of the completely altered educational system which now exists. After due regard has been paid to these considerations the governors should decide whether or not a case has arisen which would justify them in declining to be bound further by that arrangement, notwithstanding the attitude which has been adopted by the Wheelwright Trustees in the matter. The Board, though willing to render such assistance as is possible to the governors, cannot, if they would, take over from them the responsibility of deciding as to the course which should be pursued in the circumstances, seeing that without the consent of the governing body the repeal of the denominational provision in Clause 47 of the scheme of May 3, 1888, cannot be effected. All that the Board can do is, in view of the risk to which the schools of the Foundation appear to lie exposed of being practically destroyed in consequence of the withdrawal by the local education authority of financial assistance, to submit the foregoing consideration for the careful attention of the governors."
But, my Lords, the responsibility does not rest with the governors; it rests with the Board of Education; it is they who are responsible and it is they who ought to decide what is to be done. It is, therefore, most unfair to put this pressure on a body like the governors of a school of this kind in order to endeavour to force them to get the authority out of a considerable difficulty.
As it happened, the governors, after considerable protest, accepted by a small majority the conditions which had been forced upon them. I do not think we can blame the governors, because their position was made almost impossible by the Board of Education. The governors show in their protest that they were bound by the undertaking they had given in 1900, and they were bound by every code of honour to do what they could to carry out the wishes of the founder of this charity. The subject was raised in the House of Commons recently, and the answer that was given then was that it was a pity to raise the question at all as the matter was being settled locally. I cannot imagine how anybody in authority could have made

1029
such a defence as that. Settled locally!Why, my Lords, every one was perfectly satisfied till the West Riding County Council interfered, and the agreement of the governors was only obtained after the pressure to which I have briefly referred was put upon them. The pressure was of the most drastic kind. It was financial, and it was put in a way that made it very difficult for the governors to resist; and I do think that it is hardly right for, the representative of a great Department like the Board of Education to claim a local settlement which is only secured by the pressure of the Board on the governors to break their trust in order to give effect to an illegal action.
There are a good many other points in connection with this matter to which I could refer, but I hope I have said enough. In the last session of Parliament Lord Crewe, in the speech that he delivered on the consideration of the Parliament Bill, gave a very interesting definition of what he considered to be the functions of Parliament. The first function that he gave to Parliament was "to keep in check the Executive." Now, when we find that the Executive, or part of it is endeavouring to obtain by administration what the Legislature has refused expressly, I say that we, as still a portion of the Parliament of the country, ought to exercise our function of keeping a check on the Executive. My Lords, that is on general lines. On the particular lines connected with this scheme, I would ask your Lordships to support my Motion on the ground that it is the duty of the Board of Education to enforce the law and not to facilitate violations of it; that the scheme is contrary to the principle of the Endowed Schools Act; that the object of the scheme is political and not educational; that it is a breach of the promise given by the Charity Commissioners, of whom the Board of Education is the successor; and, above all, and perhaps most important of all, on the ground that it is a violation of John Wheelwright's will, and would alienate a Church of England charity to undenominational purposes. I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold His consent to the Scheme settled by the Board of Education in the matter of the Wheelwright Grammar
1030
Schools at Dewsbury, in the West Riding of the county of York.—(The Earl of Dartmoulh.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am quite sure His Majesty's Government have nothing to complain of, either in the fact that the noble Earl opposite has brought this question before your Lordships' House or with regard to the manner in which he has done so. I think we are all at one as to the main facts of the case, although naturally the Board of Education would draw a very different conclusion from the facts from that which the noble Earl has put before the House. I gathered from the remarks which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships that he did not wish to proceed upon what I might term the strict legal interpretation of the matter. The noble Earl knows that there is a remedy on the strict legal side. There is tile possibility of at appeal to the Judicial Committee. That procedure has not been adopted. The alternative to it is to take the step, which the noble Earl has taken this afternoon, of asking your Lordships to approve of an Address to the Crown. Therefore I hope we may say that in this matter we are not dealing so much with the strictly legal aspect of it, but rather with the expediency of this scheme and the question whether or not the scheme as suggested and adopted by the Education Board is a good scheme.
In the first place, I do not think that any noble Lord will deny, however much he might regret the fact, that the whole tendency of the administration of the Education Acts, not by one Party but by all Parties, ever since the Endowed Schools Act was passed in 1869, has been to throw down the barriers generally, social and local as well as religious barriers, and to open the benefits of school foundations—certainly of those which came into existence before 1819—to all comers. Those Acts provide proper machinery by which a Church of England school may be maintained intact unless the trustees consent otherwise; but where the trustees have no objection, and indeed wish to abolish the distinction, it is made easy for them under the Act to remove the tests which otherwise would exist. Therefore I think that in this case we must assume, if the noble Earl wishes to prove his point, that there are special circumstances why the

1031
distinctive character of the school should be maintained. In this matter, of course, the Board of Education must depend very largely upon the opinion of the man on the spot. We are often advised to do that in other matters, and the Board of Education is anxious to do it in a case of this kind. I do not wish to press too far the majority by which the assent to the scheme was agreed to by the local managers, but there is also the fact that the county council, representing a far larger area, is moving in the same direction.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Might I ask the noble Earl whether the county council are acting legally in the action they are taking?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As I have already tried to point out to the noble Earl, if he thinks there is any illegality in their action he has his remedy at law.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; that will not do.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not know what I have said that the noble Marquess objects to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but he says there is a legal remedy. He knows as well as I do that there are technical difficulties in the way of that remedy, and that those difficulties rendered it necessary for Parliament to supply a different remedy—the High Court of Parliament itself.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sorry to differ from the noble Marquess. I thought the legal remedy was by an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that an appeal to that body had already been entered upon but not proceeded with by the noble Earl, as he preferred the present alternative. I confess that it was with some surprise I heard the noble Earl say that the responsibility for dealing with this matter rests with the Board of Education. Although he made the suggestion, he did not oblige us by going further into the matter and telling us in what way we were to insist upon our responsibility, or in what way the Board of Education were to act. Surely in this matter the whole policy of the Act of 1902 was to give the local authority power,
1032
and they are rather the people who are expected to act. It is they who have the money to administer, and it is they, rather than the Board of Education,' I think, to whom the noble Earl should appeal.
But there is another aspect of the case to which I do not think very much attention has vet been paid, and that is how far the scheme as suggested by the Board of Education will be of benefit to the school itself. The school has been doing well in the past, though its financial position is not altogether reassuring as to the future. Your Lordships upon the information so far before you are not well able to decide how far this money, which is at the disposal of the West Riding County Council, is necessary for the future development and improvement of the school, and I venture to think that that is an aspect of the question to which the Board of Education is especially bound to pay attention. The governors wrote, towards the end of the year 1905, saying that there had been a considerable deficiency each year on the accounts of the schools, and that it would be necessary to reduce the staff to meet the deficiency. A reduction in the staff was made, but that was rather due to a reduction in the number of scholars. Then the governors are contemplating additions to the existing schools which will cost nearly£1,000. That, they say, will be met without difficulty from the school funds. The accounts for the year 1908–9 show a total receipt of£3,545, of which the Board's grant was£1,067, but there was an expenditure of£3,795, making a deficit, apart from the aid given by the West Riding County Council, of no less than£250. There are further receipts which should be added from Hinchcliffe and Durham.
It is probable, with the additions to the school and a new girls' school, which I understand the governors are very anxious to provide, that not only will the present county aid be necessary, but also the additional county aid, in order to maintain a financial equilibrium. So that at the present moment, so far as the schools themselves are concerned, the position is this, that with the present help they get from the West Riding County Council they are able to get along. If it were withdrawn, their position, though not desperate, would be naturally a great deal worse, and they would be largely crippled in their work.

1033
They need a larger grant in order that they may develop themselves thoroughly in the future, and in those circumstances the question is whether, after all is said and done, it would not be a wise thing for the governors to accept the grant on the terms which have been offered to them by the West Riding County Council. On that matter the Board of Education have accepted the resolution which the governors came to when they put forward this scheme. The Board of Education realise, however, that there is a great deal of objection to this scheme in your Lordships' House; and as the number of noble Lords who are present this afternoon shows how little likely we should be to successfully attempt determined resistance to the Motion of the noble Earl, we therefore shall not proceed to a Division if the general sense of the House shows itself to be determinedly hostile to the scheme.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I have no desire to detain the House more than a moment. But as this school is situated in the diocese of Wakefield and I happen to know a good deal about the local history of the case, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say one word in answer to what has fallen from the noble Earl. The noble Earl wishes us to brush aside altogether the legal argument—and indeed I am not qualified to express an opinion about the legal argument except as an ordinary plain man—but I cannot think that the noble Earl would for a moment maintain that the resolution of the county council which sets aside Section 4 of the Act of 1902 can be anything but most flagrantly illegal. This is the feature of the case which, apart from all educational considerations, is really of public interest. It does seem to many of us who have studied this case very closely that it is nothing short of a scandalous thing that a powerful county council should be allowed to set aside an Act of Parliament and to say that the conditions on which it will give grants to secondary schools are conditions diametrically opposite to those expressly laid down in the Act.
I am also very much surprised to hear from the noble Earl that he does not think that the Board of Education are responsible in a matter of this kind. It is a very difficult point, but I hope I may be able to make it clear in a few sentences. The Board of Education, in making a scheme, make it under the Endowed Schools Acts. But the scheme which they have now put
1034
out under the Endowed Schools Acts seeks to set aside the express undertaking honourably entered into by all parties concerned up to the time when the Charity Commissioners ceased to have jurisdiction over these schemes. The record of the Charity Commission is perfectly clean from first to last. They recognised expressly at each stage of all their schemes the Church of England character of this school. I do not wish to press this as a denominational matter. I want to press it as a matter of the maintenance of trusts, a matter of far larger importance and consequences than the mere maintenance of a denominational school. Under the Acts the Board of Education are responsible as the guardians of those trusts, and although it is perfectly true that the principles on which they have to administer the trusts in applying them to altered modern conditions are not quite so severe as those which apply to trusts under strictly cy pres conditions, yet it is expressly enacted, as Lord Dartmouth has pointed out, in the Preamble of the Act of 1869 that it is the will of the founder which has, as far as possible, to be carried out. Therefore, my Lords, when the noble Earl says that the Board of Education are not responsible it seems to me similar to a case where a headmaster of some great public school, on being appealed to by a helpless small boy in a lower form on account of an outrageous course of bullying on the part of the sixth form, should call him up and advise him to submit, and, on the boy still further protesting, say, "If you do not submit, I shall take the part of the sixth form." That seems to me to be the attitude of the Board of Education, and I think the analogy is pretty close. Fortunately the two Houses of Parliament are in the position of being, so to speak, the governors of that great public school, and there is a further appeal to us, and I trust your Lordships will insist that this scheme shall be referred back.
Many other points have been mentioned by the noble Earl, but there is only one to which I will allude. He reminded your Lordships that the general trend of education has been towards the throwing down of barriers between class and class and between denomination and denomination, and he said, "Is it not a good thing that in a school like this these barriers should be thrown down?" My Lords, there are no barriers in this school to be thrown down. There is a conscience clause in operation.

1035
There is the fact that no difficulty has ever arisen on the part of any parent and that very few scholars have ever been withdrawn. As a matter of fact, the Church of England teaching has never even been offered in the last few years, since the last scheme, to any except to the children of those parents who have desired in writing that their children should receive it. Therefore I am extremely sorry that the noble Earl should have put that forward. Then, again, he said, that where the trustees wish to remove tests facilities are now given to remove those tests. There are no tests whatever in this school. There are no tests for teachers, there are no tests for the religious education of the children, and there are no tests for the governors of the school. Therefore when the noble Earl tells us that this is a good scheme because it offers opportunities for throwing down barriers and for removing tests, I can only say that years ago the governors and the trustees of the charity were enlightened enough to do both things. I am sure your Lordships will believe me when I say that I have never taken an extreme or obstructive line on the matter of education, but I do believe that this scheme is inherently unjust. I believe it is a scandalous case of a great Government Department not carrying out its duty, and therefore I am very glad to support my noble friend in the Motion that he has put on the Paper.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not desire to intervene more than a very short time between your Lordships and the conclusion of this matter; but certain propositions have fallen from the right rev. Prelate which appear to me to go not only beyond the policy which Parliament has long laid down as governing these matters, but beyond the real circumstances of this case. As to the policy, is it seriously contended that the provisions in the will of the testator, a will which became operative in 1724, are to remain for all time? That is certainly not so in the case of private property where the will of the testator can only prevail for a short time. The dead hand has been given a more enduring trust in the case of charitable property, with the result that Parliament has interfered. I agree entirely with the doctrine that not only the letter but the spirit of the Act of Parliament ought to be observed, but Parliament has laid down, not merely the Preamble which the right rev. Prelate made reference to, but an express provision for
1036
relaxing from time to time, as the public-interest requires, the rules which had been adopted as to the way in which a charity is to be carried on. Under Section 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, it is expressly provided that, in the case of certain educational charities, you are not to make an alteration which you are otherwise entitled to make according to the general scheme of the Act unless you have the consent of the governing body. In this case you have the consent of the governing body.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: But under what conditions?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You extorted the consent.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The first point I am making at this stage is that you have got the consent of the governing body, and so far as any question of law is concerned with regard to that, the proper tribunal to decide it is a Court of Law and not Parliament. But I do not think it can be seriously contended that you require any other consent in this case. The Board of Education has been severely dealt with in this matter. What is the position of the Board of Education? The County Council of the West Riding, rightly or wrongly, as its policy, desires that the higher education which it assists should be free from denominational quality. They may be wrong or they may be right about that, but to say that they are acting illegally in taking that question of policy into account is more than the Act of Parliament entitles you so say. It is perfectly true that, under Section 4 of the Education Act of 1902, if the West Riding County Council were to withhold its assistance in a case where it was actually making a grant on the ground that it wished to differentiate between various forms of religious teaching, that would be illegal, and if it were acting illegally you could restrain it possibly by injunction. But under the Act the county council has a wide discretion as to how, and under what circumstances, and in the case of what bodies, it will assist higher education. Discretion has been given by Parliament in the Act of 1902 to the county councils to survey the field and say what higher education they will assist, and the condition is this, that if they do assist they are not to differentially treat different bodies on account of their religious tenets.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what they have done.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is no power to compel them to make a grant in any particular case if they chose to withhold it. That is the policy laid down in the Act, and, if that is so, then it is idle to talk of their having committed an illegal action in this case. You could not man-damns them. If they choose to withhold the money they may do so. Parliament has left it to them to say Yes or No, whether they will or will not make a grant, and you are helpless. That being so, what is the position? In the year 1900 a governing body was constituted for this school. That governing body desired to develop the school and so became dependent on the county council, and they cannot become dependent on the county council, unless they act in accordance with the wishes of the county council by getting rid of the denominational character of the teaching in the school.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Viscount seriously say that the governing body of this school desired this?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: If they did not desire to do it, I have no reason to think that they would have done it. The governing body, rather than let the school be starved, chose to take the course of promoting a scheme which got rid of the disability under which they lay, and accordingly the governing body, with its full and free consent, assented to the new scheme, and that; new scheme, which is before your Lordships' House and which was assented to by the governing body, has this clause in it which gets rid of the difficulty. Your Lordships are, of course, at liberty to take what view you like of the matter; but the governing body of this school is also at liberty to say what scheme it will consent to. It is given that power by the Act of Parliament, and that power it has exercised. The position, therefore, in which we are to-day is not to find a remedy for a wrong done; it is a question of preventing this school from developing itself, and from taking the only course which, in the opinion of those responsible for it, will make it efficient, and the only course which the Board of Education think a possible one if the school desires to progress. Your Lordships may dissent from the broad views of the County
1038
Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, but, after all, then views are views which the electors have elected them to entertain. That there is any remedy for the situation, or that the rejection of the scheme will make things any better, seems to me to be out of the question. On the contrary, all that will happen will be that this school will he stunted in its development, and nobody will be any better for what has taken place.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have listened, I need hardly say, with the greatest interest to all the speeches that have been made in the course of this debate. I do not think any one will deny that my noble friend who raised this question dealt very fully and clearly with all the details of this case, and as I listened to his speech I could not help thinking of the various occasions in your Lordships' House when we have had brought before us cases of harshness and injustice on the part of the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire in regard to denominational schools, but I think that a more harsh and a more unjust case has seldom been brought forward in your Lordships' House than the one we have been discussing this evening. The question, in my Mind, particularly after the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down, embraces possibly an even larger field than that, because, as far as I can gather, he seems to consider that the only course at the present moment for this school to pursue, if it is to enjoy prosperity, is to accede to the proposals of the county council through the Board of Education. That may be the point of view of the noble Viscount, but it certainly is not mine. This debate has shown beyond all doubt what I think is even a more serious question than that of the maintenance of the school—namely, the political bias of a great Department in favour of its political supporters. I shall say a few words on that before I conclude, because I think that if the precedent started by the Board of Education is pursued in other Departments, the confidence which the country has at the present moment in these Departments cannot fail to be entirely lost.
My noble friend dealt so fully with the whole question that I do not propose to go into it. But there was one expression which fell from the noble Viscount on which I should like to say a few words.

1039
He said, and very rightly, perhaps, that great changes had taken place during the past fifty or sixty years in the laws connected with the maintenance of trust property, and that it is many years now since Mr. Wheelwright demised this charity for the maintenance of what are called the Wheelwright Schools. Undoubtedly that is so. But changes have taken place in connection with the school at various intervals, and on each of those changes the stipulation was made that the school was to be a denominational school and that Church of England instruction was to be given in the school. Therefore it has been brought up to a much later date than might have been anticipated from what fell from the noble Viscount. Again, I think no one will deny that up to the year 1902, previous to the Education Act for which I specially, and the Government of which I had the honour of being a Member, was responsible, everything worked absolutely smoothly in this Dewsbury School. There were no objections made by parents to the teaching, as the right rev. Prelate stated. The children attended the school in perfect harmony and in accordance with their parents' wishes. The governors were carrying out the Government policy so far as religious instruction in secondary schools was concerned in accordance with what was called the McKenna régime. It was only after the passing of the Act of 1902 that this hostility, which was displayed to so many denominational schools by the West Riding County Council, for the first time developed itself. The county council took upon themselves a most arbitrary action. They told the governors of this school that if they continued to carry out the term of the trust, which was to give Church of England instruction, they would give them no grant, but if they dropped their Church of England instruction they might then have a grant. Surely that was the most extraordinary proposal that could possibly have been made. Then, in addition, the county council, as we are told, invited the governors to apply to the Board of Education for a new scheme, expunging from the old scheme of 1888 what the school had been formed for—the provision of denominational education.
Now, my Lords, arises the question, What ought the Board of Education to have done? I am not, going to cross swords on legal matters with the noble
1040
Viscount opposite, but reading the section of the Act as I do, I can only think that the Board of Education were encouraging the West Riding County Council to commit a breach of the law in agreeing to their version of the reading of that section. May I state what in my opinion was the duty of the Board of Education when they were approached by these governors, who, through the county council, were asking them to frame a scheme? To my mind the Board of Education ought to have protected the governors. They ought undoubtedly to have pointed out to them that the County Council of the West Riding was performing an illegality, and they ought to have drawn the attention of the county council to the law of the land as it existed, and if the county council had not carried out the law as it existed, then it was the duty of the Board of Education to take care that they did. They had the power to do so under mandamus. The noble Viscount opposite shakes his head, but I think he will find that on previous occasions when a mandamus has been taken out the county councils have had to do what the Board of Education told them.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That has been in quite a different case from the present case.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have not the particulars before me, but I think I am right in what I say.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Not in a case like this.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I repeat that I think the Board of Education were encouraging the West Riding County Council in an illegality according to the Act of 1902. Then comes the point that the governors agreed to accept the scheme of the Board of Education. When certain changes took place the majority of the governors of the school were not denominational educationists, if I may use the expression, but they stipulated that Church of England teaching should be taught in that school. Then, as the right rev. Prelate said, considerable pressure, financial and otherwise, was brought to bear on the governors in order to induce them to accede to the present scheme, and the governors have acceded to it after great protest and under pressure. But now we come to the fact that the

1041
trustees, who, after all, are those responsible for the administration of this charity, object, and wisely object, to that scheme. That more or less is the case which is before your Lordships at the present moment.
I would like to say a word as one who has had the honour of occupying the position of President of the Board of Education. I do regret to see the Board of Education at the present moment condoning illegal actions for what I can only call Party purposes, and I regret also to see the Board, who, as the successors to the Charity Commissioners, ought to act absolutely impartially, showing a partisan spirit instead of a judicial one. This to my mind is a very extraordinary case. It undoubtedly shows that political bias which the West Riding County Council have shown to many denominational schools in the West Riding of Yorkshire. They have shown their desire to squeeze out denominational education in the West Riding, and if the present state of things is allowed to exist, then I say that the West Riding County Council will be more or less confiscating for undenominational education a charity which was meant for denominational education. I will only say, in conclusion, that I hope the day is far distant when we shall see other Departments of the State taking the partisan and political views which the Board of Education has adopted, for, as I said before, if that state of things is allowed to exist the country will lose the confidence which it at present has in all our great Departments.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War is imperfectly informed with regard to the facts of this case, and I can hardly think that he will maintain the position he appears to have taken up in view of the further facts which I may be able to put before him. Is the noble Viscount aware that the governors of the Wheelwright School only three or four years ago, during the time of these difficulties, very much objected to what was proposed to them by the local education authority—that is, the West Riding County Education Authority?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In 1908.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Yes, in 1908 they entirely objected to what was proposed
1042
to them, and they objected so strongly that they prepared a fell and complete statement of their case and forwarded it with an appeal to the Board of Education requesting the Board to bring pressure on the county council and compel the county council to obey the law. That was their action. Not only did they do that, but the governors sent a thoroughly representative deputation to London, and their case was put before the Board, the deputation stating that the governors felt that they were bound to keep a religious clause in their scheme, and not to comply with the requirements of the local education authority.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It was the Wheelwright trustees, not the governing body of the school, who took action.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was the governors.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. That was the action of the governors of the school in reference to what had been represented to them by the trustees of Rishworth School, the original Wheelwright trustees. I am speaking of the action of the governors of the school, and not of the Wheelwright trustees. If the noble Viscount will refer, he will see that it is the action of the governors of the school begging the Board of Education to compel the local education authority to obey the law. The only result of that deputation as far as is known is that the education authority wrote to the Wheelwright trustees stating, whit must be admitted was a very extraordinary presentment of the case, that the governors of the Dewsbury School were prepares: to comply with the requirements of the county council, and endeavouring to induce the Wheelwright trustees to relieve the governors of the Dewsbury School from the obligations they had entered into in their arrangements in 1890 and 1891. The governors of the Dewsbury School very unwillingly assented to what the Education Department proposed because they were in a very difficult position, pressure being put upon them by the Education Department, and they did not think they were going to get ordinary justice. When the governors of the Dewsbury School were told that they had been prepared to comply with the requirements of the county council, which they only learnt some months after, they at once

1043
vehemently repudiated the statement, and as I say, it was only after finding that they could get no ordinary justice from the Board of Education, and threatened with the withdrawal of the grants by the county council, that the governors, after a strong protest and by a very narrow majority, submitted. It is perfectly untrue to say that the governors of the Dewsbury School did not do as much as they possibly could to withstand the action of the Education Department in regard to this matter.
May I also point out this to the noble Viscount. He says that trusts from time to time have to be altered. The trusts of the Wheelwright Schools have been altered. Under the Wheelwright will the schools were elementary schools, and the trusts have been so far enlarged that instead of an elementary school the Dewsbury School has been converted into a secondary school. It had met every possible requirement; no kind of fault was found with the school; no complaint was made about its religious teaching. The only reason why the local education authority threatened to withdraw the grant was on account of the denominational teaching given in the school. There was no other reason whatever. If I might summarise the proceedings in regard to these things, I should say—and I do not think it is open to denial—that the local education authority, the West Riding County Council, were definitely and distinctly committing an illegal act contrary to the Education Act of 1902, which they were bound to administer. The Dewsbury governors, if they had complied with the requirements of the local education authority, would have been also performing an illegal act by disregarding Clause 47, which had been accepted all round and in consequence of which the school enjoyed its present position. Further—and I do not think this can be denied—the Board of Education used their power under the Endowed Schools Act by abrogating Clause 47 to enable the governors to do what would have been otherwise illegal, leaving the illegality of the local education authority exactly where it was; in fact, the Board of Education have really been using the power given to them under one Act of Parliament—the Endowed Schools Act—in order to violate the provisions of the Act of 1902 in regard to secondary schools.
When we are told that it is difficult to interfere with authorities like the West Riding County Council, I should like to remind His Majesty's Government of the
1044
action of the Government in regard to local authorities in reference to the Small Holdings Act. What did Mr. Winston Churchill say in regard to that? He used the elegant expression that if the local authorities did not do what the Government thought right, they would have to "ginger" the local authorities. I believe that at this very moment the Board of Education is threatening to fine the London County Council to the extent of£50,000 if it does not do something which the Board of Education thinks necessary in regard to some of its schools.
This is not the first time that this matter has been brought before Parliament. It was brought before the House of Commons a year or two ago, and Mr. Runciman in reply to a question, gave what I think was a very misleading account of what had occurred. He spoke about a "settlement that was pending between the Dewsbury governors and the local education authority," and said that "it was better to leave the thing quiet, and it was not for him to interfere until a settlement had been arrived at." Inasmuch as the Board of Education are responsible for the law in regard to these matters, I think their action is extremely like the case of a policeman standing by seeing a rough's hand in a lady's pocket taking her purse, and the lady appealing to the policeman for help and the policeman answering that he was waiting for a settlement to be arrived at—the settlement taking the form of the purse being carried off and the thief getting away. A more unjust and illegal act than that proposed by the West Riding County Council, and anything more cowardly and less consistent with their duty than the action of the Education Department, I am incapable of conceiving.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am not very fond of these discussions, and I do not think that most of your Lordships are very fond of them, but I feel that I ought to say a few words in order to correct a misapprehension which I think, after the speeches which have been made on behalf of the Government, might easily arise among those who only look superficially at the accounts in the newspapers of what takes place in your Lordships' House. I can well imagine its being said that what has been contended for on behalf of the Church—it probably will be so put—is a narrowing of liberty; and, in the next place, that what has been contended for is that

1045
something should be done which is contrary to the wishes of the governing body of the school itself. I want, therefore, to controvert absolutely those two propositions.
In the first place, it will very likely be said that this is one of the ordinary cases—as some people outside would express it—in which there is an endeavour on the part of the Church to restrict liberty in educational matters. The exact contrary is the case. If this scheme became law the liberty which now exists in the school as regards religious teaching would be restricted in a way that it has never been restricted before. It is true that the liberties restricted would be liberties now allowed to members of the Church of England; but that is no reason why its members should not have rights of conscience in such a matter, and secure for their children the teaching which the parents must definitely ask for if they wish their children to receive it. I have in my hands the rules which govern the giving of religious instruction in the school. They exclude nobody, and the regulation about denominational teaching is to the effect that religious instruction in Church of England doctrines shall only be given to pupils whose parents or guardians have in the manner specified requested the governors to provide such instruction, and no religious catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school to any pupil whose parent or guardian has not made such request. What is proposed to be done, therefore, will restrict and not enlarge the liberty which now exists. I want to make that quite clear.
In the next place, my Lords, it has been implied by the noble Viscount, whose forensic skill is an asset of very great value now added to his side of the House, that if we pass this Motion we shall be overriding the wishes of the governors of the school. The exact contrary would be the case. To make that quite clear let me quote from the report of the governors of the school upon the interview they had with the local education authority and the coercion that was applied to them. The governors state, in a letter to the Education Department in Whitehall, that on October 22, 1907, at a conference held at Wakefield, they were distinctly informed that although the Board of Education were satisfied with their acceptance of Article 5 (a), they, the county council, would accept nothing short of the absolute deletion of the denominational clause,
1046
Clause 47, of the scheme. The report goes on to say that it was also intimated that unless that was done absolutely and unconditionally, the West Riding County Council would not only refuse, as hitherto, to give any additional grants to the schools but would withdraw the grants they were then making—namely, the£335 per annum. The tone of the local education authority was so uncompromising throughout that the governors felt that no arguments they could adduce would shake their resolution and the conference came to an abrupt conclusion. These unhappy men then went back, and finding that those central administrators on whom they had relied to support them in their resistance to an illegal condition were going to desert them, they had no resource hut practically to yield and lay down their arms. Can this, therefore, by any stretch of imagination be called an over-riding of the wishes of the governors? Exactly the contrary. What is being done is to enlarge the liberty of the school and to stand by the wishes of the local governors. Those are my reasons for supporting the Motion, much against the grain, for I dislike upsetting these schemes if it can possibly be helped. I am exceedingly thankful to know that the Government see their way not to let this scheme take effect. I do not think it would be right that it should go forth that this scheme is upset simply owing to the force majeure that exists in this House, because the truth is that it perishes owing to its inherent wrongness, and in this I am convinced that the country would quite agree if they had before them the particulars upon which to judge.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, it has been said that the West Riding County Council are acting in an illegal manner in threatening to withdraw their grants from this school if religious education is given in it. I notice that the noble Viscount based his argument on the fact that the county council have not acted in an illegal manner under the Act of 1902. That may be so. I do not question so expert an authority on the law as the noble Viscount. But, even if it is so, does he carry his argument so Far as to say that the Board of Education should enter into the arena of religious controversy? I understand that the ground on which the withdrawal of the grant is suggested is based entirely on the question of religious denominational teaching, and not on educational grounds. Secondly, it is said that the

1047
Board of Education were right in upholding the action of the county council. I should have thought that a great Department of the State such as the Board of Education would have been better advised in endeavouring to hold the balance equally between the parties in a matter of this sort, and not have taken the step of joining in what almost might be called a religious controversy. I think the action of the Board of Education under those circumstances ought rightly to be questioned in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: And the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to preside at the meetings of the Imperial Conference. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will not detain the House long in asking this Question, and I hope I need not tell your Lordships that in what I am going to say there is not implied the slightest derogation from the office of the Secretary of State for the Colonies or the Statesman who now fills that post. What I would like briefly to point out to your Lordships is the view which is taken of this question—you may think it an unimportant question, but it is not really so—in our Dominions overseas. The Imperial Conference meets from time to time to discuss questions of co-operation—what I may call the organisation of co-operation—between the different parts of the Empire, and also questions of Imperial policy, and sometimes questions of general legislation, such as that of naturalisation which was discussed at the last Conference. These matters are really of vital importance, because although some of them may not appear as important as others, they are all links in the chain of that increased common co-operation which is becoming so increasingly important to the different parts of the Empire. Consequently the meetings of these Conferences are watched and their discussions followed with even greater attention in the Dominions than is perhaps the case in the United Kingdom. Therefore no one can say that the business which comes before these Conferences is unworthy of
1048
the attention of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
But it may be said that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a very busy man, and it is not reasonable to expect that he should take an active part in these Conferences when he has a colleague whose special duty it is to do so. It is not in that way that the matter strikes the Dominions. They know that the Prime Minister is a very busy man, but the Prime Minister to them is a much greater person than any Member of his Cabinet. And if we think of the Cabinets and Governments of the Dominions themselves, how many of us can tell the names of the Cabinet Ministers, although we know the names of the Prime Ministers and follow their doings with great interest and attention. If that is the case here, it is very much more the case in the Dominions. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a personality of absorbing interest in the Dominions, not equally so in the case of his colleagues, and from the Dominion point of view it is not easy for them to understand how the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should not have time to preside at these Conferences when their own Prime Ministers find time to leave their Governments for months together, at the greatest possible inconvenience to the administration and to their Parliamentary work, because of the all-absorbing importance of the Imperial Conference. At the earlier Conferences the Prime Ministers of the Dominions came to England, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom took no part in the proceedings.
At the last Conference, if I remember rightly, the Prime Minister did welcome the members of the Conference in the first instance, and then he left the presidency over the deliberations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is my earnest hope that on this occasion a better precedent is going to be set, and that at all the really important sessions and sittings of the Conference the Prime Minister himself will find time to preside over the deliberations. I can assure His Majesty's Government that that decision would be welcomed throughout all the Dominions of the Empire. The action would be immensely appreciated. If, unfortunately, the old rule should prevail, I think there will be a very serious disposition on the part of some of the Dominions to think that the

1049
action of their. Prime Ministers has not met with the response on this side that it deserves. Because, my Lords, if you try to picture to yourselves the complete dislocation of Parliamentary business in South Africa, or in Australia, or in Canada, when the Prime Minister and one or more of the principal Ministers leave for several weeks or even for two months together, it must appear to them almost impossible to believe that, if they can do that, hard worked as he is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot find time to preside at the more important sessions of the Conference. I have ventured to put this matter briefly before your Lordships in the full anticipation and hope that the general sense of my remarks is shared by His Majesty's Government. I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl's Question, I have to say that the Prime Minister proposes to preside over the first sitting of the Imperial Conference and over as many subsequent sittings as he finds it practicable to attend. In his absence the Secretary of State for the Colonies will preside.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR. (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I have very few words to say in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because this is really the same Bill as was brought forward by me and read a second time in your Lordships' House two years ago. I think the general scheme of it commends itself to all of your Lordships who have considered it, but there is one part which caused the wreck of the Bill two years ago to which I must advert for a few moments. It is this. The first clause proposes that any action which otherwise belongs to the King's Bench Division may be brought in the County Court by any plaintiff if he pleases, but that there should be an absolute right on the part of the defendant, if he does not wish it to be tried in the County Court, to remove it to the High Court. The only difference that is made between the existing law by that is this, that whereas the plaintiff
1050
and the defendant may now, if they like, agree to try the case in the County Court, if this Bill passes the plaintiff will be able to put it down in the first instance without agreement, subject to the absolute right of the defendant to remove it to the High Court. The object in allowing the plaintiff to enter it in the County Court without agreement is that it is perhaps not likely that parties who are in litigation with each other will care to come to any agreement, but if the one takes the step without having to consult; the other it is presumed that the other will agree. That, my Lords, is the whole scope of the Bill.
The Bill does not go nearly so far as a proposal made by Lord Cairns thirty years ago upon a recommendation of a Select Committee. The Select Committee on that Bill consisted of Lord Cairns, Lord Selborne, Lord Blackburn, Lord Hatherley, and the present Marquess of Lansdowne. My proposal does not go so far as theirs did. It has also received the approval, within the last three or four years, of a Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Gorell I am almost ashamed to waste so much time in presenting so small an amendment to your Lordships, but when this Bill was last brought before the House of Lords it was objected to in Committee—as I am bound to say nearly every legal reform is—more strenuously. I am sorry to say, by members of my own profession than by any lay member of your Lordships' House. I am very sorry to say that a most distinguished law reformer as well as a very great legal authority, the noble Earl who preceded me on the Woolsack, disapproves of this clause. I shall be prepared to try and meet him in arguing it when the Bill goes into Committee, but I may say with great sincerity how deeply I regret that I am hot able to have his support on this occasion, because I recognise to the full, not only his great authority, but also the distinguished services he has rendered to the law. All I would say further is that the Bill which I say goes further than this Bill—Lord Cairns's Bill—is to be found at page 359 of the House of Lords Bills of 1878 and 1879. I venture to hope that the-Second Reading of this Bill will be given now, and that your Lordships will kindly consider the Bill in the interval and enable me to retrieve the disaster that I suffered two years ago.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I very much regret that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not acquiesce in deleting the clause which seems to me to be entirely unnecessary for his Bill, and which I think will add a great deal to the jurisdiction of the County Courts, and detract from their value as the poor man's Court. I think one ought to know what the noble and learned Lord proposes to do. Not altogether respectfully, I think, to your Lordships' House after the discussion we had on the previous Bill—and there was a very full discussion of the subject when this clause was negatived—the noble and learned Lord dropped the Bill entirely, and I should like to know what is going to happen on the occasion of the present Bill if your Lordships again negative the clause. The reason I ask that is this. There are a great many provisions in this Bill which I think are extremely useful, and which I should be very glad to see added to the law; but the noble and learned Lord insists upon having an additional amount of jurisdiction given to the County Courts. I do not know whether it formed part of Lord Cairns's Bill, and I really do not care; because that which makes me oppose the present proposal is that it has inflicted a great deal of injustice upon the poorer class of suitors to have had jurisdiction piled on the County Courts from time to time so that occasionally it is absolutely impossible for a poor suitor to get his case heard in the County Court within a reasonable period. Probably we shall have to discuss this at greater length hereafter, and therefore I will not weary your Lordships at present with any further discussion of it.
I will say definitely only this, that from time to time every County Court in the country is over loaded with work. County Court Judges have a circuit to go, and from time to time they are required to announce months beforehand the period that they will occupy with the administration of their Courts. The result of that is that from time to time the County Court Judge is unable to perform the circuit in the specified time. These addings to the jurisdiction operate in this way, that the County Court Judge cannot finish his Court on such and such a day, and has to go back again, and on the occasion when he goes back he may have to adjourn once more. I have heaps of statistics here which perhaps hereafter I may have to call your Lordships' attention to, from which it appears that sometimes
1052
as many as three or four times the County Court Judge has to go back again to finish the cause. When one looks at what County Court Judges were instituted for and sees the mode in which every kind of jurisdiction has been heaped upon them, it will be seen that they cannot help adjourning their cases as they have to do, and I am not complaining of the County Court Judges for doing so. It is absolutely impossible for them to alter the periods that have already been mapped out by them, and which have been made operative by law. They have to keep their appointments, and they cannot help adjourning. The tendency has been from time to time to increase and add to the jurisdiction, so that the poor man's Court is now absolutely absorbed by persons for whom the County Court was never intended. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord himself is the author of the Bill. I cannot help suspecting that there is a Treasury scent about it. There is a sort of notion of sparing some expense.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is my own.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Well, I am sorry. I have the greatest possible confidence in and respect for the noble and learned Lord's views. I think he was good enough to say the last time we discussed this Bill that I did not know much about County Courts. He is entirely mistaken. I may inform him that the greater part of my earlier career as a barrister was occupied almost continually in County Courts. I had a general retainer for the London and North-Western Railway, and from time to time I was occupied in County Courts in every part of the country. I do not think the noble and learned Lord's own experience of County Courts is so great. His was a much higher and loftier course of practice. But be that as it may, the undoubted fact is that the County Courts are now congested in almost every place, and I have received earnest remonstrances from the Bar Council on the subject. I noted what the noble and learned Lord said with regard to lawyers, and undoubtedly he was able to raise a laugh at the expense of lawyers who were not law reformers. But, my Lords, I think he is mistaken. I think that the greatest law reformers we have seen in our time have been lawyers. But be that as it may, there is a great and crying injustice at present going on from time

1053
to time with regard to our County Courts, as I will show hereafter. The amount of business to be done in the County Courts is so great that the Judges have not time to do it. I have one case here in which it took eighteen months, and three different visits to the County Court Judge's jurisdiction, to finish one case. There is no reason for increasing the jurisdiction of the County Courts at all. I have the best authority for saying that the superior Courts are quite abreast of their work, and there is no reason, therefore, why you should endeavour to relieve the superior Courts and thrust this additional work upon the County Courts and so absolutely prevent and hinder that jurisdiction which was intended primarily for the poor.
There is another question which seems to me very much allied, and which requires serious attention. From time to time those who were intended to be really clerks and registrars are made into Judges for the smaller class of eases. Then you have another jurisdiction given as to the amount which people can pay, what their means are, and how much they can pay within such and such a time. That has been remitted to another class of persons. Then there is, what I think is still more objectionable, in order to relieve the congestion which has been created, a set of Judges appointed pro hac vice, and when their Judicial duties are over they return to the Bar. I can hardly conceive anything more objectionable than this continual oscillation between an advocate looking for business and a Judge enjoying a Judgeship for a week or a month. That seems to me to be calculated to—I will not use so strong a phrase as corrupt—but at all events to deteriorate the tone of the Bar. I say sincerely that I have great respect for the Bar. I believe it to be most useful in all respects for the administration of justice; but I do not think that this practice is calculated to increase either the honour or the usefulness of the Bar.
In regard to this Bill I think one ought to know what the situation is. If the Lord Chancellor says he will not pass this Bill, notwithstanding a great many of the useful sections which are in it, unless he has this primary provision which involves an alteration of the whole system of the administration of justice, it seems to me to be neither respectful to this House nor
1054
calculated to aid the spirit in which I am sure the Lord Chancellor himself would desire the debate to be conducted.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I am not going to inflict any discussion upon your Lordships with regard to the merits of this clause. This is not the right time to do so. There are many arguments in addition to those which have been mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury which require to be considered. But it is quite impossible for me to remain silent at the present stage after the speech which was made by the Lord Chancellor, because it places me in an extremely difficult position. This first clause has nothing to do with County Court administration properly so-called. It. is a clause which relates to the business of the High Court, as to which I ought, of course, to know something; and I do respectfully enter my protest, not for the first time, against the attempt to discount what may be said by those who have convictions on this matter by saying that they only oppose this clause because they are lawyers. I can say, speaking for myself, that that is not a just observation. There is no instance in my career, either in the House of Commons or here, which would justify the Lord Chancellor in suggesting that I would oppose any reform in the law or that I would oppose this particular clause in his Bill because I, as a lawyer, oppose every legal reform. The whole of my record is contrary to that. Therefore I respectfully protest against what we may say, from our convictions, being discounted on the ground that we oppose because we are lawyers. It is an observation the injustice of which I feel deeply, and I am sorry that it has been introduced to-night.
We ought in fairness to know whether or not this Bill is again going to be wrecked because we cannot agree with this clause. I have the greatest respect, and the Lord Chancellor knows it, for his judgment, and would gladly co-operate with him in every way I could; but I cannot subordinate all I know about this matter into a mere position of obedience. I wish this Bill to be read a second time. There are many clauses in it which I think ought to be passed. I support the greater part of them, and I deeply regretted that useful amendments which are wanted in the law with regard to our County Courts were withdrawn when the Bill was last before

1055
your Lordships' House because of the view taken with regard to the first clause, which, as I have said, has nothing to do with County Court administration at all but which is really a question entirely of High Court work. There are many things I could say about this Bill, but I am not going to inflict them upon you to-night. I would ask the Lord Chancellor, however, whether it is quite just not to tell us whether we are afterwards to be held up as having wrecked this Bill unless we agree to the first clause of it. We never have wrecked the Bill. We have discussed a clause, a clause of very great importance, and have not agreed with it.
I can assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that there are great objections to this proposal—objections which I shall be able to bring before your Lordships' house at a later stage. They may or may not commend themselves to the Lord Chancellor. I hope they will; but I trust at any rate, that he will understand that I am not here opposing the clause because I am a lawyer, and that he will give a little consideration to the reasons which I shall have to urge against this clause when the Bill goes into Committee. But, my Lords, I must say that the position does not seem to me right or just to those of us who feel greatly the responsibility of opposing the Lord Chancellor in such a matter as this. The noble and learned Lord comes down to your Lordships' House with all the weight of his great position, and the lay members of the House must naturally think that the opinion of the Lord Chancellor on such a matter is worth a great deal more than the opinion of anybody else. Therefore it is most difficult to be in a position of opposition, and I feel it most keenly. I feel that I have to approach this discussion with a sort of sword of Damocles suspended over my head—"if you do not agree to this clause the Bill does not go on, and you will again be held up as the persons who wrecked the Bill." I most respectfully protest. I have no wish to wreck the Bill, and I am not a wrecker of the Bill in arguing against this clause. On the contrary, I desire to see the Bill made law.
My Lords, I cannot shelve my responsibility on to other people's shoulders. I have now for eleven years had the great honour of being the head of the King's Bench Division, and I know perfectly well
1056
the needs of that Division. I know perfectly well what difficulties there are, and I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor and to the recommendations of his Committee which have enabled us and other Judges to come abreast of the work; but I do enter my most respectful protest against the speech which he made, with all the weight and authority of the Lord Chancellor, which practically is intended to—or if it is not intended to it will have that effect—discount any arguments that we may put forward to the House against this particular clause of the noble and learned Lord's Bill.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, perhaps I may ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments, as I was Chairman of the Committee which reported on the question of the improvement of the County Courts. The effect of this Bill, as I read it, is to embody the main points which the Report of our Committee put forward as valuable for the improvement of County Court procedure, practice, and jurisdiction. Therefore I would like to say a few words at this stage as to why I think the first clause should be retained, even though there are many other clauses independent of it which might be considered and which would be of value without Clause 1.
The first clause really goes further hack than even my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack thinks—or perhaps it has escaped his recollection. It goes hack really to the year 1872, and is taken from the first Report of the Judicature Commissioners of that year. The majority of those Commissioners reported at that time that the County Courts should be constituent parts of the High Court, and, in effect, should have unlimited jurisdiction, with a right of removal over a certain limit. I do not know whether they fixed upon the limit at that time, but substantially the clause that was framed as a result of the Report of that Committee goes back as far as 1872. If anybody studies with care what is called by some the evolution of the County Courts, he will find that these Courts began by being Courts for persons who claimed something like a sum not exceeding£20. That was in the year 1846. From that time to the present there has been a development in the powers, jurisdiction, and proceedings of County Courts, which was in answer, I think, to a demand for local

1057
facilities of an economical character. There are in the Report which we framed something like four pages cataloguing the Acts which have given additional jurisdiction to the County Courts. There are, in addition to these detailed Acts, the Acts which give jurisdiction of an unlimited character to the County Courts in bankruptcy, which is of a very extensive character. There are also Acts which give a large Admiralty jurisdiction to the County Courts. That has been the movement of the last fifty years, and it is a movement, based, I venture to suggest, upon economic and local facilities.
This clause continues that idea by doing very little more than using a certain amount of play upon human nature to avoid the difficulty which exists if you proceed to ask for consent. There is absolutely no increase of jurisdiction implied in this Bill. It is a mistake to think that there is. Parties can agree at this moment to take any Common Law case they please in the County Courts without any limit whatever, with the exception of a few cases such as libel and slander cases, which are expressly exempted from the operation of this Bill. What does the Bill propose? Your Lordships are not asked to do anything more than to facilitate what parties wish to do. It only proposes that the plaintiff shall begin his action in the County Court, and the defendant, if it is over the present limit, may say, "I object to that; you must go on in the High Court." In other words, it gives power to object instead of requiring consent. It is perfectly obvious why that should be done. It is because it is a most difficult thing to approach a solicitor, or a party with whom you are in litigation, and ask for consent to anything; but if you begin the action in a local Court, which would mean economy, it is much more natural that the defendant would not object to it going there than give his consent if he were asked to give it before hand. That is the whole change which is so much objected to.
I venture to ask, Why is it objected to? It is objected to because it is said—I say this with the greatest deference to what was said by the noble and learned Earl opposite—that it would swamp the poor man's Court and prevent his cases from being heard. So far from doing that, it will get rid of those very difficulties to
1058
which the noble Earl referred, and to which the Bar Council has referred. When those cases are examined into I venture to say they will be found to be exceedingly small in number, and to arise entirely from the present working of the County Courts. At the present time County Court Judges are obliged to nominate in advance specific days for their sittings. I think it is once a month they have to be at every place on their circuit. They cannot possibly know what work they will get there. They find ordinary business, such as committing people to prison, small debts to be enforced, and so on, and then they suddenly find a large case put into the day's list. By that system it is perfectly impossible that there will not be difficulties and lengthy adjournments. That is the present system. But if this Bill is carried, the procedure which is suggested is that any case which is of a larger class of case should be taken at a special sitting with lists arranged and at a central place selected for the purpose of taking that particular kind of case. That system, instead of increasing the difficulty of work of the County. Courts, would in my opinion decrease it. Then with regard to the point that the County Court Judges are overworked, I do not think it will be found that County Court Judges are by any means overworked. I believe the average total number of days in the year on which the County Court Judges sit is about 150.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: 153.
LORD GORELL: I do not believe, even if there was some extra time allotted for special sittings to deal with such cases as they are likely to get, that there would be any material difficulty, by proper adjustment, in County Court Judges coping with that class of work. The third alteration that is made by this Bill is an important one. It is proposed that Registrars should, unless the parties object, have power to deal with all debts under£5. Anybody who studies the statistics of the County Courts will find that an enormous percentage of the cases are under£5; and if jurisdiction to deal with those cases—many of them being undefended—were conferred upon the Registrars, the time of the County Court Judges for heavier cases would be largely increased, and they would be able to cope with better work than simply dealing with little undefended matters which do not take them more than a moment or two to decide. Another matter

1059
is this. If these cases should happen to be of any length, it is quite easy to provide that, on application to the Judge, they should be transferred, or sent: to an Official Referee if the Judge finds the intricacies of the case such as to require a longer hearing than can be allowed without delaying his smaller cases.
If this matter is investigated I think it will be found that there is no real difficulty in carrying out the proposals which this Bill puts forward. Secondly, are they wanted? The answer seems to be this. There is the development of the County Court which I have already indicated, and there is this further point that since the Act of 1903 introduced by the late Government extending County Court jurisdiction from£50 to£100, there have been a large number of cases taken above the£100 limit, amounting to 573 three years ago—those are the last statistics I have—in the County Courts, and 151 in the City of London Court. The total of those is more than the total number of cases disposed of by the High Court on circuit—that is to say, the consent jurisdiction, as it exists, has produced something like 700 cases which are taken by consent in the County Court at the present time, and all that this Bill proposes is to change that consent into a want of objection. I have dealt with this part of the question because one of the main grounds of objection appears to be that you will overwork the County Courts and prevent them from operating on their proper work. For the reasons I have given, I cannot believe that that is so at all; and as to the rest of the Bill, there are most valuable provisions in it which might very well go through, subject to some criticisms, even though the first clause were not adopted. I am sorry to have spoken so long, but some of these matters that I have dealt with are matters of importance, and it is worth while to bring them out now at an early stage of the proceedings with regard to this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say a very few words in reply. In the first place I would say that I have made no attack upon any profession, least of all upon my own, of which I am immensely proud. But if you look at the history of legal reform I am sure you will find that any one, however experienced in the law, who proposes law reform never receives
1060
much encouragement from the lay public, and not infrequently his proposals are met with objections—perfectly conscientious objections, I have no doubt—from members of the legal profession; and that is the reason why so many things in the administration of the law are a reproach to-day. May I give your Lordships one illustration in all goodwill. Your Lordships will remember three or four years ago when I brought forward the Criminal Appeal Bill how my noble and learned friend came down to the House and said, I have no doubt honestly believing it, and speaking on behalf of all of His Majesty's Judges, that it would be destructive of the administration of justice in criminal cases in this country.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I did not say that. I referred entirely to appeals on question of fact, which have never been lawful before.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is under a misapprehension. The whole point was with regard to appeals on questions of fact. That was what the Bill was for. Yet it had not become law a week before every man in the country knew that it was a success and was necessary for the administration of justice, and no one admitted more generously than my noble friend himself that the Bill was indispensable to the administration of justice. That, my Lords, is an illustration of the kind of difficulty which any one bringing forward law reforms has to meet at the hands of the legal profession. After all, this clause is a very small thing. It simply means that one person may do a certain thing to begin with and the other person may object if he chooses to do so. It is said that this will overwhelm the County Court Judges with work. Your Lordships will find the statistics with regard to the daily work of the County Court Judges in the Judicial Statistics published every year. I examined them last year and found, unless my recollection fails me, that the County Court Judges do on an average 153 days' work in the course of the. year. I wish I only did 153 days' work in the year. I should be very well satisfied to do 300 days' work in the year and very much improve my present work, and so would most of the working people of the country. Is it tolerable to be told that in the case of Judges who only do 153 days' work in the course of the year

1061
that they are so overwhelmed that their work cannot be added to? It cannot be supported.
Might I ask the noble and learned Earl, if he will, to let me know beforehand the statistics that he intends to rely upon when the argument comes on in the Committee stage. If they are right, I will admit them at once; but I should like very much to have an opportunity of knowing what those statistics are, because I know, not only front the statistics which I possess but also from my communications with County Court Judges themselves, that it is not the case that there are any arrears in the work of the County Courts. If there were arrears, we should very soon have notice taken of them. I am very sorry to have occupied so long with this, but we are most anxious to try and make justice cheap in this country if we can, and enable people to try their cases in Courts near at hand and not compel them to incur the expense of coming to the High Court with cases of the kind with which this Bill deals. We want people to be able to have their cases tried cheaply, if we can, and this Bill only enables people to do it who are willing to do it. I venture to predict that, unless we take some step of the kind in the way of law reform, your Lordships will find the Chambers of Commerce and the commercial classes of this country becoming vocal on the matter before long. I have had experience of this feeling from deputations I have received on the subject.
Then the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, asked me if I would say whether I was going to drop the Bill if this clause was not passed. If I do not proceed with the Bill there is nothing to prevent anybody else from taking it up. It is not a fair thing to say to a Minister who brings in his considered proposals in the shape of a Bill, "We propose to excise some of the clauses, but we ask you to be good enough to proceed with the rest." if this clause is omitted I do not propose to proceed with the rest. But that does not prevent my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury or any other member of your Lordships' House taking up my Bill. I have not the least objection to that being done; but I do not think it is fair to say to a Minister, "We will cut out the best and most important part of your Bill and you must be content with the rest." It seems to
1062
me to be treating him more like a schoolboy than a responsible person.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ENGINEER COMMANDERS—RATES OF PAY.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the exact position at the present moment of Engineer Commanders in respect of pay. Whether Engineer Commanders on promotion to that rank from the rank of Engineer Lieutenant always receive the pay of 24 s. a day, according to the scale laid down in Admiralty Circular Letter, No. 140 of 19th December 1902, or not. Whether, when in November, 1903, the promotion of Engineer Lieutenants to Engineer Commanders was temporarily accelerated front eight years to four years on the senior list, it was made clear that such promotions were to be treated in the matter of minimum pay exceptionally and not according to the scale laid down in Circular Letter No. 140; and, if so, how this distinction of treatment was made clear, and when these temporary accelerations of promotion will cease, and the minimum rate of pay for Engineer Commander really become 24 s. a day.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Question my noble friend asks refers to the time when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. The actual point in dispute is with reference to a Circular Letter issued by the Admiralty on November 1, 1903. This Circular Letter states as follows:—
"My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, having reviewed the Regulations governing the promotion, relative rank, &c., of the Medical, Accountant, and Engineer Officers of the Royal Navy, have decided to introduce the following changes therein."
I will simply state the one point which I think is relevant—
"Engineer Lieutenants on the Senior List will be promoted to Engineer Commander after four years on the Senior List instead of eight. In connection with this alteration the descriptive portions of the existing scales of full pay for Engineer Lieutenants (Senior List) and Engineer Commanders are amended as follows."
Then they are set out. I think the whole trouble has arisen from the words, "descriptive portions." I do not think that this Circular Letter was particularly well drafted, but be that as it may, I do not

1063
think the Admiralty can be accused in any way of breaking their pledges. What did my noble friend do? He introduced an improved scale of pay. He reduced the time in the rank of engineer cadet from5 to 4 years. He reduced the period of service of Engineer sub-Lieutenants from 6 years to 2½years. He established a fixed period of 8 years for the Engineer Lieutenants on the Junior List in place of the variable period extending to 10½years in the past; and in that case what happens now is that every Engineer Lieutenant is bound to get his promotion after 8 years on the Senior List. As a matter of fact now, owing to accelerated promotion, he gets it in 4, but previous to my noble friend's amendments it was generally 10½or even longer. I may also state that the pay at present of an Engineer Commander is 18s.; after 2 years service he gets£1, and after 4 years' service£14s. That means that 8 years after he is advanced to the Senior List of Engineer Lieutenants he gets£1 4s., as stated in the original Memorandum issued by the noble Earl in December, 1902. I really do not think that the engineering branch of the Navy have anything to complain of, especially in view of the fact that the noble Earl, when First Lord of the Admiralty, expended over£27,000 a year extra in the way of pay to that particular branch.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Would the noble Earl tell me when this accelerated promotion is going to cease?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I beg the noble Earl's pardon for not mentioning that. I understand that the accelerated promotion will cease after 1912. The other question that I omitted to answer was when every Engineer Commander in the Navy would get a minimum pay of£1 4s. a day. That period will not be reached, I am afraid, before the year 1922, but there is a possibility that it may be reached at a somewhat earlier date.

SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHING IN WALES.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH*THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his consent to the scheme settled by the Board of Education in the matter of the administration of the Educational Foundation of Ellin Humphrey in the parishes of Llanenddwyn and Llanddwywe, in the county of Merioneth.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like, in the first place, to explain that I worded my Motion in this form because I was advised that this was the usual and the most convenient form of objecting to any part of such a scheme. I have since been informed that it was not necessary to put it down exactly in that way, and I desire to say at once that it is only to one subsection of one clause of this scheme that I have to take any objection. That subsection is subsection (b) of Clause 19. It would have been perfectly satisfactory, so far as I am concerned, if the words "The governors may permit" could have been struck out, and also the proviso at the end of the subsection providing that "such instruction shall be given in the Welsh language to children of Welsh parents." Those are the only things to which I object. May I say on this point—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that I have some hope that the Government will not object to cutting out the proviso as to giving instruction necessarily in the Welsh language to children of Welsh parents.
If so, my objection is narrowed down to the other point. The words are—
"The Governors may permit the said school buildings to be used on Sundays for the purpose of classes for religious instruction…subject to a payment sufficient only to defray the expenses incidental to such user."
The whole question is, Is it fair and right that a permissive power should be given to the new governing body, instead of the right being maintained for the rector of the parish of Llanenddwyn to continue to give, as has been given for 100 years without any break, religious instruction in the principles of the Church of England in this school? I admit that, so far as I know, it is not stated in the original will of Mrs. Ellin Humphrey that it should be a Church of England school, and that instruction in the principles of the Church of England should be given in it; but I think that may be assumed from the nature of the trustees who were appointed, one of them being the rector of this parish of Llanenddwyn. another a landed proprietor close by—I forget at this moment the name—and a third the rector of another parish. Ever since that time it has always been considered a Church of England school as far as I can make out, and religious instruction has always been given in it. As a proof of what I have said,

1065
in 1835 an application was made to the Government for a grant for the rebuilding of the school. That application was made through the National Society, which seems clearly to prove that at that time it was considered a Church of England school. If it had not been, the application would have been made through the British and Foreign School Society. I do not believe that there has been any dispute about its being a Church of England school in the sense that ever since its foundation religious instruction of that kind has been given in it.
But now we come to the present actual point of the Sunday School. All that I now maintain is that the right of using this School for a Sunday School should be preserved. There is no proposal at this moment to maintain the school entirely as a Church of England school. But I do ask that the right which the rector of Llanenddwyn has always had, and which as far as I can make out has always been admitted, should continue. The Board of Education now in its scheme give a permissive power to the new governors. It says that they may permit the school buildings to be used on Sundays for the purposes of these classes, and they know that there can be no possibility of their pledging any future governors to continue this permission. I have here a letter signed by the secretary of the Merionethshire Education Committee, Mr. Haydn Jones, now Member of Parliament for Merionethshire. This was written in 1909, when this scheme was being discussed. He says that he hears that objection is taken to this part of the scheme and he writes—
."In these circumstances we desire to give you the fullest assurance in oar power that, so far as we know, there is no ground fur any such fears."
That is, fears that the permission will not be given; and he goes on later on to say—
"Whilst we cannot, of course, pledge the new governing body, we feel sure that they will not repudiate an honourable understanding."
I would point out that no future governing body can possibly be pledged in this way merely on the assertion of the secretary of the Merionethshire Education Committee; and if it is the intention of that education committee to give this permission to the rector of the parish to continue the Sunday school, why is it that it should not be stated in the scheme? This is
1066
only with regard to a Sunday School, and I do ask the Government, if they possibly can, to meet me in this, and give some definite assurance that it will not be left merely to the caprice of a governing body, but that the power shall remain in the hands of the rector of the parish to continue, the Sunday School there which has been carried on for so long. I think the point is really narrowed down to that, and I have very great hope that the noble Earl opposite who is going to deal with this may be able to give me the assurance that at least there will be some greater certainty than is given in the words of the scheme as it stands.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his consent from so much of the scheme settled by the Board of Education for the administration of the Educational Foundation of Ellin Humphrey, in the parishes of Llanenddwyn and Llanddwywe, in the country of Merioneth, as is contained in the proviso to clause 19 (b) of the said scheme.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as the noble Earl has correctly said, there are really only two points to be dealt with in regard to this scheme. First, as to the question of the Welsh language, I should not offer any objection to an amendment of this scheme which did away with the proviso with regard to the use of the Welsh language. Might I, however, say, to explain why it found a position in the scheme, that it was an attempt, however misguided, to follow out the provisions of the original will of Mrs. Ellin Humphrey.
The other point is whether the word "may" or "shall" should be used. There is, I think, no discussion between the noble Earl and myself as to the facts of this case. We agree that there is no special denominational principle indicated in the will of Mrs. Ellin Humphrey, and we also agree that the Church of England has had the use of this school for a very long time, in spite of the absence of any words to that effect in the will. I think that quite clearly in the circumstances this is an occasion for compromise. The noble Earl has expressed himself as satisfied with an assurance which he received in a letter from the secretary of the Education Committee of the Merionethshire County Council.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I did not say that I was satisfied with it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: At least the noble Earl was not entirely discontented with it. His point I think was that, although he was not quite satisfied with the letter, the expressions of intention contained in it were not unsatisfactory to him. I hope I have got it right?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: In those circumstances I am able to make him an offer, which I hope he will regard with satisfaction. It is this, that a resolution of the county council shall be passed binding themselves to see that the use is given in fact, if the permissive words are retained in the scheme. The noble Earl will, of course, understand that that is as far as I can go; but I can assure him that that offer is made by a person who I believe is fully competent to see that that resolution is passed by the council.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, there seems to be a little confusion about Mrs. Humphrey's will. It is perfectly true that there was nothing denominational in the will, but the money willed did not build the school. Mrs. Ellin Humphrey left£200, or something like that, to provide an amount of instruction by a schoolmaster in the Welsh language in reading and writing. She was the daughter of a former rector, but she did not erect this building. Not a penny, as far as I can understand, left by her, went to the building; but she, by her will, gave free judgment to the trustees—the rector of the parish, a local gentleman, and a clergyman of another parish. By that will they had control of this money to pay a teacher to hold classes in Welsh in reading and writing.
I find from a charge delivered by one of my predecessors about 1809 that he urged the clergy of the diocese in the strongest possible terms to take up the provision of schools all through the diocese. I do not think any charge could possibly have been stronger. I also find that during that time an enormous amount of school building went on in the diocese; the clergy almost everywhere, if they could not get land, gave up their own scanty glebes to provide sites. I remember
1068
going to one place not very far from the district in question where I think out of nine sites five were provided out of the glebe. The trustees of Mrs. Humphrey were naturally anxious to carry out her wishes and they applied for a site and built a school, and from that day to this that school has been recognised as a Church of England school. Can you have a clearer title than that? Can you say that although this particular building was put up by the trustees of an undenominational trust, yet this building put up by them and used as a school and recognised as a Church of England school is not a Church of England school? You have, again, this evidence that it was the practice of the Government to aid in the building of Church of England and Nonconformist schools alike, but if it was a Nonconformist school they did it through the British and Foreign Society, and if it was a Church of England school they gave the grant through the National Society. Here the Government, recognising it to be a Church school, gave the grant through the National Society.
In this scheme it is proposed to say that the clergyman is only to hold his Sunday school classes by permission of a certain governing body, of which be is in the proportion of one to seven. It is only a little village building, but, after all, it is to my mind as strong a case of confiscation as you can well have. The Merionethshire County Council have said that they have no wish to disturb the user. But when people come to an ordinary understanding upon ordinary matters of business, it is usually reduced to writing, and why cannot this be reduced to writing and put into a proper form—that the clergyman is to have the use of this building uninterruptedly for a Sunday school? The noble Earl has tried to meet us in perfect good faith, and what he has said at the moment I quite acknowledge is satisfactory; but, after all, it is a somewhat cumbrous undertaking, because the people who are to decide this question are the governors themselves. The Merionethshire County Council are the people whose pledge the noble Earl gives, but I do not understand, supposing the local governors say it is not to be used, how the county council are going to fulfil their pledge.
I do not want to dwell upon the question of instruction in the Welsh language,

1069
because, as I say, Mrs. Ellin Humphrey never built the school, and it seemed to me an absurd provision on the face of it. A clergyman would know best in his own Sunday school what kind of instruction ought to be given; he has no power of compelling attendance. There are in our Sunday Schools in Wales a large number of classes in Welsh and a large number of classes in English. If the parents want their children instructed in Welsh and the clergyman gives it in English the children will not come, and vice versa, so the clergyman will give the instruction the people want. In this particular parish there are a large number of people who speak English and a large number who speak Welsh, and I should have been glad if the noble Earl could have met us a little further. I know he has done the best he can see his way to do at this moment; bat I should have been very glad indeed if he could have gone a little further and, without wrecking the scheme, have given an assurance that in the case of this building—which, after all, was no part of the original charity but was put up by the trustees for the purpose of Church of England education, and which has been used for 100 years by the Church of England—the clergymen should be allowed without let or hindrance to give religious instruction on Sundays as heretofore.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not surprised that the right rev. Prelate who presides with such success over his important diocese should be anxious to secure to the very utmost the rights of the Church of England for this school. But we are practical men and as practical men we must look at the situation as we find it, and I must say the noble Earl has met us in a very conciliatory spirit in respect of this Motion this evening. What does his speech amount to? It amounts to this, that in respect to one part of my noble friend's amendment of the scheme, he has entirely conceded the point. The whole of the proviso is to disappear. Then there remains the question of the Sunday school. Having in years past had some little acquaintance with this subject, I have no doubt that the pious founder intended it to be a Church of England school; if not, she would not have made the rector of the parish an ex officio trustee of the school. But that does not give it a Church of England character within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, and
1070
therefore we cannot put forward a strictly legal right to treat it as a Church of England school. All we have is an equitable claim dependent on time certainty that we feel as to the founder's intentions, and on the fact that ever since this building has been erected it has been used for Church of England Sunday school purposes. I do not think the noble Earl recognises our equitable right to the full, but he admits that there are equitable considerations which must be taken into account, and on behalf of the county council he assures your Lordships that the Merionethshire County Council recognise these equitable considerations and are prepared to use their power in order to see that this school shall continue to be used as a Church of England Sunday school as heretofore. That is not all we ask for, but You cannot get all you ask for in this world: and I think my noble friend ought to be satisfied with what he has been able to get, and that he is to be congratulated, on behalf of the Church of England and of this 'particular Foundation, that lie has been able to obtain so much.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Can the noble Earl assure me that there will be a resolution of the Merionethshire County Council?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is what I understand.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: And the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to repeal subsection 3 of section forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908—Was presented by the Earl Carrington; read la, and to be printed. (No. 46.)

POULTRY BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable Orders to be made under the Diseases of Animals Act for protecting live poultry from unnecessary suffering and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by the Earl Carrington; read la, and to be printed. (No. 47.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.