Sitting of 22 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
  Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day, after a quarter-past Two, during the Sitting of the House.—(Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice.)
  Middlesbrough Corporation Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Verbal Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords]; Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Willesden Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Rothesay Corporation Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Rothesay Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Royal Burgh of Rothesay," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Friday.
  Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 390 (British Honduras, Annual Report for 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AFRICA (No. 9, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum showing position of the four African Protectorates administered by the Foreign Office in June, 1903, arranged in chronological order of date of administration [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF WILTS).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901—Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 267.]

  BRITISH VESSELS SOLD TO FOREIGNERS.
  Return ordered, "of the number and tonnage of vessels sold from United

  1431
  Kingdom ownership under the British flag to foreign ownership under foreign

  Year.

  Number of Steamships.

  Tonnage.

  Number of Sailing Ships.

  Tonnage.

  1875

  …

  …

  …

  1876

  …

  …

  …

  1877

  …

  …

  …

  1878

  …

  …

  …

  1879

  …

  …

  …

  1880

  …

  …

  …

  1881

  …

  …

  …

  1882

  …

  …

  …

  1883

  …

  …

  …

  1884

  …

  …

  …

  1885

  …

  …

  …

  1886

  …

  …

  …

  1887

  …

  …

  …

  1888

  …

  …

  …

  1889

  …

  …

  …

  1890

  …

  …

  …

  1891

  …

  …

  …

  1892

  …

  …

  …

  1893

  …

  …

  …

  1894

  …

  …

  …

  1895

  …

  …

  …

  1896

  …

  …

  …

  1897

  …

  …

  …

  1898

  …

  …

  …

  1899

  …

  …

  …

  1900

  …

  …

  …

  1901

  …

  …

  …

  1902

  …

  …

  …

  —(Mr. Runciman.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Home Office and Fiscal Inquiry—Response to Appeal for Relief of Distress in 1842.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his office is engaged on the fiscal inquiry; and whether he has any official information showing what financial response followed the appeal made by the Home Secretary, through the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1842, to the ministers in each parish to effectually excite their parishioners to a liberal contribution towards relieving the severe distress from which many of the working classes suffered; and if the whole sum voluntarily subscribed was distributed in relief of the distress at the time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The answer to the first sentence is in the negative. I have no official
  flags in each year from 1875 to 1902, in the following form—
  records enabling me to answer the other Questions, but I am having inquiries made.

  Detention of a Sirdar and Coolies on the Eastern Bengal Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in February, 1902, a Sirdar with about fifty coolies when travelling to a labour contractor was stopped by the police at Parbatipur Junction on the Eastern Bengal Railway, and not allowed to proceed until after he had telegraphed to the head of his firm, who approached the Assistant-General of Government Railway Police at Calcutta; is he aware that although the Sirdar had a pass for himself and coolies he was detained for two and a half days and required to pay money to the police; and will some inquiry be made on the subject by the Government of India.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have no information on the

  1433
  subject. The matter should be represented to the local authorities.

  Location of Madras Workhouse.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a reply to the inquiry which he addressed, in June last year, to the Government of India with reference to the location of the workhouse at Madras within the precincts of the Presidency Gaol; whether he has considered the representations made as to the results of such an arrangement; and whether he is in a position now to state the view of the Government of India upon the matter.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have received the reply of the Government of India, and have given directions that persons detained under the European Vagrancy Act shall be accommodated in premises not forming part of the penitentiary.

  Troops in South Africa—India's Contribution.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he and his Council have been consulted with reference to the scheme of maintaining a reserve of 25,000 troops in South Africa; whether they have unanimously agreed to the payment of a contribution by India towards the expenses of that force; and if he will place upon the Table of the House the Minutes of the Council as well as copy of the correspondence addressed to the Government of India on the subject.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George. Hamilton.) The scheme of maintaining a reserve of 25,000 troops in South Africa is a matter for the consideration of His Majesty's Government; but, in so far as it is further proposed that India shall have a first claim on the services of half that reserve in return for a contribution of £400,000 a year, I have considered the matter in Council, and have consulted the Government of India. Their reply has not yet been received, and I shall, of course, await it before coming to any final decision on the subject. I
  1434
  cannot at present give any undertaking as to the presentation of Papers.

  Swimming in the Mercantile Marine.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what percentage of shipmasters, officers, seamen, and engineers in the mercantile marine are able to swim; and whether, seeing that there is not any clause in the Merchant Shipping Acts requiring proficiency in swimming as a qualification for seafaring men before passing their examinations, he will consider the desirableness of enacting this qualification.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) There are no figures available which would enable me to answer the first part of the Question. Although I am in sympathy with the object which the hon. Member desires to secure, I do not think an alteration of the law such as he suggests would be expedient.

  Food Imports from the Colonies and Foreign Countries.
  MR. SEELY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what is the value of the total imports of food into the United Kingdom from British colonies and foreign countries, respectively; and if he can give any estimate of the value of the home supply.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The imports of food and drink into the United Kingdom in 1902 from British colonies and possessions were valued at £43,289,000, and from foreign countries at £175,427,000. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  German Market and Countries adopting Retaliatory Fiscal Policy.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any country adopting a retaliatory fiscal policy has access to the German market on more favourable tariff terms than the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No.

  Repatriation of Merchant Seamen.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade to state the number of seamen sent home, and the cost of their repatriation, for each of the four years previous to the coming into force of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898—viz., the 1st April, 1899, and similar statistics for each of the four following years.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a statement of the number of seamen sent home and the cost of their conveyance to this country in the years mentioned.

  Training in the Navy—Diving and Swimming.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the teaching of swimming and diving is part of the education and training of officers and men in the British Navy; and, if so, under what regulations proficiency is secured in these exercises for health and the saving of life.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The reply is in the affirmative. All Executive, Engineer, and Accountant Officers in the Royal Navy must be in the possession of certificates of proficiency in swimming, and all boys in the training ships are taught to swim. There are various men's ratings for which ability to swim is not a necessary qualification, but in these cases every encouragement is offered to the men to learn, both by giving facilities while at the home ports and in the Reserves, and by the holding of swimming classes in His Majesty's ships. At all inspections of His Majesty's ships it is the duty of the inspecting officer to make special inquiries as to the number of persons on board, if any, who cannot swim, and to report what steps are taken in the matter. The general Regulations on the subject will be found in Article 263 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions.

  Holidays in the Central Telegraph Office.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether,
  1436
  in view of the fact that the Committee which revised the holiday periods in the Central Telegraph Office promised that the choice of annual leave should remain governed by seniority, and that as a result the seniors made concessions in order to benefit their junior colleagues, he will explain why the Secretary to the Post Office now states that senior clerks are to have their holidays spread over eight months of the year, with the result that some are compelled to take their holidays in March after a service of nearly thirty years.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The hon. Member presumably refers to the class of overseers and senior telegraphists. No statement has been made that the annual leave of any existing officers in that class is to be spread over eight months of the year, and none have had to take their leave in March.

  Central Telegraph Office—Promotion of Tube Attendants.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that some of the tube attendants of the Central Telegraph Office have been in receipt of the maximum salary for four years—viz., 30s.; and, seeing it has been the practice to recruit lobby officers with a maximum salary of 40s. per week from the tube attendant staff, will he explain why a vacancy in the higher class is to be given to persons other than the tube attendants.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Five of the tube attendants in the Central Telegraph Office have been for four years in receipt of wages at the maximum of their scale. The class of lobby keepers is no longer recruited from the class of tube attendants, it having been found that police pensioners were better fitted for the duty. The only vacancy in the class of lobby keepers which has occurred this year will not be filled up.

  Postmen's Allowances.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General how many postmen now receive allowances, other than supervising allowances, and the total sum of money so expended.

  1437
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It would be a troublesome and expensive work to furnish a comprehensive list of the allowances referred to, and I do not think the expense would be justified by the result.

  Reinstatement of British Postal Servants from South Africa.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether British postal servants who entered the South African postal service for an agreed term of two years will, at the end of that period, be reinstated in the home service should they so desire.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No general statement can be made; but each case will be dealt with on its merits.

  Report on Consular Service.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report has been recently made as to His Majesty's Consular Service; and, if so, whether it will be presented to Parliament.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The Report has been presented to Parliament to-day.

  Withdrawal of School Children during Religious Instruction.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the provisions of the Seventh Section of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, which regulates the attendance of children during the period of religious instruction in elementary schools, he will consider the advisability of modifying the new by-law authorising the withdrawal of children from school till after the time of religious instruction is passed.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The new form of by-law which the Board of Education have expressed themselves as willing to approve if adopted by local authorities has been designedly framed to carry out more completely the intention and effect of the section referred to in the Question.

  Llangollen School Board—Different Treatment of Board Schools and Voluntary Schools.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the clerk to the School Board at Llangollen has stated that, as regards payments of existing liabilities, different treatment is being accorded to the Board schools and to the voluntary schools; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take to prevent such preferential treatment.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Llangollen is an urban district with a population of some 3,000 in Denbighshire. This county has not as yet submitted a scheme to the Board, so that apparently the Act will not be in operation at Llangollen for some time. It is impossible under these circumstances that any treatment under the Act of 1902, preferential or otherwise, is now being accorded to any sort of schools.

  Vivisection Experiments without Anæsthetics—Feeding Experiments.
  MR. PERKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that during the year 1902 there were 12,000 experiments performed on living animals without anæsthetics, and, if so, will he state whether the feeding experiments forming part of the 12,000 include starving animals to death and also forced overfeeding; and whether these experiments are authorised by the Home Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The Return which has been laid before Parliament shows that, under licences and certificates duly authorised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, over 12,000 experiments (being mostly inoculations and in no case involving any serious operation) were performed in 1902 without anæsthetics. Neither the starving of animals to death nor the forced overfeeding of animals is included among the experiments authorised or performed. In the case of one gentleman who was authorised to perform certain experiments, including four upon rats or rabbits kept without food for certain periods, at the end of which they were to be killed, the Return shows one experiment.

  Pensions of Retired Officers Re-employed during South African War.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what increase of pension or other remuneration has been granted to those retired officers re-employed during the late Boer war who have received substantive promotion in recognition of their services rendered during the campaign; and, if no such increase has yet been granted, will instructions be issued that they shall receive the retired pay of the rank to which they have been promoted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Re-employed retired officers promoted while serving receive such advantages in retired pay as the length of service in the higher rank would entitle them to. Perhaps the hon. Member would explain to what specific cases he refers.

  Appointments to the Army from the Militia—New Regulations.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the new regulations with reference to the position of candidates desiring to enter the Army through the Militia will be made known, and what preliminary examinations such candidates will have to pass; and when the first examination under the new regulations will be held.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is hoped that the new regulations will shortly be made known. The Militia candidates will be required to pass a qualifying literary examination and a competitive examination in military subjects. If found practicable the first of the examinations will be held in September, 1904.

  Home Service for the South Staffordshire Regiment.
  MR. SHAW: To ask the Secretary of State for War when may the 1st South Staffordshire Regiment, now stationed at Harrismith, Orange River Colony, be ordered for home; and is there any prospect of the married non-commissioned officers' and men's wives and children being sent out to join them seeing that they have been separated from them nearly four years, and that the regiment has been
  1440
  under canvas three years and eight months.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put by my hon. friend the Member for the West Division of Wolverhampton on the 16th instant on this subject.†

  Officers and the Royal Toast—Water instead of Wine.
  MR. BROADHURST: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will bring to the cognisance of the various officers in command of the different regiments of the Army His Majesty's statement that he felt quite as much honoured when his health was drunk by young officers in the Navy in water as in wine.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The custom of drinking His Majesty's health is not prescribed by regulations, and therefore no official cognisance can be taken of the mode of drinking the health.

  Efficiency of Volunteers.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Volunteer officers have secured certificates of efficiency at schools of instruction or elsewhere during the current year; how many Volunteers have attended camps of instruction during the year; and how many have signified their intention of attending these camps.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) These Returns are rendered periodically, and I must ask the hon. Member to await the usual period, as duplication of labour would be caused by calling for these Returns at uncertain intervals.

  Indian Contributions to Military Expenditure.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the second paragraph of the War Office letter to the India Office of the 18th June, 1902, he would treat a communication to the Indian Government of proposals involving a large recurring increase of the
  † See page 857.

  1441
  military expenditure of that Government as other than confidential, and as attended by the risk of premature discloures referred to in that paragraph; and, further, if the Secretary of State for India took part in the discussion of the proposed increase of the pay of the British soldier which is therein stated to have been considered by His Majesty's Government from the standpoint of the interests of the Empire as a whole, or if the words His Majesty's Government in that connection signify the Secretary of State for War and his Departmental advisers only.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick). My hon. friend has misunderstood the purport of the paragraph quoted. Any question of an increase of par to the Army is necessarily kept strictly confidential, as such proposals, if not carried through after they have been entertained, would lead to discontent. The expression His Majesty's Government includes the Secretary of State for India, who was present at the discussions.

  Indian Labour for Southern Rhodesia.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the remarks made at a recent meeting of the British South Africa Company in regard to the importation of coloured labour to supplement the deficiency of local labour in Southern Rhodesia; and will he state whether the Government will facilitate the supply of such indentured Asiatic labour as may be required.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have seen the remarks referred to. The Indian Government have felt compelled to express their inability to consent to the proposal made by the Government of Southern Rhodesia for various reasons. One reason they give is that the demand for Indian underground labour is at present greater than the supply.

  Treatment of British Indian Subjects in the South African Colonies.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the despatch from Lord Milner relating to the question of the treatment of British Indian subjects in the African colonies has yet been
  1442
  received; and if he proposes to lay the same upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) Lord Milner's despatch, which I have received, deals with the treatment of British Indian subjects in the Transvaal. I am in communication with Lord Milner as to whether there is any objection to its publication.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the Reports which he asked for by despatch of the 1st May from the local authorities relating to the ill-treatment of a number of British Indian subjects in the Transvaal, and to the deaths of a Mahometan fruit seller at Durban last February and of a labourer at Ladysmith last March; and, if so, will he state the contents of those Reports.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Reports referred to have been received, and will be communicated to the hon. Member.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Northwich Military Camp.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are a number of Roman Catholic soldiers about 170, in the camp of the Welsh Fusiliers and the U Battery at Delamere near Northwich, and that the Reverend D. Cregan, Roman Catholic Rector of Northwich, who on former occasions administered to the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholic soldiers with the permission of a former Commanding Officer, wrote to the officer at present in command stating that he was ready and anxious to go to the camp and conduct service for these Roman Catholic soldiers, but has not received a reply or an acknowledgment of the receipt of his letter, although it was posted more than a fortnight ago; and, if so, will he state whether there is any provision made for Roman Catholic soldiers to attend divine service in this camp; and whether the Commanding Officer has any, and, if so, what explanation to give for his

  1443
  neglect in replying to the Reverend D. Cregan's letter; and what steps the War Office authorities propose to take in this matter.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY-): This is a matter for the General Officer Command, ing the district, to whom the hon. Member should address any communications he may think fit to make on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: DO I understand that the noble Lord will take no action in this matter?
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman has heard my answer.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I say it is very scandalous.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Food Imports.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he proposes to place, in addition to duties on foreign corn, taxes on foreign beef, mutton, wool, butter, and cheese for the carrying out of his proposals to give colonial goods a preference in the home market.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I think the Question is a little irregular. The hon. Member is really asking me, not about any action of the Government, but my personal opinion. In regard to that, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

  Imports of Wool and Hides.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that wool and hides form the larger proportion of the imports into this country from the Australian colonies as compared with food, and, with the view of benefiting these colonies, whether the Government hag resolved to impose an import duty on wool and hides as well as on food coming from foreign countries, or whether it has resolved to refrain from imposing such a duty.
  MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government has made no proposals at all on this subject, and as far as I am aware no Member on this side of the House has proposed or suggested a tax on raw materials.
  MR. BLACK: May it be taken that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking for the Government in proposing—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is referring to some other point.
  MR. BLACK: On a point, of order, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has already made a statement as a member of the Government, and I venture to submit that we are entitled to know whether he spoke on behalf of the Government on the previous occasion?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Germany and Canada.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Canada has since 1897 been in direct correspondence with Germany as to tariff arrangements; and, if so, whether the correspondence will be published.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Canadian Government can only communicate with the Government of Germany through His Majesty's Government, but some informal and unofficial discussions took place between Herr Bopp, the German Consul-General, at Ottawa, and members of the Dominion Government, in 1901, of which there is, so far as I am aware, no record. All the correspondence has already been published.

  Assam Coolie Riot.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a coolie riot which occurred on 19th May last at a tea garden in Assam, in consequence of which forty-two coolies have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; and whether he can supply

  1445
  information as to the causes which led to this outbreak.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Earl PERCY,): I have noticed the account of the riot given in the newspapers. I have no further information regarding it.

  Brussels Sugar Convention — Imports from Austria, Hungary, and France.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the Permanent Commission at Brussels have found that the so-called contingent law of Austria and the law proposed to the Hungarian Parliament are inconsistent with the Brussels Sugar Convention, and that the French system is not in harmony with that Convention, do His Majesty's Government intend to prohibit, as from 1st September next, the importation of sugars and sugared products from Austria, from Hungary, and from France; and, if not, how otherwise do they propose to fulfil their obligations under the Convention.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN BORNE,)The Question is based on the assumption that the two contracting States named will fail to carry out their obligations under the Convention. I have no reason to suppose that this will be the case.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The noble Lord has entirely misrepresented my Question. It is based on nothing of the kind. I asked a Question which is based upon statements laid before Parliament, and, in addition to that, I may say that, in regard to France, it is stated that she cannot alter her law. Under these circumstances, I respectfully ask what His Majesty's Government propose to do.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has wrongly quoted what passed at the Conference, but it remains for those States to bring their legislation into harmony with the findings of the Conference.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the noble Lord not aware that in his own despatch it is stated that France cannot do so?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The Question cannot be argued.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I cannot get an Answer.

  Russian Sugars.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has His Majesty's Government observed that Sir H. Bergne, in his despatch of 13th July, 1903, states the decision of the Permanent Sugar Commission at Brussels to be that, pending further consideration, the contracting States might apply to Russian sugars and sugared products the rate of countervailing duty fixed by the United States; is he aware that the decision of the Commission was not that the rate in question might, but that it shall, be applied to the Russian sugars; and, if so, can he explain Sir H. Bergne's statement to the effect that the Commission left its application optional; and do His Majesty's Government intend to apply to Russian sugars and sugared products the United States rates, or do they intend to prohibit their importation altogether.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am informed that the word "might" was employed because the contracting States have the option of applying either prohibition or countervailing duties. As my hon. friend is aware, in the Sugar Convention Bill power is not taken to impose countervailing duties, but to prohibit bounty-fed sugar and sugared products.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is not the word implied in the Convention.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I think it is perfectly well chosen.

  Trade Interests in Roumania.
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that for some time past German trade interests in Roumania have been represented by a trade expert; and whether, in view of the fact that the Roumanian Government are at present considering their tariff, and that other countries are represented by trade experts, he will at

  1447
  once appoint a trade expert to safeguard the interests of British trade.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The German official, to whom no doubt my hon. friend refers, is described as an agricultural expert. The Secretary of State will consider in consultation with the Board of Trade whether any steps should be taken in the direction suggested in the Question.

  Naval and Military Expenditure.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will he state whether he has been able to make inquiries as to the possibility of a reduction of expenditure upon the military and naval forces of this country; and, if so, can he state whether such expenditure will be affected by the proposed changes in the fiscal policy; and, if so, to what extent, or in what manner.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THR EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): I can assure the hon. Member that the possibility of reducing expenditure is always under my consideration, but in what way the proposed changes in fiscal policy affect the matter I do not quite see.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that this country under the present fiscal system has for over fifty years enjoyed uninterrupted most-favoured-nation treatment from every other country, he has any information as to how far the imposition of import duties on the goods of other countries will affect this position and the general trade of this country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): There is hardly any information, historical or statistical, relating to commerce which may not conceivably be regarded as having a possible bearing upon one or other of the problems referred to in this Question.

  Colonial Trade with the Mother Country and Foreign Countries.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will
  1448
  state the total amount of British exports into each of the self-governing colonies for last year (not including war material, etc., to South Africa), and the total amount of foreign exports; also the particulars as regards India and other British possessions in the same way.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The imports from the United Kingdom and foreign countries into each British possession in 1901 are given in the Return C, 1638, which has recently been laid before Parliament. The figures for 1902 are not yet available for many of the colonies. Exports of British produce to each colony in 1902 are given in the Annual Statement of Trade, Vol. 2, and also re-exports of foreign and colonial produce from the United Kingdom to each colony.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are we not to have fuller Papers laid on the Table, or are we to be referred from pillar to post amongst the Blue-books. Am I not right in understanding that we are to have a précis in order to bring the subject before the country to aid in the grand inquest of the nation.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Question was specific, and I have given an Answer to the best of my ability. It is impossible, as the hon. Member will admit, to give all the figures asked for in reply to a Question.

  Rural Schools—Curriculum.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability in the rural school curriculum of modifying or withdrawing the subject of Drawing, and utilising the time for teaching the measurements of surfaces and stacks, grafting and pruning fruit trees, culture of bees, knowledge of animal philosophy, different values of manures and soils, and kindred subjects fitting rural children for country livelihoods.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): Under Article 15 of the Code drawing is required to be taken, as a rule, in all schools, but not necessarily in every class, and it may be omitted in any school which can satisfy the inspector and the Board that there is good reason for

  1449
  the omission. The Board of Education are extremely anxious to encourage arrangements for bringing the course of instruction in rural elementary schools into close relations with the environment of the scholars; and the inspectors of the Board have power under Article 15 of the Code to approve a course of instruction specially designed for this purpose, and, if necessary, to sanction special arrangements as to Drawing.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman instruct the inspectors of the Department to give special attention to this subject in rural schools?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: They are already instructed to pay special attention to the adaptation of the course of instruction to the environment of the scholars.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Is not Drawing considered by the Board of Education a very valuable subject in rural schools in encouraging the working together of hand and eye?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: It certainly is a valuable subject.

  Whitaker Wright Prosecution.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if the Government have yet arrived at any decision with regard to the ultimate incidence of the costs incurred in the prosecution of Mr. Whitaker Wright; and whether, in view of the importance of vindicating commercial morality, he will direct the costs of the prosecution to be borne by the Crown.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): It would be premature at this stage of the proceedings to give any decision on the Question of the hon. Member.
  MR. LAMBERT: When does the hon. and learned Gentleman think he can give his decision?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The prosecution is coming on shortly, and when it is over the question can be considered.

  Terminable Leaseholds.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the terminable leasehold system has never had the formal sanction of either House of Parliament, the Government will consider the advisability of introducing a measure to safeguard the property paid for by terminable leaseholders.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am not prepared to give any undertaking as to legislation on this subject, but any definite proposal which the hon. Member may make shall receive consideration.

  Franco-Spanish Alliance.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury has His Majesty's Government observed the statement made by Señor Silvela, Prime Minister of Spain, at the meeting of the Cortes last week, immediately before his resignation, of the many interests and motives of alliance between France and Spain and the necessity for a close union between those two countries; have His Majesty's Government received any information as to the existence of an alliance or an understanding between the French and Spanish Governments; if so, are they aware of the conditions thereof; and does the understanding, if any, extend to Gibraltar.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We have no information as to any alliance between the French and Spanish Governments.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Or of an understanding?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An understanding is of the nature of an alliance, and that word covers it. We have no knowledge.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.—British Policy of Prohibition.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Permanent Commission at Brussels have fixed specified countervailing duties to be imposed by

  1451
  each contracting State of the Brussels Sugar Convention on all sugars and sugared products imported from Spain, Denmark, Japan, Roumania, Russia, and the Argentine Republic, and that these duties are different in each case, and vary from 1 fr. 75 to 27 fr. per 100 kilogrammes, do His Majesty's Government intend to treat all the cases in the same way, by absolutely prohibiting from 1st September next the importation of sugar and sugared products from all the countries in question, irrespective of differences in their bounties; what other countries signatories of the Convention intend to depart from the finding of the Commission, that specified differential treatment shall be given to the countries in question, in order to extend to them one common treatment, either by prohibition or otherwise; and will His Majesty's Government consider the propriety of imposing the duties named by the Commission, instead of adopting the more severe method of prohibition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be desirable to reserve the Answer to this Question till the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, when the subject can be dealt with more fully than is possible by Question and Answer across the floor of the House.

  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.] Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 268.] Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That three additional days be allotted to the Business of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  *DR. MACNAMARAI desire to say a few last words on this Bill by way of moving its rejection. I take this course for three reasons. First of all, as a London Member, I venture to resent the way in which the Bill has been pushed through its various stages in this House. The Second Reading was taken four parliamentary days after the First Reading was carried, and before either the School Board for London or the County Council had any opportunity whatever of examining its details. I asked the Prime Minister to postpone the Second Reading, in order that those two great bodies, so deeply affected by the measure, might have an opportunity of considering its details, and he replied that he did not think it would be convenient or possible to alter the arrangement come to, because, of course, these two important bodies would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion during the interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. But, in spite of that deliberate pledge, what occurred? The Second Reading of the Bill was finished on Wednesday, 29th April. The very next day the London School Board appointed a special Committee to examine the Bill and make recommendations to be forwarded to the Government. The Committee met on Friday, 1st May, and again on the following Tuesday and Friday, and I can say personally that they worked very hard on those three days. But before they had had an opportunity of finishing their deliberations, before they could place their views before the Board with the view to submitting those views to the Government, the Committee stage was entered upon. I desire, then, to express very strong resentment at the Second Reading having been taken before either the School Board or the County Council had had a chance of examining the measure, and at the Committee stage having been pushed on before they had anything like a reasonable opportunity of expressing their opinion. I speak on behalf of the people of London when I say that this is an ill requital on the part of the Government, which has been treated so generously by London in the matter of representation in this House.

  1453
  My second reason for moving the resection of the Bill is, that I very strongly object to the form which it has taken. The Bill of last year was a very revolutionary measure. It uprooted the educational legislation of thirty-three years; to repealed sixteen Acts of Parliament, it repealed the whole of the Technical Instruction Act of 1899, and to repealed fifty sections and all the schedules of the Act of 1870. Notwithstanding the fact that it produced this enormous revolution one-third of last wear's Bill was passed in this House under the operation of the closure, and without any discussion at all. Then the Government turns to London and applies this stupendous revolution to it in a Bill of only one clause, and it actually passes that clause by means of the closure. I say that that is treating London in a most contumelious manner and I strongly resent it. London education is as important, numerically and financially, as the education for the whole of Scotland. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has promised an Education Bill for Scotland next year, and I should like to know whether, when that Bill is introduced, it will be a Bill of one clause settling the whole education question by reference to another Bill. I do not suppose for a moment it will. I imagine that the Scotch people will demand a measure complete in itself—a measure that will set up local authorities elected ad hoc for suitable areas. As I have said before London has treated this Government very generously by returning fifty-four Ministerialists out of a total of sixty-two representatives, and I ask again why should it be treated in this contumelious way? I am aware that a great many Londoners deserve the treatment that they get. They are far too unconcerned and happy-go-lucky. Their sceptre of Empire is the batôn of the conductor of the Music Hall Orchestra. Their only text book is to be found in the words of the latest song by Marie Lloyd and Little Tick Their highest aspiration is to "spot the winner" of the City and Suburban. Therefore they get the government they deserve. Although I am a London Member I cannot help feeling as I do when I
  1454
  remember how London is treated in this House.
  Now I come to my last reason for opposing the Bill. I oppose the machinery of the Bill altogether. It is hopelessly bad. It is bound to break down, and I will again tell the Parliamentary Secretary why I think so. The Government have determined to destroy the School Board for London. It is to be destroyed because it has done its work too well. I see that its sons have become Senior Wranglers, and have taken very high positions at Oxford; they are occupying positions in which they were not originally born, as the phrase goes, and I imagine that that is one of the reasons why the School Board is to be destroyed. As the Parliamentary Secretary said on the First Reading, it has been guilty of "vaulting ambition"; for that reason it is to be destroyed, and the work is to be given to the London County Council. I have again and again endeavoured to describe the magnitude of this problem. Let me once more remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government that when you deal with the education of London you deal with a problem which involves the control of 2,000 schools and the direction of 20,000 teachers, as well as the education of 1,000,000 students and the expenditure of £4,000,000 sterling annually. It is a problem as large as is involved in the whole education of Scotland, and is three times as large as is involved in the education of Wales. The work is now to be added to the work of the London County Council, as to the members of which body Ministers have gone about this City asserting that they already have too much to do. I confess I cannot square the position taken up by the Government on this point. On the First and Second Reading, when I pointed out that the Government proposal would have the effect of doubling the work of a body which admittedly, from a Ministerial point of view, already have too much to do, the Prime Minister replied to me that the genius of his scheme was that they were going to devolve enormous powers on the Borough Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said that decentralisation

  1455
  was an absolute necessity of the situation, and that it was to take place by statute. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wiltshire, amongst many other speakers on the other side, also declared on the same point that the School Board had been over centralised, but that, under this scheme, there would be complete decentralisation, which would not involve so many meetings or the appointment of so many subcommittees, because the local bodies would take over much of the work formerly done by the School Board. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary where is the decentralisation in the Bill now? There is absolutely none. It has gone, and, consequently, there remains no answer to my original contention that the County Council cannot do the work. How does the hon. Gentleman square the present form of the Bill with the original suggestion that the work could not be done by the County Council unless there were broad powers of devolution. With regard to the machinery, I view with the gravest apprehension the handing over of this matter as it now stands to the County Council. Already that body has found it necessary to establish seventy committees and sub-committees, which have held in all over 1,300 meetings. It has al ready quite enough to do. It is the tramway authority, the fire brigade authority, the main drainage authority, the parks authority, the asylums authority, and the weights and measures authority. It is responsible for carrying out great public improvements, for the enforcement of the Housing Acts, for the licensing of music halls, and for the issue of dancing licences. And all this on behalf of a population of 5,500,000.
  How the County Council can be expected to undertake the work of the School Board, especially in view of the fact that the whole scheme of decentralisation has disappeared from the Bill, puzzles me. The Committee for educational purposes will have to be at least seventy-five strong, and I imagine that the County Council will insist that the majority, at least, shall be members of its own body. Thus there will be about forty County Councillors, who every day will receive one set of agenda papers calling them to Spring Gardens, and another set calling them to Victoria Embankment, where the meetings of the educational authority will be held.
  1456
  They clearly cannot be in both places at once, and, consequently, I imagine they will go to Spring Gardens, and practically the whole work of the education of London will be carried on by thirty-five persons who are not at all responsible to the ratepayers. I want in the most vehement manner to resist that. London people will not stand it, and we shall be compelled, sooner or later, to revive in some form or other the ad hoc authority, or else it will be necessary to increase the membership of the County Council by adding a third representative for each division. Only by some such means will it be possible for the work to on by the representatives of the ratepayers instead of by thirty-five outsiders. I resent very bitterly indeed the way in which the Bill has been pushed through the House. I resent, too, the breach of faith of which the Prime Minister has been guilty in not giving us time to examine the Bill before the Committee stage was entered upon. I resent also the form of the Bill. I say that London should have a self-contained and complete measure. I think the machinery is hopeless and bound to break down. But the issue is now passing from our hands to those of the ratepayers of London. Happily, before the appointed day—the 1st May, 1904—there will be a County Council election, and I want to say quite deliberately that at that election we intend to fight this matter out to the bitter end. In the first place we propose to fight it out on the broad issue of the machinery of the Bill. I believe we can secure an overwhelming majority on the London County Council absolutely opposed to the present machinery as contained in this Bill, On the 28th April the County Council passed a Resolution which is only a faint indication of what the verdict of the London people will be next March. That Resolution set forth that the Council was strongly opposed to the scheme proposed by the Bill, and would prefer either the maintenance of the present system or the creation of one directly elected educational authority, specially elected for the purpose, which should have full and complete control over all grades of education. That Resolution was carried by sixty-four votes to

  1457
  sixteen. That will be the first issue on which we propose to take the opinion of the people of London, and I have no doubt we shall get an overwhelming majority in our favour. If feeling at present runs high over the destruction of the London School Board, I think that feeling will prove to be but merely child's play as compared with the popular indignation likely to be aroused in connection with the hopeless machinery provided in this Bill.
  Again, I believe that the method of rate-aiding denominational schools is likely to prove a very burning question at the County Council election next March. There is in the country a great deal of irritation, deep-rooted and widespread, but slightly reflected in this House, as to this method of rate-aiding denominational schools, and it will in London surpass anything which either the Government or the Board of Education has yet experienced. I believe that the London people next March will return to Spring Gardens an overwhelming majority opposed both to the machinery of the Bill and to the method by which denominational schools are to be rate-aided. Members of the Government express mild surprise that there should be any irritation on the part of the people. There is no need for such surprise. We are going in London to take over 200,000 children now in denominational schools, and the maintenance of each child per year when the Act comes into operation will amount to 60s. Of that amount, according to the most generous estimate, denominationalists will find something like 2s. per child to up keep the fabric of the school. The value of the use of the rooms may be put roughly at 3s. per child, so that altogether the denominationalists will subscribe 5s. out of the 60s. The remaining 55s. will have to be subscribed by the public in the shape of rates and taxes, and then, while the denominationalists only pay one-twelfth of the cost, they are to be granted eight-twelfths of the management, while the public, who pay eleven-twelfths of the cost, will only supply four-twelfths of the management. The London people are very happy-go-lucky and indifferent; but they are greater fools than I take them to be if they stand that for any length of time. I repeat I believe we shall have
  1458
  an overwhelming majority against this method of rate-aiding the denominational schools. There can be no doubt as to what the view of the County Council is, for on the 28th April it passed a resolution earnestly protesting against being required by law to make rates to be applied in the maintenance of denominational schools not under public control and in the payment of the salaries of school teachers who, while they are paid wholly out of public funds, are subject to religious tests. I think many of the Unionist Members of this House will soon have cause to be sorry that they ever voted for this Bill. That Resolution, I may remind the House, was carried by sixty votes to ten.
  Now I come to the third issue which we intend to lay before the people. We have 1,500 head teachers in the denominational schools of London. In the past they have been partly paid by voluntary contributions, and that might justify the imposition of religious tests. But after the passing of this Bill they are to be entirely and exclusively paid out of public funds, and we are going to insist, immediately that happens, that they shall be subject only to such tests as may be superimposed by the public who find the money. These are the three issues we are going to raise, and we are now going through an elaborate farce in either voting for or against the Third Reading of this Bill this after noon. The matter really rests with the people of London. No doubt the Third Reading will be carried by a very large majority, but I repeat that many a London Unionist Member will be sorry before he has done that he ever put his hand to it in any shape or form. I give the Government fair warning, as far as I am concerned, that the London Progressives mean to fight this out to the bitter end, and mean to insist that the three simple claims I have indicated shall be respected and satisfied. First with regard to London education, a stupendous system involving the proper equipment of one out of ten of all the children of the British race all the world over, we mean to insist that we shall have such a board of management for London as shall be directly responsible to the ratepayers and capable of carrying out the great work. We shall, in the second

  1459
  place, insist that rate-aided denominational schools shall be controlled by those who find the bulk of the money, and, thirdly, we shall say that public servants maintained entirely out of public funds must only be subject to such tests as shall be imposed by a public authority. We shall claim the abolition of all religious theological tests, which often simply sap the fibre of the teacher, and are frequently, to all intents and purposes, merely a premium on hypocrisy. That will be our policy, and I have no doubt whatever as to the issue.
  *MR. CHANNING: I must ask the indulgence of the House if, in the few remarks I have to make. I do not deal so effectively as I could wish with the subject; the reason is that I have been very unwell of late. My hon. friend has said that the Third Reading of this Bill is likely to be carried by a large majority. That is extremely probable, for, although I do not see anything like a majority of the Members of this House present, we know perfectly well that there are battalions in reserve which will come forward and vote for whatever proposition the Government choose to submit. But I do appeal to the House to reconsider this Bill before it parts with it. It seems to me that to pass this Bill is to do a serious wrong to education. It is unjust to the ratepayers of London to impose this great burden upon them without guaranteeing to them a full equivalent in educational efficiency, which I venture to assert they will not get under this Bill. It is doubly unjust to the parents of hundreds of thousands of children in the Metropolis, who are physically placed in a worse position than children in other parts of the country, from the very central difficulty of maintaining high mental and physical efficiency among those who attend the schools in the poorer parts of Loudon. I say that this Bill ought to be rejected, even at this last moment, and that hon. Members opposite ought to realise that the motive underlying it has not been education at all, but has been to give a fresh lease of life to what is admittedly an inferior type of school in this great area, and with a view of further extending and perpetuating clerical domination over the people of
  1460
  the Metropolis. The Act of last year may do some good in organising education in some of our rural districts, but no one will deny that in the great towns it will have a seriously reactionary and depressing effect on educational forces. I am assured by experts in many parts of the country that that anticipation is not exaggerated or ill-founded. This Bill is recasting the educational system of London for the benefit of the worst and smallest part of that system. No Bill affecting London within my recollection has ever been introduced into this House which has been so absolutely, so uniformly, and so universally condemned by everyone who has a right to say what is wanted for education in the Metropolis. The London County Council and many of the Borough Councils have expressed in most emphatic terms their dissent from the principle of this Bill, and in order to remind the House once more how strongly this great representative body feels on this question, I will read the Resolution—
  "This Council is strongly opposed to the scheme proposed by the Bill and would prefer either the maintenance of the present system or the creation of one directly elected educational authority, which shall have real and complete, control over all grades of education."
  I am aware that some of the worst features of this Bill have been modified. I agree that to a certain extent even this House represents the predominant common sense of the community outside, and has overruled in some points this extraordinary Ministry and its extraordinary majority. But still we are placed in this extraordinary position, that this is a Bill with which no one is satisfied. I have sat in this House for eighteen years, and I have heard many attacks made upon the efficiency and administrative capacity of the London County Council, and every proposal made by that Council has been riddled by attacks and undermined by intrigue by the very people who are now bringing forward this legislation. We know that hon. Members opposite are not satisfied with these proposals. It was clear from the Bill as introduced that the Government intended the County Council to have no real voice in the matter. They intended it to march in fetters, bound hand and foot, and unable really to control the

  1461
  destinies of education in London. The Government however have been compelled by the logic of the Act of last year to knock away those checks upon its action. On the other hand, the unanswerable arguments of my hon. friend the Member for North Camber-well have shown the House conclusively that it is physically impossible for the London County Council to efficiently carry out the proposals of this Bill. Therefore I am justified in saying that hon. Members opposite are not satisfied with this Bill because the Government have been compelled to place the power in the hands of a body hostile to their views; and hon. Members on this side are not satisfied with the measure because it leaves the London County Council in such a position that it is unable to deal as a representative, directly-chosen, democratic authority would deal with the problems of education under the operation of this Bill. Several alternatives have been suggested by my hon. friend; they have been suggested by the London County Council and by many other authoritative sources of opinion in London. One alternative is to leave the existing state of things alone. I read the other day the admirable report of the Technical Board of the London County Council, which is a splendid testimony to the educational value of that Board in dealing with the class of work in which it is engaged. We are all aware of the splendid work of the London School Board until it was paralysed by that absurd Cockerton conspiracy, and was thus prevented from giving the best education possible to the children entrusted to its charge. Therefore you have, in the existing state of things, the sound basis of an educational machine to go on effectively until we can get this directly-elected democratic authority which the London County Council has said will infinitely better discharge this duty than the London County Council itself as at present constituted. Then there is the alternative of remodelling the London County Council and electing an additional third of that body to deal with education. That is an alternative which I do not favour, but either of the alternatives I have mentioned would be infinitely better than the chaos in which education will really be handed
  1462
  over to officials to administer under the provisions of this wretched Bill.
  This Bill should not be passed because it deprives women almost entirely of the right to be elected and to sit and work upon the educational authority in London. Another reason why the Bill should be rejected is because it is almost impossible to adequately represent labour upon the education authority of London if that authority is not directly elected by the people. This Bill tramples upon the religious feelings of the vast proportion of the Nonconformists in the Metropolis, and it deeply wounds their just religious susceptibilities. The measure also imposes religious tests upon teachers. I thought we had got rid of this question in the long fight of the London School Board when that atrocious scheme was concocted by some feather-headed fanatics some years ago and then decisively rejected by the electors of London at the poll. What right has this or any other Government to fan the flames of religious hatred and stir up religious controversy and animosity? Even this might be tolerable if it were accompanied by any real improvement in the educational machinery. But I believe you will see in London what you are only too likely to see in the great towns of Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, and in our country towns, namely, the symptoms of a decreasing interest in education and the lowering of the standard of education, which is a most serious matter for the future welfare of this country. You will see the same educational wreckage and shrinkage in the Metropolis unless you have an upheaval of public opinion, which I believe will be aroused before long and which will put your Board of Education in a strait-waistcoat, strangle your laws, and insist on administering them out of existence, even before the people have a chance of returning a majority to this House to reverse this policy and wipe those laws off the Statute-book. The other day the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury taunted us with bitter scorn for protesting against this Bill in the brief discussion on the first clause. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is wholly blinded by the dilettante exclusion from his mind of all practical knowledge and the rational inferences which practical men naturally draw from practical knowledge, but he

  1463
  ought to know that the present Government has long since forfeited the confidence of the country, and the right hon. Gentleman has no right to speak of this Bill as representing the feelings of the people of London. These Education Bills have been forced through a Parliament elected on other issues. Therefore it has been a constitutional fraud to force these Bills through the House of Commons, and it is a bitter injustice to the nation, whom the Prime Minister and his colleagues have betrayed.
  We fought this Bill and the Bill of last year on the question of principle and not of detail. We are fighting this question upon the principle which is interpreted by the man in the street in a broad commonsense way. There has never been any necessity for either of these Bills. I have never known a violent and determined attack upon an individual School Board or upon the School Board system at large which did not result in the promptest rally of the democratic forces to return a stronger Progressive majority to that Board, or which did not fail to turn out a reactionary majority and place a Progressive majority in its place. There have been no features in our educational system more noble than the participation of women and of those directly representing labour in the control of education in the past few years. That very fact has stimulated popular interest in education. The great co-operative bodies, the trades unions, and all the most thoughtful and active elements in the community have taken up education with spirit during the last ten years, and this has been largely due to the fact that labour representatives have had free access to the education authority. Therefore, any legislation which interferes with those forces which have been working so much good, which sponges them off the slate and constructs a fanciful and obviously less workable machine, which renders it more and more likely that the standard of education will fall and popular interest in education decrease, is one of the greatest crimes which any Ministry can commit, not only against future generations, but against the people of to-day. I have consequently great satisfaction in resisting, as I shall to the last, the passage of this Bill, and even now I appeal earnestly to the House to give some further consideration to this
  1464
  question. If this Bill could only be adjourned for one year, and if the Government would only have a General Election upon this issue, they would find these educational proposals condemned as misdirected, unjust, and wholly without the representative authority of the people, not only of the Metropolis but of the country at large. The Government would then find themselves compelled to adopt or acquiesce in legislation of a totally different kind.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CROOKS: I join with my hon. friend who has just spoken in supporting the rejection of this Bill. I do so because every attempt to put into this measure amending clauses which would have offered greater facilities for education was ruthlessly ruled out of order because they were not in accordance with the Act of last year. I think in regard to educational machinery we were getting on very well in London as we were. The Technical Education Board was the first Committee which made an inquiry as to the necessity of technical knowledge in the poor districts of London, and I do believe that something useful is being done in this direction. I view with considerable concern the time when the people of London wake up and discover that this is a Bill, not for the improvement of education, but to hand education over to some irresponsible authority which will hand it over to permanent officials to carry out. Although I am a member of the London County Council I can quite understand that there is a limit even to its capacity. As has already been pointed out, the London County Council has forty Committees meeting every week. An ordinary business man finds it exceedingly difficult to attend every day in the week, and consequently he picks out the few afternoons which he can spate from his business to do this work. If you are going to add considerably to their present obligations by asking them

  1465
  to take up education, I ask, how is it possible for them to do it? Something must go undone. What is to go undone? Education is to go undone. If you want to inspire people with the idea that you are only actuated by one desire—the growth of an Imperial educated race—you are going the wrong way about it. You are simply keeping the people down. Many a time during my life, when I have suggested that there should be an opportunity given to every workman's child, I have been told that I should be content with the position in which the Lord has placed me. My answer to that has always been, Who is to decide that? The position of a man is that for which his capacities best fit him. This Bill leaves us where we are. We can learn the Catechism and remain subject to the control of people we are nearly tired of. Here and there you pick up a clever boy or girl, and you say, "See what we have done." But what are you doing to give the vast mass of children an opportunity to develop their brain power, which the nation is most in need of now? You curb it more and more. Because this Bill is merely one of new machinery you expect that it is going to do wonders, but I do not believe it will. You are going to make it a little worse and not a little better.
  As a member of the County Council I have been elected for the moment to attend to some work in respect, it may be, of the bridges, or tunnels, or tramways of London. The question of transit is a burning one in London at present, and the people require the best brains they can get to carry out the scheme by which travelling facilities are provided. If you want me to take up education, I say, "My dear Sir, I know nothing about it. Bridges, tunnels, and tramways are as much as anyone can do." If I were to say that I intend to devote myself to the subject of education, the people would say, "Surely the time has gone past for that. We cannot afford to elect people who have to learn their business when we have people who thoroughly understand the educational needs of London." But by this Bill you are absolutely shutting them out You are practically blinding the people as to what you are fighting for. It is not an Education Bill at all. I suppose we shall be told, if not in this debate certainly on public platforms, that the Germans and
  1466
  Americans, and God knows who, are ever so much better educated than we are. Let me admit that if you like. You will be surprised if I tell you that I think the nation could well spend a good many thousand pounds in premiums for apprentices. When certain Amendments were put down when the Bill was in Committee, they were at once ruled out of order as having nothing to do with education. I would ask, Where does education begin and leave off? We have learned that this is an attempt to foist on the people of London an alteration of educational machinery which is a deliberate interference with the liberty of the subject. I would ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can remember a time when a rate was enforced on the people for a Church which they did not want. What is now proposed by this Bill recalls the time when the rector went down among the people and used sometimes moral suasion and sometimes coercion with them to pay the rate. The people now say, "We are not going to pay for a dogma we do not believe in." There is an old story of a clergyman who went to a barber and asked him to pay the rate. The barber said—
  "I don't go to your church."
  The clergyman answered—
  "There is a beautiful church and a beautiful service."
  He was amazed when the barber sent him a bill for hairdressing and shaving. The clergymen objected to pay the bill having had no such service. The barber replied—
  "I have a good barber's shop, and if you do not care to come in and get shaved it is not my fault."
  I want education to be real and not a sham, and I want the administration of it to be in the hands of people who are not a mere make believe. I am exceedingly anxious that every boy and girl in this country should have an equal opportunity of using his or her brains for the welfare of the country. How can that be done? We should have a discriminating power. Some boys and girls have capacity to go to the University to be trained as teachers, but it is quite evident that other boys and girls are suitable for other paths in life. I venture to say that a good sound English

  1467
  engineer is as important to our wellbeing as any Oxford don can ever be. I heard a nobleman who takes a keen interest in education say that unless we take up the question of the proper training of boys and girls we will degenerate into mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water." To call this an Education Bill is nothing more nor less than a fraud. You have an authority for education which is doing better than the one now proposed will ever do. The Bill certainly does nothing for education, and I shall do my best to get some Member to bring in a real Education Bill which will be for the benefit of the community rather than in the interest of a few ecclesiastics.
  MR. BRYCE: I agree very much with what has fallen from my hon. friend, that the Bill does nothing for education, but candour obliges me to admit that it is better than when it was brought in. It is not the same Bill. It presents very few points of contact with the original Bill. This is not in its principal features the Bill which was originally introduced by the Government. It is the Bill of my hon. friend the Member for South Manchester, and if he had been present I should have liked to compliment him for voicing the general sentiment of the House, which emphatically condemned the provisions in regard to Borough Council management. All that remains is the provision that they are to choose two-thirds of the managers and that they are to be consulted on the question of sites. The consultation on the question of sites is really very harmless. It cannot give any opening to jobbery. It cannot very much retard the proceedings if the local education authority is allowed to ask the Borough Council's opinion about sites The provision about the managers, I think, would be better away. The Borough Councils have no special knowledge, and, I think, a two-thirds proportion is too small to give them any real interest in it or to make them practically the education authority. These are mere planks out of the wreckage of the old Bill which have been fastened and nailed to the new Bill which belongs to the hon. Member for South Manchester. They are interesting historical survivals, but they
  1468
  have practically no functional value. Now, if the Bill is so much better by the excision of these pernicious elements which the commonsense of the House obliged the Government to drop—Ishould like to say that I do not wish to reflect on my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education. I do not suppose he ever wished to give the Borough Councils the powers proposed by the original Bill. I gathered from the character of the defence that he frequently offered that he was arguing as warmly as he could for a cause which he knew to be wrong. It gives a great deal more pleasure to argue on behalf of a bad cause than a good one, because it affords all the more testimony to the powers of persuasion and extemporisation which the advocate is able to bring to bear.
  Well, can we accept the Bill on the Third Reading? It appears to me even now that it has three great faults. In the first place it extinguishes the School Board. I shall not repeat what was said on the Second Reading, but it is a matter of concern and surprise that a body against which no charge has been brought, which has accumulated a great body of experience, and which unquestionably enjoyed the confidence of the ratepayers, should now be suddenly extinguished. It has always struck me with some surprise, because the main object of the Bill, namely, to put the voluntary schools on the rates, could have been as well effected by retaining the School Board. So far from the School Board being prejudiced against the voluntary schools, I believe in its composition it was more favourable to them than the County Council, and more likely to give them indulgence than the County Council is likely to do. I cannot, therefore, understand why the extraordinary course of throwing overboard this useful body has been adopted. Perhaps we shall be told that it was for the sake of uniformity. London, as I have said, ought to be considered by itself. London is so much vaster, it presents so many different problems from even the greatest of the other municipalities in the country that it does not follow that the method which is good for Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds, is necessarily the method to apply to London. The result has been

  1469
  that work is to be thrown upon the London County Council, which is already overburdened with very onerous and difficult functions. My hon. friends the Members for Camberwell and Woolwich have given very useful illustrations of the difficulties which a member of the London County Council will feel in future in doing his duty on education as well as on the other work already placed on a county councillor. I wonder if the House realises how vast is the work which we have thrown on the London County Council. These functions, which were renumerated just now, are old functions—very large and difficult, quite enough to occupy the whole time of a busy, active, practical man if he is to do his duty to the general body and to its Committees.
  I wonder how much fresh work we are going to impose on the London County Council. Last year we created the Water Board, and we put a large number of members of the County Council on it to discharge very important functions. This year we are invited to pass the Port of London Bill, which will take another set of County Council members who will be quite new to their duties. There is a Committee sitting at present to investigate the very important question of London traffic, and anyone who has studied the question knows that it is extremely probable that in the arrangements to be made in the future for the traffic of London, and the regulation of that traffic, whether above or underground, there will have to be a Board constituted, on which members of the County Council will have to sit. Or perhaps the County Council itself will form the Traffic Board. How can the London County Council discharge all these old functions and these new functions, and also take up the great work of education which has been found to fully occupy the School Board for the last thirty years. In fact, as was observed by the hon. Member for Camberwell when the Bill was introduced, and when it was urged that the London County Council would not be able to undertake this education work, the answer was that the County Council would be relieved by the Borough Councils, who were to take over a large part of the work by the scheme of decentralisation,
  1470
  and therefore the County Council would not have an addition to its labours in the same sense as Manchester or Liverpool or Birmingham had. But that argument has completely disappeared, because the Borough Councils are entirely deprived of all functions of control or management. Therefore these must rest on the County Council alone, with the aid of the co-opted members. Of course I recognise that the County Council will have a majority on the Education Committee and be responsible for the decisions of that body, and the co-opted members will consequently give comparatively small relief to the County Council in the discharge of their work. I feel, therefore, in contemplating this question, that we are not at the end. I do not think it is possible that we can go on without fresh legislation. But unfortunately our experience in this House is that even where there is a clear case for fresh legislation, so many things may happen, so many political crises may arise, that it may be a long time before we can get new legislation, and that even a very bad system of legislation has to go on working for a prolonged period. I look with great anxiety on the fate of education in London during the next few years in the hands of a body which, on its own statement—for nobody has stated it more strongly than the County Council itself—will not be able to take it up efficiently.
  The other aspect of the Bill is that in which it appears as an application and extension to London of the Act of last session. The First Lord of the Treasury, in the debate on the first clause a few days ago, spoke of the Act of last session as being a great educational reform, and he professed surprise that we should wish to prevent London having the benefit of this great educational reform. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded himself that it is an educational reform. He has said it so often that he has come to believe it to be true; but those of us who consider that the Act of last session is an educational disaster instead of a reform must naturally object to its being extended to London, which has one-eighth of the population of Great Britain. What ought an educational reform to be? It ought to be simple,

  1471
  economic, efficient in its working, to proceed on constitutional lines, and to conform to justice. Now the Act of last session, which we are asked to apply to London by this Bill, is not simple, because it multiplies and complicates the confusion of authorities. It is not economic, because this multiplication of authorities involves a multiplication of expense. It is not efficient, because it throws upon an unfit body, already overburdened with work, a very grave and difficult subject, and because it draws in an insufficient popular impulse to be associated with the work of education. It is not set on constitutional lines, because it imposes the burden of supporting the voluntary schools without giving powers of popular management. Finally, it is not just, because it leaves one half of the teaching profession in an unfair position in regard to religious tests, and it excludes one half of the young people of the country from the position of head master. These objections are not objections made, as the Prime Minister seems to suppose, mainly on ecclesiastical or controversial grounds. They are made on educational grounds. It was on educational grounds, quite as much as any other, that we objected to the Act of last year; and if the Prime Minister were here I would, for the twentieth time, repeat that it was not purely on religious grounds, but because we believed the Act of last year was educationally indefensible, that we have always objected to it. It does not secure popular education; it has not provided for the grouping of all kinds of schools; it does not require proper provision to be made for secondary education; it does not provide for dealing with those large sums of money which we have all over the country available for educational purposes in the endowments. The Government, certainly the First Lord of the Treasury, have not really appreciated the objections we have taken to the Bill on educational grounds, and I do not think that he does appreciate the objections which we take on religious grounds either.
  I listened with great interest yesterday to what the First Lord of the Treasury said about the Irish Land system. He told us that the Irish Land
  1472
  system was the worst in the world. I could not help thinking what a pity it was that he and the great Party which he leads had not come to that conclusion twenty years ago. If they had done so how much bitterness and strife, how much misery and misfortune to Ireland and to England would have been saved! Therefore, I hope that the day will come—these are the days of open minds—when the Prime Minister's mind will be open even to the complaints that are made by the Nonconformists in regard to the Education Act; and perhaps twenty years hence, when we have to state that the educational system of England, on its religious side, is the worst system in the world, then he will reply that that was not recognised twenty years ago. And yet the right hon. Gentleman says now that the Nonconformists are ungrateful for the boon he desires to bestow& At any rate the right hon. Gentleman must realise that he has aroused a strong force or vehement opposition to the Act of last year which shows that that Act must have touched the deepest strings of religious passion. The passive resistance movement will spread to London and we cannot look upon that but with regret. Anyone must be blind who does not see that the Act of last session has stirred up a religious controversy which the Government last year were unwilling to believe. The Act of last year, which we are going to extend to London now, was not a settlement, it was a raising of the whole controversy. It does not close the controversy; it opens a new controversy, and those who desire our educational system to be efficient, well-ordered, just, and progressive, cannot possibly acquiesce either in the Act of last year or in the Bill which we are asked to read a third time to-day. We shall have to appeal to the people. It is only from the people that any help can come now to reverse legislation which we heartily and sincerely condemn. And we believe that when the people obtain an opportunity of declaring their opinion, that opinion will sweep away this legislation and enable us to begin to make a real advance in a progressive and truly national system of education.
  MR. LOUGH: My right hon. friend commenced his able speech by pointing out, what is perfectly true, that the Bill is entirely and absolutely different from what it was when introduced in the House. That is the serious complaint which I desire to make against the Government. We cannot find any principle in anything the Government do. If the Bill was to assume the shape in which it has passed through the House, there was no reason why London should not have been dealt with in the Bill of last year. We were confident after what was said last year that a separate Bill suitable to London would be introduced. The Government brought in a separate Bill, but what has become of it? It is scattered, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to the four winds. We have a right to complain of the Government's action. The time of the House during all these long sittings might have been saved if the Government had only made up their mind as to the action they were going to take. I think this kind of thing has been carried too far by the Prime Minister. No one more strongly contended that a separate system was necessary for London than the Prime Minister himself; and, as my hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell pointed out in his speech, even the Prime Minister insisted that a large devolution of powers from the County Conned was necessary in London. Then, Sir, if the Prime Minister laid down that principle, why has he not stuck to it? Why does he not stick to any principle? He brings in a Bill based on the principle he himself laid down; we all discuss it; he finds that it will not stand upright, even if not discussed at all, and then he says, "Very well, then change it, do what you like with it." We put it into an entirely different shape, and hon. Gentlemen opposite accept the new Bill for which the Government is not responsible, and which is based on an entirely different principle. We have had too much of this kind of thing. I think that a Government in this House ought to be held responsible that the principles they lay down, and the statements they choose to make, should not be departed from by them in this frivolous and trifling way.
  I am glad that I have an opportunity of opposing this Bill, even in its new form;
  1474
  for although the Bill has ceased to be the measure which the Government attempted to adopt, it remains the Bill of 1902; and when I say that that Bill is unsuitable to London, I am only saying to-day what the Government said yesterday. They themselves agreed that the Bill of 1902 would not suit London. We agreed then, and we agree now, as to that, and are consistent, but the Government are now content to apply the Act of 1902 to London. All the old reasons which were employed six months ago with regard to this matter exist to day. The Act of 1902 will not suit London; it was not devised to suit London. The constitution of London is quite different to the constitution of all the other counties in England and Wales for which the Bill of 1902 was specially devised. Therefore the Government will find that they are wrong again; and that it would have been better for them to have stuck to their first principle, which was to bring in a different scheme for London. We complain that when they brought in a different scheme they did not stick to it, and either fall themselves or let the Bill fall altogether. They have now brought in a Bill for which no one is responsible. Who has invented it? My right hon. friend who has just spoken said it was the hon. Member for South Manchester, but the hon. Member is not the Prime Minister; he did not plan the Bill, he brought in casual Amendments. My right hon. friend is, however, very near the truth when he says that the Bill is more his than anyone else's. We need not, however, go to Manchester for educational ideas with regard to London. There are a great many people in London who are constantly thinking over these matters. We have the School Board for London, containing members—men and women—who have devoted their lives to the solution of the right understanding of those principles which should govern education in London. We have got the County Council for London, and we have Members of Parliament for London. The opinions of all these might have been taken with regard to the scheme to be applied to London; and we ought not to have a patched up structure like this forced on

  1475
  the Metropolis by the ingenuity of the hon. Member for South Manchester.
  What has London to say about this Bill? From the day the Bill was introduced until to-day, the opinion of London has grown strong and yet stronger against the Bill. You say you are going to push this Bill through. No doubt you are. When the division bell rings the supporters of the Government will come in and push it through. But no one in London likes it. The Bill that was introduced was a bad Bill; but the Bill you are going to push through to-day is worse still. I speak now in the name of these bodies in London which are manned by supporters of the Government, and which do all they can for the Government, and I say—and I challenge hon. Members opposite to deny the accuracy of the statement—that these bodies believe that the Bill, in the form in which it is presented to-day, is not suited to London. Not one of them likes it. Yet although they dislike it, and we dislike it, some secret mysterious force in this House is going to thrust this Bill on London. The London County Council is as strongly in opposition to the Bill to-day as it ever was. Here we raise a great constitutional question. I do not believe that the Government would have dared to pass the Bill of 1902 if all the County Councils of England and Wales had been against it, and if they had sent up a plain resolution that they disliked the Bill. If that resolution was passed in each Council by a majority of fifty-eight votes to seven, even a Government which will dare everything would not have dared to thrust the Bill of 1902 on those Councils. Nothing of the kind, however, took place. Many of the Councils were in favour of the Government Bill; and there was no organised opposition to it. But it is quite different in London. The London County Council is the one body that represents in the most thorough manner the whole area to be covered by the Bill. The London County Council is almost unanimous in its repudiation of the Bill, and in its fear of the responsibilities and duties which will be thrust upon it. Then the School Board for London is solid in its opposition; and it is most remarkable that even the
  1476
  Common Council of the City instructed the two Members for the City to do everything in their power to oppose the Bill at every stage in its present forms. Where are those two hon. Members to-day? I think they ought to be here doing their duty. They may think it more complacent to support the Government; but I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that there may be too much of supporting the Government through thick and thin, and that a little more devotion to principle and a little less support of the Government might be more useful to Members themselves. Further, the Borough Councils do not like the Bill. But all the local authorities in London have been set at absolute defiance by the course the Government have taken, and are in hostility to the Bill. I think it is a great pity that no attention has been paid to the complaints of London.
  We never knew what the Bill was to be until it was in Committee. That was the third stage; and the Bill that emerged from Committee was as different to the Bill that went into Committee as black is to white. There were only two other stages, the Report and the Third Reading; and I think the Government ought to have shown more respect for London opinion on these stages. No attention was paid to the opinions expressed at the great meetings at Hyde Park and the Albert Hall, or to the unanimous feeling of opposition to the Bill in London. I do not know why the Government should go on in this way. It is evident they do not like the Bill themselves; they have not managed to make it more agreeable to London; yet it is to be forced on London by the weight of the Government majority. I think this is a great pity, and I think that the evils which may follow in London, should the Government adopt this course, will involve very great responsibility on the members of the Government. They ought not to have been blind to the movement in the country with regard to the Act of 1902; and there was no need to force on the London Bill until they saw how the passive resistance movement and the open hostility movement would develop. The education of London could be carried on for another year or two until

  1477
  we had a little more experience. I put this argument before the Government, that, considering the hostility which the Act of 1902 has excited in the country, they ought to have hesitated before applying it to London. As a supporter of the Government said, if we are going to have a row in the country let us have a row in London too. I should not be surprised if the Government were to be gratified in this respect; and I believe that the row in London will be far greater than the row in any other part of the country, and that the whole policy of the Government will be repudiated. There is ample evidence which makes it likely that this will occur. The London School Board has been the most creditable School Board in the country; it has been steadily growing in popular favour, and London is proud of it. This Government has distinguished itself from the very beginning by a considerable degree of hostility towards the School Board; it treated the situation which it now assumes it is necessary to meet by this Bill, by checking the School Board in its educational work, and by displaying hostility to it. The people of London will remember this against the Government. There are on the School Board men and women who are known only for their work in connection with education; and London highly appreciates their devotion. The Cockerton case arose out of an effort on the part of the supporters of the Government, and the Government Themselves to check the School Board—[An HON. MEMBER: No, no.] I am astonished at the hon. Member. Mr. Cockerton was only a bogey at the best; he was set up to shield hon. Members opposite who desired to deal a deadly blow at the School Board, and he succeeded. He made a situation, and rendered it impossible for the School Board to build pupil teacher centres which are absolutely necessary for the development of education in London. Then the Government said that something must be done, having created the difficulty themselves. This revolutionary measure is the result. The whole plot is plain and open to the people of London, and the tone London has adopted from first to last has proved that what I am saying is true.
  This Bill is Bill that has just the same as the been passed for the
  1478
  country. It is open to all the evils of the Bill of 1902; and I believe that those evils will be graver in the case of London than throughout the country generally. In the country the majority of the children, except in Wales, were not being educated under the School Board system, but under the voluntary school system. In London, however, the great majority of children are being educated by the School Board. I must say one great blot on the memory of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will be that he has not displayed any great feeling for the School Board. The people for London had seen no reason why the School Board should be done away with in this way, and better cause still remains for its maintenance than for its abolition, and far better cause remains for its continuance than there was for the continuance of the School Boards in the country. All the difficulties with regard to the Free Churches and the Nonconformists in the country exist in London, but the Nonconformists regarded the School Board for London with greater friendliness perhaps than the School Boards in various parts of the country. The schools maintained by the Free Churches before the London School Board came into existence were all given up to the School Board because they found it met all their requirements. We have done all we could to prevent this Bill being passed, but after all we are only nine out of sixty Members for London, and for some reason that nine is not able to throw all their force into the opposition to this Bill. This Bill is utterly unsuitable to London, but for some reason the Government has persevered in a reckless and unconstitutional way, and we are unable to look at the Bill as it now is with less alarm than we did when it was first introduced.
  *MR. BULL: The question whether education is wanted either in the country or in London is not a question for a Third Reading debate, but I hold it was the duty of a strong Government to carry measures which are admittedly wanted. Anyone would admit that a Government with a majority of only thirty or forty at its back could not possibly have carried this

  1479
  Bill; but the Government having put its hand to the plough with regard to the education of the country was bound to deal with London. It is perfectly clear that all over the country the School Boards had failed to raise enthusiasm on behalf of education. In London fewer and fewer people voted for the School Board, and it is clear, whatever the reason may be, that the power of the School Board was declining. It was necessary that fresh enthusiasm should be infused into national education in London. That the London School Board has done good in the past is certain, but on the other hand there have been religious controversies and other things with regard to the School Board which have not endeared it to London as a whole. It is alleged by hon. Members opposite that it is a shame to place the conduct of education on the shoulders of the London County Council, because they have already enough to do. Again and again we heard that in the course of these debates; but we heard shortly before, that the London County Council was trying all it could to get the question of London water into its hands, in addition to which it has several times tried to get all the tramway systems into its hands; it is also in favour of managing a steamboat service on the River Thames, (a thing of which I ought to say, parenthetically, I am thoroughly in favour); all this goes to show the avidity of the London County Council for work. Its enthusiasm is high and it is ready to take all the work that is given to it. The London County Council was created for whatever duties might be cast upon it, and I feel certain that the London County Council will not fail in its duties, but will loyally undertake them and carry them out. As an old member of the London County Council I may say in the early stages of this Bill some of the members of the Progressive party came to mo—[Cries of "Name."]—Mr. Sidney Webb, Dr. Bateman Napier, and other old education lists of the London County Council, and entered into negotiations with regard to this Bill, and when it is suggested that the London County Council as a whole are thoroughly against this measure I deny it, and say there will be found to be a large majority in its favour who firmly believe that the
  1480
  education of London will be far better in the hands of the London County Council than in the hands of the School Board. With regard to the unfair attacks on Mr. Cockerton, it is not usual in England to question the decision of judges, or in business or politics to attack auditors, but Mr Cockerton has been attacked. It is said there was a conspiracy, and that he was put forward by the Government to fight this question, and very bad motives were attributed to him. That is a very serious thing. I do not know what the House may think of the matter, but I have never known, in all the years that Mr. Cockerton has been in that service, any suggestions raised as to his probity, and I think the unworthy manner in which Mr. Cockerton's name has been dragged into this debate is to be deprecated.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Any hon. Gentleman who still believes the present Ministry to be a strong Government is quite capable of supporting the Third Reading of the Education Bill. I should like to ask one question of the hon. Member who supports this Bill so strongly, I should like to know whether at the last General Election he took his constituents into his confidence as to his intention of abolishing the London School Board and putting denominational schools upon the rates. I do not wish to be hard on the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he has been quite fair to his constituents in the matter of this belated attack of inefficiency and religious squabbles on the London School Board which he now says justifies a strong Government in taking this action. I think he should have informed his constituents beforehand.
  *MR. BULL: I did.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member did tell his constituents he was in favour of abolishing the School Board and putting the denominational schools on the rates.
  *MR. BULL: I said I was in favour of abolishing the School Board.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And no more! The hon. Gentleman in that case is rather worse than his colleagues; they said nothing, but he concealed half the truth, which is unfair to those supporting him. With regard to his defence of Mr. Cockerton I think many hon. Members on that side will agree with him. Mr. Cockerton has done their work well, they ought to support him. But I may point cut that the hon. Gentleman who is supposed to be at the bottom of the whole matter was a member of the Committee who—
  *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that though an attack on Mr. Cockerton had been made and answered, the question whether Mr. Cockerton was right or wrong was not the question before the House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was not, Sir, pointing out whether he was right or wrong, I was merely stating that this Bill is the result of the Cockerton judgment, which restricted the School Boards and prevented them going on with technical and secondary education.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is all very remote on the Third Heading of this Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That, Sir, is a matter of opinion, but if you say so I will not pursue the subject. It is a matter in the cognisance of the House. We have now got a Bill which completes the educational settlement for both England and Wales. This is a supplement of the Bill of last year which covers the educational settlement of the whole of the country. The country has had fifteen months to consider it. It was unpopular when it was first introduced, but it was nothing like so unpopular then as it is at the present moment. It has grown in unpopularity as month succeeded month. I remember it being said when it was first introduced that the country had arrived at a hasty conclusion with regard to this Bill; that the country had not grasped what an excellent measure it was; and that when it dawned on the country they would be convinced that it was a good Bill. What has happened? As time went on the opposition to this Bill has grown in intensity.
  MR. DOUGHTY: No, no!
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member for Grimsby will have his opportunity by-and-bye, but my experience when I was invited down to Grimsby the other day, not to support the hon. Member, by the way, was that feeling was very strong even among the supporters of the hon. Member himself. That is the feeling, so far as I can gather, throughout the country. Last year the supporters of the Government were able to bring together a meeting at the Albert Hall to support a Bill with which London had nothing to do; but this year when there is a Bill of London itself a demonstration in its support cannot be organised anywhere. Not only has the feeling against the Bill grown, but the feeling in its favour has weakened from week to week. Where are the London Members who ought to be supporting it? County Councils in Wales feel so strongly on the matter that they refuse to levy a rate until the question has been settled by the judgment of the country. Here is an indication of how the feeling is growing. In Carmarthenshire the Committee decided to levy a rate, but the agitation in the country was so strong that the County Council have reconsidered the position, and I have just received this telegram:—
  "Carmarthenshire County Council refuse to levy rate, 38 votes to 13."
  And that is against the advice of their Committee, on which there are two or three very influential men. That shows how the feeling is deepening, and I see no signs of its abatement. I do not charge the hon. Baronet with the responsibility of this Bill. He came in afterwards to help this strong Government through their difficulties. But does he really think this is going to be a settlement, even for a generation. Several attempts have been made to distract and divert attention from the question. The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Birmingham Education League, the Colonial Secretary has made the attempt, but without any real success, even in London. The meetings which have been held recently show that London is quite as keen

  1483
  about this subject as ever. The Government will never settle the education question until they have dealt with the religious difficulty. That has been the mistake of the Government. The cause of the retardation of education is this religious strife. The country is divided into two great camps, each fighting the other. You have two great systems of education—the sectarian and the non-sectarian. The supporters of the one system are fighting the supporters of the other, and each side is doing its best to impoverish the resources of the other, with the result that education has not made the progress it otherwise would have made. This country, probably the richest in the world, can the least afford to do without a good system of education, because it is really fighting for its life commercially, and education is the sole weapon by which victory can be secured, and yet we are not up to the standard of our great rivals, Germany and the United States, or even of Switzerland, which perhaps would not be regarded as a rival. Why is it? Because in those countries they have settled the religious difficulty, and all the educational enthusiasm is devoted to the proper machinery without anything to retard progress. If anything is to be done in this country a settlement must be arrived at which should be regarded as satisfactory by nine out of every ten people in the country, and I believe that is possible. The hon. baronet must realise by now that this Bill will not be a settlement. It has simply aggravated the difficulty and embittered the controversy. The religious strife and contention in education is tenfold what it was three or four years ago, and that is the result of a Bill which was supposed to be a settlement.
  Why cannot the Government even now apply their minds to doing something to meet the difficulty? What is the real difficulty? There is a real and an ostensible object in all this religious business in education. I will not say which is the real and which the ostensible, but there is at any rate a desire for patronage which enters into certain minds. I do not say that that is the dominant instinct, but there is undoubtedly with a large body of clergy a real desire to obtain patronage for their particular de-
  1484
  nomination. That ought not to be encouraged. It is not fair that any denomination should secure, at the expense of the State, the patronage of, say, 1,200 head teacherships in London and 20,000 in the country. Another thing which I am sure all parties in the House would deprecate is anything in the nature of proselytism. Proselytism of the most degrading kind has been going on. There is a proselytism which is effected by means of approaching the intelligence, by converting the mind. Of that all I will say is, that it is not right that the machinery of the State should be used for that purpose, or that the funds of the State, to which men of all creeds and denominations and men of no denomination at all contribute, should be used for the purpose of missioning for any sect. But that is not the worst form of proselytism. There is the proselytism by means of material inducements being held out to people to abandon the sect or creed to which they belong in order to attach themselves to another, and that is the form associated with the denominational schools system. In London there are probably 5,000 or 6,000, and in the country 70,000 appointments in denominational schools, and these have been used ruthlessly for the purpose of bringing Nonconformist children over to the fold of the Church of England purely from material motives. That is a monstrous system, and the country ought not to encourage it. It produces a sort of exasperation and irritation which makes it perfectly impossible to induce men of different creeds to co-operate as they ought for the advancement of education. It is the same thing that one often hears about missionaries abroad. The irritation against them is produced not so much by the fact that they teach or preach doctrines with which the bulk of the people do not agree, as by the fact that some missions undoubtedly use material inducements to bring over converts.
  We shall never get a good educational system until we get rid of this proselytising element. Is it possible for this to be done? Can we not meet the views of men who are really desirous of giving religious education to their children, and at the same time get a system of instruction which should be under popular control and which will commend itself

  1485
  to the vast majority of the people of the country. I say it can be done. It has been done in the colonies and in every other country in the world. Why should it not be done in this country, which prides itself on its power to arrive at a practical issue on all great controversies? This Bill does not afford a settlement; it satisfies nobody. In London you have large areas served by sectarian schools, while the bulk of the people are outside the communion of that particular Church. The Daily News census proves that. It is not that they are Nonconformists, or Catholics, or Jews, but that they are outside the communion of the Church of England. We have no right to dictate to them that they should have a creed, or should be registered as members of a certain creed. In such districts the control of education is in the hands of a sect comprising a minority of the people. That is not fair, and it is not for the good of education. Take England as a whole. You have what is called the "8,000 parishes" case, although the Prime Minister put it at 5,000. In each of those parishes the only school is a school belonging to a particular sect, teaching doctrines which are believed by one sect, and members of all other sects are practically excluded from the patronage in connection with those schools and from the privileges which those schools confer. That cannot possibly last. The members of the Church of England itself are not satisfied with the settlement. They point to districts in which there are only Board schools, in which a religion is taught with which they do not agree, and they say that that is a hardship upon them. The present system is so devised that it does not satisfy any section of the community. Why on earth, then, should the Government bring in a Bill to perpetuate and strengthen that system instead of so amending it that it would commend itself to the people.
  There is no doubt that the enthusiasm of the Church of England for the Bill has evaporated. The only section of the population who do not complain of it are the Catholics, and they are a comparatively small section of the community. The reason the Church of England have lost their enthusiasm
  1486
  for the Bill is clear. The Kenyon-Slaney clause took away their enthusiasm became it put them in practically the same position in their own schools as in the Board schools. Their complaint against the undenominational religion of the Board schools was that it was framed by six or seven members of the School Board—that it was a State-made or rather a Board-made religion—though it is peculiar that they should complain of a State made religion. It took a long time to abolish purgatory, and I am not sure that the other place would not also have been abolished except for the fact that they would not have known quite where to locate the dissenters. It is now left to six managers to decide what religion shall be taught in the school. It is the Kenyon-Slaney business that killed the enthusiasm for the Bill, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire wrote that clause I am sure he never realised how much mightier the pen was than the sword, for he has practically ruined this Bill from the Church of England point of view. In schools all over the country you will have six managers framing a syllabus, each making a religion for themselves. In some schools you will have the Ritualistic catechism and in others the Evangelical, and the hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire has himself with one stroke of the pen created thousands of little religious sects in every town in England. I should like to know where there is a friend of this Bill left. There is the Treasury Bench and there is only one left there. There has been no agitation for this Bill, no meetings in support of it, either inside or outside the House, and Members of Parliament have been apologising for it and saying that this is a strong Government and it must do something singularly wicked and unpopular in order to show how strong it is.
  How long does the hon. Baronet think this settlement is going to last? It cannot last, and the Secretary to the Board of Education knows it. It is officially announced that this Parliament is coming to an end in March next. I think it ought to come to an end on the first of April. No Minister for Education can continue this settlement. The real interest is outside, and we are

  1487
  all inquiring in different parts of the country not into our own minds but into the minds of our constituencies. Why does the hon. Baronet not consider countries which have succeeded in settling this thing, and where experience has proved their system to be a success? I deny the right of a parent to dictate to the State what shall be taught in a school. It is said that a parent has a right to claim what dogma shall be taught to his children, but he has no more right to do that than he has to dictate what political principles shall be taught to his children A parent has as much right to say: "You must teach my children an honest trade" as he has to insist that a particular dogma shall be taught. There is no dogma in this country which is the dogma of the majority. Ours is not a country like Germany, with Catholics in one quarter and Protestants in another. We are not like Holland, where you have Calvinists and Catholics. The people of this country are split up into innumerable sects, not one of which has a preponderating proportion of the population in its ranks. In London there is no sect which is predominant, and even the Church of England has not a majority of the population. In Scotland the Presbyterians have it all their own way, and although they are split up into different sects they all believe the same thing as to their ultimate destination. The people of Condon are divided even about that. It is no use quoting Scotland to us, because there they are all of the same mind. You cannot give denominational instruction at the expense of the State to one sect without doing an injury to the rest, and the Board of Education must recognise that. What is the good of calling these schools sectarian, because they are not sectarian in anything except patronage and the creed they teach? They are really local schools of a particular district. This Bill gives the control of education in one district to the particular denomination which happens to be the first in planting a school there. That is not fair to anybody and not right from an educational point of view.
  I would suggest that we should try the colonial plan, where the
  1488
  people have absolute public control over every school to which the State subscribes. The schools should be managed and controlled by the State, and there should be no religious tests in the appointment of teachers. Scotland would not tolerate for a moment the system they had got in this Bill. Several hon. Members opposite have voted to impose upon London a system which they would not stand in Scotland. We never impose a religious test upon the appointment of teachers in Scotland. Both in Scotland and in Wales if a teacher is a good man we appoint him. In one particular institution in Wales when we came to select a teacher not long ago we appointed a clergyman of the Church of England simply because he was the best man. We do not consider what sect or profession he belongs to or whether he is in or out of holy orders. That is just how popular control will work. As a matter of fact the majority of the teachers in the Board schools of England and Wales are Churchmen, and hundreds of the teachers in the Board schools in Wales belong to the Church of England. Recently a Mr. Vince went down to the West of England and said there was not a single Board school teacher in Wales who belonged to the Church of England. All I can say is that I hope that gentleman's pamphlets will be more reliable than that statement. The Bishop of St. Asaph made an inquiry into this question, and he found that 850 teachers in the Board schools of Wales were Churchmen. That inquiry influenced the Bishop's judgment, and now he is prepared to trust to popular control, and he has acted upon those facts. Why do not hon. Members opposite trust the men belonging to their own community? If their teachers are good men they will come out on the top. They will be given every facility for teaching their dogmas. We offered this arrangement to the Church people in Wales and they have accepted it. We told them that if they would give us popular control we would give them every facility for religious teaching outside school hours. This arrangement has been accepted without any qualification by the County Councils of Wales. It is a very extraordinary thing that the first demand they made

  1489
  in Wales was that the religious instruction should be upon the same syllabus as that of the London School Board. I am perfectly certain that the vast majority of the Nonconformists of this country would be delighted to give other denominations those facilities. There are plenty of facilities to get religious education if the parents desire it, and if they do not desire it, why should we compel them to have it? This matter is entirely in the hands of the parents themselves. Personally I object to compulsory powers being used to force children to accept the dogmatic instruction of any sect, because the only basis for a sectarian training must be the desire of the parent himself. Where the parent desires this instruction it should be given, and if he does not desire it you should not use the machinery of the State to force children to be taught any particular religious instruction. This is the last appeal I will make to the hon. Baronet upon this question. I ask him whether he does not think it is possible for him to propose some sort of settlement which will be acceptable to all reasonable men who have been thinking this subject out. We have proved in Wales that we can settle this question, and the majority of the Elders of the Church accepted our terms. I hope the hon. Baronet will do something of this kind, instead of prolonging this strife, which is creating so much bitterness throughout the land, and which is thwarting educational progress as well.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I will willingly make a present to the Opposition of such satisfaction as may be caused by the change which the Bill has gone through in the course of its progress in the House. There were two principles laid down by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of this measure. One was, that the Bill would provide an educational authority for London not elected for educational purposes only, but that the principle of municipalisation adopted in the Act of last year should be followed in this Bill. The other was, that the Metropolitan boroughs were to have some voice in the educational work of London. The part originally assigned to those boroughs was very different from what it is now. I was under no illusion as to the difficulty of
  1490
  carrying such a measure in the House. I think it might, if accepted in its original form, have worked well, and worked better than hon. Members were prepared to believe, but I was quite aware of the probable jealousy of the County Council and the Borough Councils, and of the certainty that hon. Members on this side at any rate would comment unfavourably on the departure from the principles of the Act of last year, and the assignment to the London County Council of a position different from that in which other County Councils were placed I was prepared for that. I cannot say that on the whole I regret the changes that have taken place in the Bill in the course of its progress through the House. It is said that it is no longer the Bill of the Government, but the Bill of my hon. friend the Member for South Manchester. No doubt we accepted the Amendments of my hon. friend which gave the boroughs the part substantially they now occupy in the Bill. I am glad to give him all the credit which is due for having brought forward on the Report Stage, in a workable form, Amendments which will enable the Bill to work more smoothly than it otherwise might have done. What is the result? The London County Council is, as it was when the Bill was first introduced, the local education authority. The boroughs have some part in the work, but not the part given originally to them—a small part, it is true, but an appreciable part in the work of London education. What has surprised me in the course of our debates is that there has been a curious hostility displayed to the London boroughs by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Poplar besought me to eliminate the boroughs altogether, and my hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham has dogged their steps through the progress of the Bill with the cold hostility and remorseless activity which actuate a detective, while the hon. Member for West Islington was never tired of impressing upon us the ignorance and incompetence of Islington in all matters of education, and the disinclination of the Borough Council to have anything to do with the education of the children in the borough. Nevertheless, we have adopted in the Bill the principle of the

  1491
  local management of the schools, and we have secured the predominance of the County Council. We have secured also the presence of women on the boards of management and the presence of the former managers of the schools. The Bill, therefore, in its present form is a workable measure, and I do not regret altogether the form which it now assumes.
  But now I come to the various larger objections which have been made to the principle of the Bill. The first is as to the extinction of the School Board. Well, the School Board as a corporate body and as the authority for elementary education in London will no doubt disappear, but, as in the case of the other School Boards of the country, one hopes that the educational experience of the School Board will not be lost, and that in another form they will take part in the work of the London County Council and the Education Committee of that County Council. It may be hoped that the members of the School Board who have occupied themselves to such good purpose with the elementary education of this great city will still find ample scope for their exertions. Then it is complained that the purpose of the Bill has been to place the voluntary schools on the rates. I do not admit for a moment that that is the purpose. No doubt it has been the result of the Bill, but it is following out the measure of last year in bringing the voluntary schools under the control of the local education authority, and giving them at the same time that assistance which the other schools receive for their maintenance and for the effectual carrying out of their educational work. Is it not desirable that the voluntary schools shall be brought under the scrutiny of the local educational authority? Is it not desirable that they should no longer be able to plead the difficulties in the way of maintenance as an excuse for indifferent and unsatisfactory buildings? Is it not an advantage to secular instruction in the voluntary schools that they should be brought under the direct control of the local education authority? I say in these matters the levelling up of the voluntary schools and the bringing of the whole of the education of London under one
  1492
  control is, from the educational point of view, a distinct advantage to London, as I believe this system is becoming an advantage throughout the country at large.
  But there are objections with which it is more difficult to deal, because they take the form of misrepresentation—not, I am sure, intentional—of the purport of the principal Act, and possibly this Act also. There is the constant assertion of the imposition of tests upon the teachers. We are told that this is a form of proselytising, and that teachers are induced to leave their original faith and become members of the denomination which has teacher ships to offer, and which gives a better prospect of advance in their profession. It is suggested even that the subscription to some form of denominational belief is required. There is nothing like a test, except in the one case to which I have referred more than once in the course of the debates, where the head teacher is required by the trust deed of a school to be a member of a particular denomination. I do not believe that is so formidable, and it is the only case in which denominational requirements are specifically insisted upon. Beyond that the managers are free, in respect to all teacherships, to appoint whom they please. There have been from time to time comparisons made between the old system of tests and the probability—for it is nothing more—that denominational managers will appoint denominational teachers. Now, what is the difference? What was the old system of subscription? Take the case with which I am most familiar—that of my own University. A definite subscription was required in order that you might get the full benefit of being a member of the Corporation of the University, or of the corporate body of a college. These tests are happily abolished; but it must be borne in mind that subscription indicating ahhesion to a particular faith has nothing whatever to do with one's position either as a member of the University or as a fellow of a college, whereas the relation of teachers and managers is that of employed and employers. Even in a University or college where there are no tests, if that college were engaging a lecturer on divinity it would surely inquire whether he was

  1493
  a Roman Catholic, or an Anglican, or a Jew, and in the case of managers who are employing a teacher whose business it may be to teach the English Church catechism, it is surely reasonable that they should ask whether the teacher can conscientiously do so. As regards the other objection stated by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, the difficulty he indicated cannot take place if the law is observed. The Conscience Clause, makes it impossible for any child to be taught any form of belief to which the parents object, and the by-law recently issued by the Board of Education makes it possible not only that the child should be withdrawn from religious instruction if the parents declare that to be their wish, but the child may be withdrawn from school while that instruction is being given, so that proselytising is impossible. There is no reason why teacherships should not be given to persons of any religious denomination, if they are good teachers whom the managers can employ irrespective of denominational teaching. If he is employed in religious teaching, surely it is reasonable to ask what denomination he belongs to.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: Is it reasonable that the State should pay for that teaching? That is our point.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I must remind the hon. Member that the local education authority has complete control over the question of the qualifications of the teachers. So far as the quality of the teaching is concerned, the local education authority is supreme, and if they think that the managers are, for denominational purposes, employing unfit persons, they can at once ask the managers to make a change. I pass to another misrepresentation, which I have before me in the form of a Resolution passed by a local Free Church Council. It is really monstrous to say that the Act of last year gave to one section of the Church absolute authority in determining the educational policy of the nation. The educational policy is determined for each area by the Education Committee, subject to the authority of the County Council. The provided schools are completely under its control, and the voluntary schools, which were formerly very often entirely under clerical control, are now, as to their secular
  1494
  teaching, under the control of the local authority, and as to their religious teaching, under the control of a body of managers, two of whom are appointed by the local authority. Surely that is some return, in the way of popular management, for the assistance given to the general education of the country by the maintenance of the voluntary schools, so far as their teaching is concerned, out of the rates. I will give a small instance of the hasty way in which the denominational terror is excited in the minds of those who are the victims of statistics. The hon. Member for Camber well the other evening stated that there were in London 354 departments of schools liable to be re-transferred from the School Board to denominational management.
  DR. MACNAMARA: What I said was that since 1870, 354 departments were transferred to the London School Board.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that there were 354 departments liable to be transferred if the formalities are complied with. I should like to tell him the facts which I worked out from the School Board Returns. There are not 354, but only forty-three departments in nineteen schools which are now liable to be re-transferred, of these eight are undenominational, and two others are also almost certainly so, while only nine are Church of England schools, with nineteen departments.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman has not challenged my statement, that since 1870 there have been 354 departments transferred to the London School Board.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I did not challenge that statement; but the hon. Gentleman said that there were 354 departments liable to be re-transferred if the Board of Education were willing. I only mention this to show how very easily the denominational terror is excited, and that if you go into the matter more carefully you find that their fancies are almost wholly unfounded. I do not wish for a moment to minimise the religions difficulty; I am painfully aware of its existence, as I have said over and over

  1495
  and over again. But, I think that hon. members who raise this vehement objection to assistance of voluntary schools out of the rates should remember how long the Roman Catholics and Anglicans have had to pay rates for religious teaching which was not acceptable to them, and to maintain their own schools at their own expense. If a Nonconformist happened to require to go to an Anglican school, at any rate he got his teaching for nothing, whereas the denominational people who are not satisfied with the religious teaching in the Board schools had to pay for their own schools, and also to pay rates for teaching which was not to their minds. I do not think we have yet reached the final settlement of the religious difficulty; but I should wish to see it treated in a somewhat different spirit. I think that if there was rather more religion in the matter there would be less difficulty.
  I pass from that to another point raised by the hon. Member for Camberwell—viz., that the London County Council cannot, and will not undertake this work. Well, I quite admit that if the County Council work as the School Board did—as described to us by the hon. Member for Camberwell—spend the morning in interviewing teachers, and the afternoon in dealing with small repairs, trusting nobody, delegating nothing to anybody, insisting on doing everything itself—it would break down under the effort. But I do not see why it should act in that way. There will no longer be the work necessitated by the competition of the School Board with other educational institutions in London. The County Council will have the field entirely to itself, and co-ordination, if I may use that much abused word, will take the place of competition. Therefore, the County Council will be able to lay down the broad lines of educational policy, and work through sub-committees under one of the clauses of the Act of last year, either for particular purposes, or for particular areas. Under these sub-committees, again, will be the managers of the elementary schools. I cannot believe that, with all the intellectual and educational resources of London, the County Council will find it impossible to do the work, I admit the heavy work, which this Bill proposes to place upon it. I do not believe the County Council will
  1496
  refuse to undertake that work. I have heard in this House and elsewhere many hard things said of the County Council. I have heard it described as injudicious, extravagant, and ultra-political, but I have never heard it said that it was lacking in public spirit, where there was any opportunity of undertaking work which it thought it could discharge for the benefit of the citizens. Under these circumstances can we believe that the London County Council will neglect this great educational work? In the "Inferno" of Dante there is a place for those lost souls who, either from meanness of nature, or from self distrust, shirk responsibilities, or cast aside great opportunities. I cannot believe that the London County Council will be numbered among these. I am sure that it will take up this great work for the benefit of the youth and children of London, and carry it through heartily, courageously, and effectually.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to say, on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House, that we thank him for the courtesy he has consistently shown to all Members throughout these debates. We sympathise very much with him in the difficulty in which he has been placed in carrying the Bill through the House. I am sure it would be a curious revelation if we had the secret history of the different phases and changes which have occurred in the passage of the Bill. The Government got themselves into difficulties because they had consulted the wrong parties. Instead of consulting those who are interested in and know the educational wants of the Metropolis, they put themselves in the hands of certain Unionist Members who proved to be a very broken reed indeed. There are one or two matters in which this Bill is an improvement on the Act of last year. One is in regard to the unlimited rate which may be made for secondary education. Another is the statutory position in which women will be placed in regard to school management. The hon. Baronet said that we had shown hostility to the Borough Councils throughout these debates. I can assure him that we have no such hostility whatever. We had hostility to the proposal in the Bill that education

  1497
  should be the sport forever of separate bodies. In our opinion the bringing in of the Borough Councils would have created friction and made the administration of the education of London wholly unworkable. I have never been able to understand why the Government chose to municipalise education in London. In small country School Boards, and even in the case of large School Boards, you might carry out that operation; but when you come to the case of London you are on an entirely different footing. Even the Government themselves said that London should be treated differently. I have never been able to appreciate the reasons given for municipalising education in London; and I am afraid that while you will destroy the School Board you will also practically wreck the London County Council. The hon. Baronet said that, in his opinion, the County Council would be fully able to do the work. That was not what the hon. Baronet or the Prime Minister said in a former discussion; because he then laid it down absolutely and distinctly that unless there were a statutory delegation, in order that the County Council should be relieved of the bulk of the work, it would be impossible for the County Council to carry it on. Now the delegation disappears; and yet the hon. Baronet says that the County Council will be able to do the work. We believe that this Bill will really injure the work of the County Council; and that it will not be able to carry out its educational work in a sufficiently satisfactory and efficient way; and that, instead of making for education in London, it will do a great deal to retard it. The Bill was hurried at the earlier stage, before we were able to obtain the opinion of London on it. That opinion has now been given unanimously by every public body; and I believe it will be endorsed by the electors who are absolutely averse to the policy of the Government. We have had many discussions on this Bill; but because of the way the Bill is drawn we have never been able until this afternoon to touch on the question of control and rate aid which lie at the bottom of the whole matter. The hon. Baronet entered at some length into the religious question and the question of control. He touched especially on the question of tests for teachers; and he went so far as to say that he understood that there were very few schools in which tests would be
  1498
  applied, because there were very few schools in which the trust deeds would operate in that direction.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I said I believed that the number of trust deeds which required tests for teachers was not very large.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My information is that they are a very large number, I have heard they number 13,000—at all events, they amount to thousands. But it is not only in schools which are governed by trust deeds that tests will be applied. We know very well that there will be a test imposed on the head teacher in every Church of England school in the country. Unless a teacher is a member of the Church of England he will not have any opportunity, whatever his secular qualifications may be, of becoming a head teacher in a Church of England school. That means exclusion for the bulk of Nonconformists from the denominational schools, so long as they are not under popular control. Considering that the State in its rate-paying capacity is now going to pay the salaries of these teachers they are practically Civil servants; and there ought to be sufficient margin of public control over denominational schools which, without interfering with the atmosphere of these schools, should take care that, as regards secular instruction, there should be full and open competition as regards the appointment of teachers. The hon. Baronet said the other day that the Act of last year was generally accepted. I am afraid that he will find that that is a very sanguine view; and that when the London County Council elections come on, instead of their turning, as they ought to turn, on municipal work, they will turn on educational and religious questions, and especially on the question as to whether the new County Council through its educational authority should give rates to the denominational schools where they have not full control over secular instruction, with a view to its proper efficiency and to prevent tests for teachers. I believe the vast majority of the electors, who are in these matters Progressive, will give an instruction that the education authority shall not pay

  1499
  rates to the denominational schools unless they have full control over the secular education in such schools. I shall entirely sympathise with that view; and, if it is accepted, what is the hon. Baronet going to do in such circumstances? He will find himself face to face with a very serious situation; and I can only say that the Government have brought this question upon themselves. They should have waited to have seen how the Act for last year would work in the country. There would have been no difficulty in carrying some temporary measure which would not prejudice the voluntary schools or the ratepayers, instead of suddenly altering the whole educational system of London. It is very hard that we in London should have a Bill of this sort, which is totally different to the Bill originally introduced and to all the Government had said, at this very early stage of our new educational policy, forced on the electors of London. In my opinion it will do a great deal more to damage education than to benefit it.
  MR. DILLON: At this, the last stage of this controversy, I wish to say a few words from the Catholic point of view. To those of us who remember the debates of 1896 and the debates of last year, and the debates at the early stages of this Bill, the appearance of the House this evening is very remarkable. I wish it were otherwise, but I am greatly afraid that that listlessness is not a true reflection of the conditions in the country, and that the controversies which were aroused by the Bill of last year, and by the Bill we are now discussing, are, I think, by no means brought to an end. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said that as far as he could hear the only body in this country who were thoroughly satisfied with this Bill were the Catholic body. I do not think he was right in imagining that the Catholic body are thoroughly satisfied in regard to this Bill. I notice that the enthusiasm with which the Church of England hailed the introduction of the Bill of 1896 and the Bill of last year has considerably abated. I myself, throughout these discussions, acting on behalf of the Irish Party, have pursued a course very often slightly differ-
  1500
  ent from that advocated by the leaders of the Catholic Church in this country. In our private discussions on the Bill of 1896, and again on the Bill of last year, I used my utmost influence with the leaders of my Church in this country to bring their influence to bear on the Government to bring about a concordat or settlement which might last for another thirty or forty years. I failed to make my views prevail; and although I support this Bill and mean to vote for its Third Reading, it is not in the least because I approve of the policy of the Government, or the details of the measure; but because it embodies a principle in which I believe, and in which all my colleagues believe, and that is, support of denominational instruction in primary schools. I took leave to urge on the heads of the Catholic Church in this country, and even spoke in this House in a way in which I was very sharply taken to task by some of the Catholic newspapers, that in my opinion no more unwise course could be adopted by the Government than to take advantage of their present, or perhaps I should say their late, majority to force terms upon the Opposition without giving them an opportunity of arriving at some concordat.
  Let us recollect for a moment what has been the history of this education question during the last thirty years. In 1870 a great struggle arose between the advocates of strictly secular education and the advocates of denominational education in this country, quite as bitter and quite as fierce on both sides as anything that has been going on for the last three or four years. But in the course of that the great settlement of 1870, after fierce debates, was agreed to; and, although in my judgment it was a very imperfect and a very bad arrangement, still because it was the outcome of a certain amount of agreement between the two sides it has withstood the storms of thirty years and has carried on the question for that period without any change. I have always had a great objection to that settlement. I think it was a bad settlement. I have always been an opponent of the Cowper-Temple clause, which I think is

  1501
  at the bottom of a great many of our present difficulties. But still it stood from the very fact that it had its origin in some form of agreement springing from conciliation on both sides. I took occasion at a critical time in the history of the Bill to urge strongly upon the Government that they had now a great opportunity because of their great majority and their power to obtain some settlement and arrangement which might carry the question on for another thirty or forty years. My advice was thrown aside, and the present arrangement was come to. Does anyone believe that this is a settlement? Does any man believe that the power of this Government is going to last very much longer? I then ask myself what is going to follow? I am concerned chiefly, I admit, with the fate of the Catholic schools. And I say that as regards all the complaints made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the hon. Member for North Camber well our withers are unwrung. We do not want to proselytise; we offer no teacher any inducement to change his religion. All we desire is to obtain leave to pursue that system of religious instruction to which our race and nation are attached in whatever part of the globe they may be found. Our fortune has been indissolubly tied in education matters, by the leaders of our Church in this country, with the fate and fortunes of the Anglican Church.
  It does appear to me to be an undeniable and an indefensible position that there should exist in this country thousands of schools in which you have mixed Protestant bodies of children being taught, and that in schools of that character the Nonconformist teachers are penalised and denied the right of ever becoming head masters. What I am afraid of is this. What will be the position of the voluntary schools when they are brought under the influence of a powerful Radical majority? It has been held that all compromise is impossible in this matter. I do not believe it. There are Members upon both sides of the House who would have compromised but for the extremists who made compromise impossible. We have not got rid of the religious difficulty in any way. It will all have to be brought out again after the next General Election, and, if so, the Government has
  1502
  set an example which others might follow, and if the pendulum should swing heavily, and the Radical Party comes back in great strength, they might say: "Why I should we consider you? What mercy have you shown to us? We believe in absolute popular control; you have admitted the principle of popular control. You say the proprietors in voluntary schools shall have two-thirds of the control, and now only one step is needed to sweep the voluntary schools completely under popular control." I always felt from the beginning that we who are the defenders of the denominational schools, when we admitted the element of popular control in these schools, had done that which in the future may bring forth trouble in this matter. I hope and trust that the Irish Party will have power enough to defend in the future the fate of the Catholic schools. I regret that on this occasion I have been compelled to vote in favour of a measure that in my judgment contains indefensible provisions, and which subjects certain classes of the population in this country to disabilities which we in Ireland have overthrown. I am convinced that, because of these defects, this Bill will not stand long without substantial and dangerous changes being made in it. Still we have been compelled to vote in favour of this measure, because it is presented by the Government as the only issue placed before us, and because it incorporates the great principle which we in Ireland—I was going to say irreconcilably—adhere to, and that is, that there shall be religious teaching in the primary schools.
  *MR. BARRAN: There is a general consensus of opinion that the interest of the Education Bill has passed from this House to the country. We have had the first act, and this is the second act in the education drama. Interest is now concentrated in the prologue of the third act, which will have to tell what may take place between the close of the second and the beginning of the third. It may be some little time yet before that can be written. In the meanwhile we offer none the less strenuous opposition to the Third Heading of this present Bill. It applies to the remaining area of the country the worst principles of the former Bill, in spite of the condemnation through the country and in

  1503
  London shown by the meetings and elections. Those of us who are interested in stating the case for the Nonconformists are not influenced by the point harped upon by the Prime Minister and many others on that side of the House that Nonconformists are better off under these Bills than they were previously. We do not for a moment admit the point, but we demand at the present time equality of treatment and opportunity for every citizen. The Nonconformists have acted for thirty years under a compromise made by that Party which is most in sympathy with their views. They have kept their part of the compromise. The position now will be entirely different. In these Bills there has been no compromise, they now lie under the injustice of inequality inflicted upon them by a powerful and intolerant Party. Their action is, and will be, necessarily very different. As the hon. Member for Carnarvon has pointed out, while claiming this equality for themselves, they are willing to give just and fair treatment to those who differ from them for teaching their own particular religion. They are willing to give to the Church of England an opportunity of teaching their own dogmas and a consideration which shall be based either on what the Church has done for education in the past or a consideration based on the value of their buildings. The latter pecuniary consideration has perhaps weighed too heavily with Churchmen, and it is a question as to whether, after all, they have not made a sordid bargain when they have received their money consideration and lost a great influence. Those on this side of the House regret equally with those on the other the loss of the
  influence of the clergy where it is exercised religiously. But I oppose the Third Reading of this Bill equally on educational grounds. London will lose the direct responsibility which went from the Education Committee to the smallest sub-committees, the members of which were able to state their views and the requirements of the schools personally before that body which had the granting of the money and the levying of the rate, and these men were also directly responsible to the ratepayers. In place of this you substitute a body half of whom can never make a personal report to the council which has the final word, and half of whom are not responsible to the ratepayers. You will lose cohesion, and you will lose responsibility. We shall by this Bill lose the prospect of that educational efficiency in London which is so vital to us in the face of foreign competition. It is not only the organising of the Committee, or the forming of a syllabus for the schools, which makes for success; it is the direct interest of the members of the Education Committee in watching over the success of the education that will answer our purpose in the competition with the markets of the world. It is principally because I believe that by this Bill we are going backward and not forward in that competition that I strongly oppose the Third Reading. I would rather leave London education in its present condition than have it in the position in which it will be after this Bill becomes law.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 181.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bigwood, James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bill, Charles

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Boland, John

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bond, Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Charrington, Spencer

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Coddington, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Butcher, John George

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Carlile, William Walter

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Hamlets

  Knowles, Lees

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dillon, John

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Renwick, George

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N R

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Doughty, George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Lundon, W.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Fdinburgh W

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell,Rt.Hn.SirH.E.(Wigt'n

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Smith,H. C.(North'mb. Tyneside

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Forster, Henry William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Spear, John Ward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Gordon, Hn. J. F. (Elgin & Nrn

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Stroyan, John

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxford Univ.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Grenfell, William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gretton, John

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Dowd, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Ld. G.(Midx

  O'Malley, William

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashf'd

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  O'Shee, James John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Ba

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hartley)

  Percy, Earl

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn H. (Som's't, E

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hoult, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Randles, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Howard, Jn. (Kent. Faver'h'm

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Reddy, M.

  Hood and Mr. Ansturther.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  NOES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crooks, William

  Asher, Alexander

  Burt, Thomas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Caldwell, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cameron, Robert

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dunn, Sir William

  Black, Alexander William

  Cawley, Frederick

  Elibank, Master of

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Emmott, Alfred

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fenwick, Charles

  1506

  1507

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Newnes, Sir George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)

  Harwood, George

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Partington, Oswald

  Tomkinson, James

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Toulmin, George

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wallace, Robert

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rigg, Richard

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Langley, Batty

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 37, line 35, to leave out from the word 'custody' to the word 'may' in line 36."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 38, line 3, after the word 'manner' to insert the words 'or while drunk uses obscene or indecent language to the annoyance of any person.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 38, line 14, at end, to insert the words 'If any person charged with an offence under this sub-section shall have been taken into custody and liberated on bail or pledge and shall fail to appear at the calling of the case at the first Court thereafter, the Court may (save as otherwise provided by or under any general or local Police Act applying to a burgh as aforesaid) declare such bail or pledge to be forfeited, and may in addition, if the case in the opinion of the Court shall so require, summon him to appear before the Court or grant warrant for his apprehension.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was afraid that in some cases a little favouritism might be shown.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)assured the hon. Member that this proposal had been most carefully considered.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 38, lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words 'public conveyance or other,' and insert the words 'and any.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 38, line 28, after the word 'otherwise' to insert the words 'and any public conveyance.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 38, line 30, at end, to insert the words, (5) 'For the purposes of this section the expression "public place" shall include the harbour of Glasgow, the expression "public conveyance" shall include the ferry boats in the River Clyde as defined by the Clyde

  1509
  Navigation Acts, and the expression "magistrate" shall include the bailie, depute bailie, and Judge exercising jurisdiction in the Court of the bailie of the River and Firth of Clyde.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 39, line 3, after the word 'person' to insert the word 'is.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 39, line 4, after the figures '1898' to insert the word 'and.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 39, line 31, to leave out the words 'before the sheriff.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In 40, line 27, at end, to add the words, "The offence under this section of being found in any she been drunk shall be deemed to be an offence mentioned in the First Schedule to The Inebriates Act, 1898.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 40, line 40, at end of clause to insert the words 'unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that such liquor was so consumed without is knowledge or against his consent.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 42, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words 'if duly authorised by the police authority.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, line 11, at end, to add the words, (7)'A club may make application for a certificate of registration at any time after the thirtieth day of November nineteen hundred and three and before the commencement of this Act, and no club which has made such application shall be deemed to be an unregistered club pending the final decision of the sheriff on such application, and any application so made shall for the purposes of this
  1510
  section be deemed to have been made on the first day of January nineteen hundred and four.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, line 16, to leave out the words 'annually by the general body of members, and insert the words 'for not less than a year by the general body of members and subject in whole or in a specified proportion to annual re-election.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, line 35, to leave out from the word 'be' to the word 'which' in line 38, and insert the words 'supplied with excisable liquor in the club premises unless on the invitation and in the company of a member and that the member shall, upon the admission of such visitor to the club premises or immediately upon his being supplied with such liquor, enter his own name and the name and address of the visitor in a book.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the latter part of this proposal read—
  "And that the member shall, upon the admission of such visitor to the club premises, or immediately upon his being supplied with such liquor, enter his own name and the name and address of the visitor in a book."
  He thought that was going a little too far, because it meant entering the name in the visitors' book, although the visitor might be going in only temporarily. Then, again, the liquor was to be supplied to the member on his own responsibility. The requirement was that if the name had not been entered in the book they were to enter it in some other book immediately the liquor was supplied. He thought that was an unnecessary restriction, and no practical benefit would be derived from it. They were already taking precautions that the liquor was only to be supplied on the member's own responsibility, and that ought to be sufficient without putting the other words in. Perhaps the Lord Advocate had been pressed into this proposal without considering its full effect. He suggested that the words from "a member" in the third line to the end of the clause should be left out.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIGthought it would be far more sensible to alter the phrase and insert, "or immediately before being supplied."
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he could not accept the suggestions which had been made.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 46, line 10, after the word 'consumption' to insert the words 'or to a person holding an excise licence for the sale of such liquor.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 48, line 19, to leave out from beginning of line to the word 'served,' in line 31, and insert the words 'a complaint for breach of certificate shall be.'"—(The Lord Advocate)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the bill—
  "In page 48, line 32, to leave out the words 'to attend the hearing of such complaint.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 48, line 33, to leave out the words 'said party,' and insert the words 'party complained against.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 49, line 6, to leave out from the word 'against,' to end of clause."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 49, leave out Clause 92."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 50, line 5, after the word 'of,' insert the words 'other prosecutor ordinarily
  1512
  acting in such respective Courts or in the case of a justice of the peace or burgh police court at the instance.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 50, line 7, to leave out the word 'magistrates,' and insert the words 'town council.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 50, line 10, to leave out the words 'magistrates as the case may be shall,' and insert the words 'town council, as the case may be, may.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 50, line 16, to leave out from the word 'taxed,' to the word 'as,' in line 17, and insert the words 'on behalf of the County Council or Town Council.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 50, line 19, to leave out the words 'also the execution of this Act,' and insert the words 'such business.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 50, line 22, to leave out the word 'burgh' and insert the words 'Royal or Parliamentary burghs having a separate licensing Court.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  'In page 51, line 5, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 51, line 7, to leave out from the word 'determined,' to the word 'and,' in line 8, and insert the words 'under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 51, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that, in any complaint brought

  1513
  under this Act, the description of any offence against this Act in the words of the Act, or of any certificate granted thereunder shall be sufficient in law.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 51, leave out Clause 95."—(The Lord Adoocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 51, line 37, to leave out the words 'toll house.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 52, line 7, to leave out the words 'toll houses.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 52, line 19, to leave out the words 'sixty days,' and insert the words 'two months.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 52, line 33, to leave out the words 'sixty days,' and insert the words 'two months.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 53, line 23, to leave out the words 'sixty days,' and insert the words 'two months.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 54, line 6, at beginning, to insert the words, 'A certified extract of.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 55, line 17, to leave out from the 'word 'for,' to the word 'in,' in line 21, and insert the words, 'any offence punishable by fine or by imprisonment to bring the case by appeal before the High Court of Justiciary.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 55, line 38, to leave out from the word 'clerk,' to the word 'a' in line 39, and
  1514
  insert the words, 'of the High Court of Justiciary.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 56, line 9, at end of line to insert the words, 'or with the right of appeal under The Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act, 1875, or the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 56, line 27, at end, to add the words, 'And nothing in this Act contained shall be read as limiting any power to mitigate penalties contained in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts or any other Act, or as excluding the operation of the Fine or Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1899.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GRETTONmoved an Amendment with the object of keeping open for discussion the question whether the licensing authority should have the option of allowing certain licence-holders to keep their premises open till 11 p.m. or whether they should come within the provisions of the schedule. He moved.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 64, line 12, at the end, to insert the words—'Part I. Forms of certificate applicable to all counties and districts and to all burghs not specified in Part II.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid this Amendment raised a question of very great importance, and he thought it would be necessary to explain the position of the Government upon it. It might conduce to clearness if he reminded the House what the law was before this Bill was introduced. First of all he would remind hon. Members that in Scotland there were three forms of certificate—one applicable to hotels, another applicable to public-houses, and the third applicable to grocers. In all these forms of certificate the hour of opening was eight o'clock in the morning. In the law as settled by the Home Drummond Act and earlier Acts the hour of closing in all of them was eleven o'clock, subject to a

  1515
  special power of the licensing authority which then existed in certain districts to close at an earlier hour, but not earlier than nine. In 1887 an Act was passed which altered the form of certificate so far as the evening was concerned, and made the hour optional, according to the view of the licensing authority, between ten and eleven. That was to say, they could not close sooner than ten, and they could not keep open later than eleven. But that Act, which altered the form of certificate in this way, did not apply to certain large burghs. It applied to all except the exempted burghs which had a population of over 50,000. That was how the law stood, and in this Bill as introduced by the Government it was not proposed to make any change either in the hours of opening or closing. But the Government were confronted with a series of Amendments in different Members' names which related to one end of the day and the other. That was to say, there was an Amendment which proposed that in the morning, in the option of the licensing authority, the opening hour should be as late as ten o'clock, and with regard to the evening there were Amendments which proposed that there should be no distinction in future between the seven large towns and the rest of Scotland. There was indeed one Amendment which would have given absolute power to the magistrates without indicating any hours at all. The matter was mooted in Committee by an Amendment of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire, which in the form of a by-law proposed to give absolute discretion at both ends to the Licensing Court. He took exception upon a point of order to that Amendment and held that it could not be done in the form of a by-law, and that it must be done on the certificate A discussion arose, and he took occasion at that time to say that he had made up his mind to accept an Amendment which put the large towns in the same position as the smaller towns. The hon. and learned Member for the Dumfries Burghs said that in view of that position which he had indicated, it was hardly necessary to press the Amendment then before the Committee, and the matter was allowed to drop. Of course in making the announcement he naturally disclosed what he considered to be the whole position and policy of the Government, but notwithstanding that concession, he was
  1516
  confronted at a later stage of the Bill by an Amendment, by way of a new clause amending the schedule, which, of course, was quite in order. By that Amendment the morning hours were also altered, and it was made optional not to open till ten. He resisted that Amendment, but was beaten in the division which ensued. He thought he might, as a matter of fact, claim that that absolved him from his promise to make a concession on the matter later on, but he did not do so. Now he was again confronted with certain Amendments which raised the whole question, and he need scarcely say that it had been a matter of grave consideration what he should do. He had come to the conclusion that the only proper course for him to take was to stick to the policy of the Government which he indicated in Committee. He proposed to resist the present Amendment, making a distinction between the large towns and the small towns and to restore the hour in the morning. He thought it must be obvious, that the conditions of life were quite different in the large towns as compared with the small towns. He was confronted with the fact that certainly one of the large towns—Edinburgh—had not shown any anxiety, through its municipality, to have a change; while, on the other hand, the municipalities of the other large towns had shown a desire to have no distinction made. But inasmuch as, after all, the power was only optional, and if the magistrates chose they could still keep to 11 o'clock as the hour of closing, as there was a special power of closing in special districts, and as there were no good grounds for making a distinction between Edinburgh and the other large towns, he had come to the conclusion that it was his duty, on behalf of the Government, to resist the present Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he thought the Lord Advocate was perfectly right in resisting this Amendment, the effect of that resistance being to preserve uniformity of treatment between the large and the small burghs.
  *SIR LEWIS MCIVERsaid that after what had fallen from the Lord Advocate it was quite obvious that it would be a waste of the time of the House to press the matter much further. He only wished to say that this action

  1517
  of the Government, as represented by the Lord Advocate, was a very remarkable departure from what had been the policy of the Government a very short time ago. It adopted the principle which had been rejected by Parliament definitely on one occasion; and it was not included in the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. It was not fair to those who represented the great cities of Scotland that they were about to be treated as no other great cities in the United Kingdom had hitherto been treated, and that the Government should have departed from the policy which they announced last year. Although he had put down a consequential Amendment to exempt the city, a portion of which he represented, he strongly urged his hon. friend not to press the matter further.
  *SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid that there was a very great distinction in the habits of the people in the large towns and the small towns. In the small towns and country districts circumstances varied a great deal. It was, therefore, quite fair that there should be a discretion on the part of the magistrates. In some places there would be no object in keeping open public-houses after ten o'clock, I because little or no business would be done, and what business was done was such as they all wished to prevent. But, in the case of big towns, it was perfectly different. The city, part of which he had the honour to represent, did not wish to see any change made in the law as it stood at present. They knew that theatres in large towns all closed after ten o'clock, and it would be very unfair that people on coming out of them should not be able to get any refreshments before they went home. It was said that in this case there was a discretion, and that it was optional whether the public-houses should be closed at ten o'clock. That was exactly what he objected to. When all the conditions were perfectly well known, he thought it would be much better that the Legislature should settle what the hours of opening and closing should be. If there was a difference between Edinburgh and Glasgow, it would not be because the circumstances of the two cities were different, but because the magistrates in each took a different view on the temperance ques-
  1518
  tion. He did not think that was fair either to the trade or to the public.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that when the Burgh Police Bill went originally through the House of Commons, both the Committee and the House unanimously put the whole of the burghs in Scotland on one footing. It was in the House of Lords that the difference was brought in, and rather than lose the Bill the Commons accepted the Lords' Amendment. Ever since then it was found in the case of the small burghs a great advantage to have an optional power of closing early; and there was not a burgh in Scotland which would wish to go back to eleven o'clock closing. All the large burghs, with the exception of Edinburgh, had asked to have the optional power to close at ten o'clock. If Edinburgh did not wish to exercise the option, Edinburgh could remain open till eleven o'clock.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he was not sure that his hon. friend who represented Edinburgh West, represented the views of the larger burghs in Scotland on this matter. No doubt in the case of Edinburgh there was something in the argument which his hon. friend had placed before the House; but so far as he understood the position of the six larger burghs, he believed that Aberdeen had already, by voluntary agreement, fixed ten o'clock as the hour of closing; while in the case of Greenock ten o'clock had been fixed on all days of the week except Saturday. He understood that Glasgow had asked with a very loud voice that this very great benefit of an optional power of closing at ten o'clock should be given to it. Under these circumstances the House ought to have no hesitation in supporting the Government in this matter.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that after the discussion which had taken place he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Kin-

  1519
  cardineshire he wished to amend Schedule 6 by providing that the licence holder should not himself be, or permit any of his servants to be, in a state of intoxication on the premises.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 65, line 5, after the word, 'premises,' to insert the words 'and do not himself be, or permit any of his servants to be, in a state of intoxication on the premises.'"—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he would accept the Amendment if the hon. Member would agree to omit the words "or permit any of his servants to be."
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he accepted the suggestion.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. BLACKsaid that on behalf of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire he wished to move to amend the schedule by leaving out "14"and inserting "16," the effect of which would be to raise the age to sixteen, below which it would be incompetent for any licence-holder to supply liquor to children. This was in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission, and with, he believed, the practice and law in England. To show the views of the trade, Mr. Robertson, Wine and Spirit Merchant, Edinburgh, in his evidence before the Royal Commission went the length of saying that if a boy under eighteen came into his shop and asked for a glass of beer he would recommend him to take a cup of tea or coffee. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 65, line 8, to leave out the word 'fourteen,' and insert the word 'sixteen.'"—(Mr. Black.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that this Amendment would be quite inconsistent with Clauses 57 and 58. Clause 58 was the "Child Messengers Bill" engrafted on to this Bill. Clause 57 was quite different. It said that the licence-holder was not to give spirits to any young person under sixteen years of age for consumption on the premises. He might give the young person beer or spirits as a messenger if the messenger was not under fourteen years of age. If the hon. Member's clause were carried it would be a breach of certificate to give any excisable liquor to a messenger or anybody else. He saw no reason to do that after only one year's experience of that Act.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the Amendment might be inconsistent with, and yet not be repugnant to, a provision of the Bill. The child messenger was only part of the whole. Scotland, in these matters, had always been in advance of England, but in this case she was behind. That in itself was a sufficient reason for this Amendment, and he would give his hearty support.
  SIR. J. FERGUSSONsaid it seemed to him to be more objectionable to send a girl of sixteen to a public-house as a messenger than a child of fourteen.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 182.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Butcher, John George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bill, Charles

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bond, Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Chamberlayne, T. (South'mpt'n

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bowles, T. Gibson(Lynn Regis)

  Chapman, Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Malley, William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Randles John S.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Reddy, M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Remnant, James Farqubarson

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Renwick, George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Stroyan, John

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop W. (Sligo North)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Garfit William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elginand Nairn

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Williams Rt. Hn. J. Powell- (Birm

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Hall Edward Marshall

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.,Stroud

  Caldwell, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Asher, Alexander

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cawley, Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Craig, Robert Huter (Lanark)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Brigg, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Elibank, Master of

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Langley, Batty

  1522

  1523

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Wallace, Robert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Newnes, Sir George

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Partington, Oswald

  Spear, John Ward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Mr. Black and Mr.

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Eugene Wason.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomkinson, James

  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid in Committee an Amendment was carried against him fixing the hour for the opening of licensed premises at ten o'clock in the morning. He desired to move an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the Member for South-West Manchester, re-establishing the present hour of opening at eight o'clock, and thereby providing a uniform hour for the premises of both publicans and grocers. He thought to delay the hour of opening for grocers until ten in the morning would be very prejudicial to the grocery trade, and it was impossible to make a distinction between the grocery business and the sale of excisable liquors on the same premises. He begged to move—
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 65, line 12, leave out the words 'such hour' and insert the words 'eight of the clock.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'such hour' stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL DENNYsaid he rose with some diffidence to oppose the Amendment. He could not overlook the fact that very cogent reasons were given in Committee for the hour being changed, and the hour was changed by a vote of twenty-two to nine, the majority not being confined to one side of the House. He some two years ago, had brought in a Bill to restrict the hour of opening to ten o'clock, and on that occasion had gone into the whole question. If a workman was late at his work and was stopped off till after breakfast, he could not go home because his home was not ready for him, and if
  1524
  licensed houses were open he was subjected to the great temptation to drink under the worst conditions—namely, on an empty stomach. He would be glad to accept as a compromise the Amendment which appeared a little lower down in the name of the Lord Advocate to make the hour nine, but he could not support this Amendment. The great majority of Scottish Members were in favour of restricting the hour to ten o'clock and he hoped the House would reject this Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he heartily agreed with the Member who had just sat down, and hoped the House would take the same view. The Lord Advocate himself had put down an Amendment to fix the hour of opening at nine o'clock. He thought that might be accepted as a compromise.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid if he understood the schedule rightly a grocer was at liberty to open his premises at any hour he liked except for the sale of excisable liquors. He thought the House ought to give the Lord Advocate the opportunity of moving his own Amendment by defeating his present proposal.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON, who also opposed the Amendment, stated that he was much impressed when sitting on the Commission on Grocers' Licences by the evidence given by chief constables and others that workmen were tempted before breakfast to indulge in the raw spirits sold by some houses. That was proved before the Commission. That

  1525
  temptation would be removed if the hour of opening was fixed at ten o'clock.
  MR PARKER SMITHregretted that the Lord Advocate should have given up his own Amendment and moved that of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester. The Bill as it stood made the hour ten o'clock. If that was going too far the Amendment in the name of the Lord Advocate would surely meet the case. By nine o'clock a man's home was ready for him, and the mischief of a man who was shut out from work going to get drink because no other place was Open was avoided. The burden on the grocers was comparatively light, as they could keep their shops open from eight to nine o'clock and do everything except sell excisable liquors during that hour. This was a matter in which Scotch opinion ought to be respected, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would abstain from appointing Government tellers in the division, so that Members could vote without consideration of Party.
  *SIR ANDREW AGNEWthought that the feeling in Scotland was not
  nearly so strong as the hon. Member for Partick assumed. He should certainly vote for the Amendment. Ten o'clock would be an absurdly late hour to fix; nine o'clock was preferable to ten; but the present hour of eight o'clock was better still, and no good reason had been given why it should be changed. Two hundred years ago beer was universally drunk for breakfast, and he failed to see why it should be a crime to take a glass for breakfast now.
  MR. DALZIELjoined in the appeal to the Lord Advocate to allow the question to be voted on freely. It was really a question of whether or not the Scotch people were to be trusted in this matter. By leaving Members free to vote according to their conviction the wishes of the Scotch people would be consulted, and he assured the Lord Advocate that the adoption of any other course would not facilitate the progress of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes 168. (Division List No. 183.)

  AYES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Arrol, Sir William

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Asher, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rigg, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roberts, John H. {Denbighs.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hanlie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bignold, Arthur

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Russell, T. W.

  Black, Alexander William

  Harwood, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leveson-Grower, Frederick N. S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Levy, Maurice

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Lundon, W.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Newnes, Sir George

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Frank

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Elibank, Master of

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wilson, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Sir James Fergusson and

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Colonel Denny.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Flower, Ernest

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (Tr. Hmlts

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Halfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  O'Dowd, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Purvis, Robert

  Bill, Charles

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Randles, John S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Butcher, John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Helder, Augustus

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chapman, Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stroyan, John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Strutt, Hon. Charlee Hedley

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Knowles, Lees

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell- (Birm

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Doughty, George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  And, it being half-past seven of the
  1528
  clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Proceedings resumed on Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 65, line 12, in lien of words omitted [22nd July], to insert the words "eight of the flock.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLformally moved that nine o'clock should be substituted for eight o'clock as the earliest hour of opening.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
  "To leave out the word 'eight' and insert the word 'nine.'"—(Sir J. Stirling-Maxwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
  MR. GRETTONsaid he thought it a curious proceeding to move an important alteration of this kind without one word of explanation. The House was in the dark as to what the reasons were for such an Amendment. The Lord Advocate had advanced excellent reasons for the hour being eight o'clock, but no good reason had been given for this change. It seemed to be the general idea among the Scottish Members that no Scotchman could resist the temptation of going into a licensed house, but in his opinion Scotchmen were just as well able to control themselves in this regard as Englishmen or Irishmen. It was undoubtedly a burdensome hardship that grocers who possessed licences should not be allowed to open before nine o'clock, because the wives of those who went to work at half-past five or six o'clock in the morning were compelled to make their purchases early. He thought the present restrictions were quite sufficient to guard against any excesses in this regard, and he thought, no good arguments having been adduced in favour of the Amendment, the House
  1530
  of Commons would only be doing its duty by rejecting it.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid there was not much use in prolonging this discussion. Hon. Members opposite were fully aware of the fact that they were masters of the situation. The opinion expressed by Scottish Members had been overruled by people who knew nothing about the particular conditions of Scotland, and whose opinions, it might be, were biased by their having a personal interest in the matter.
  MR. GRETTON, interposing, denied that he had any personal interest in the matter. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] He had put the case of persons who formed, no doubt, a minority in Scotland, but whose case ought not on that account to be refused a hearing. Gentlemen opposite might give him credit for sometimes taking up a case in which he was not interested.
  *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that it was out of order to impute an improper motive to an hon. Member.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he had not imputed any such motive. He had said that the House had arguments repeatedly from hon. Gentlemen who were biased by the fact that they themselves were interested. All of us were liable to be biased by our own particular position. In conclusion, he expressed his regret at the attitude maintained by the Lord Advocate in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had himself placed on the Paper a proposal in favour of the hour of nine o'clock.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he did not complain of the tone of the hon. and learned Member's speech. He recognised that he (the Lord Advocate) had tried his best to accommodate very conflicting interests. The only complaint he had to make was this—hon. Members, with perfectly good motives, forgot that, after all, the Bill in its inception was a compromise Bill. The Government, in putting forward their proposals, never supposed that they were going to please everybody. All they claimed for the Bill

  1531
  was that it was a genuine attempt at temperance reform, and he believed that the verdict of Scotland, when the Bill was passed, would be that the Government had really contributed to the cause of temperance. But they never supposed they were going to conciliate the diverse interests involved in the Bill. He could recognise no moral difference between the interest on one side or on the other. He recognised the interest of any philanthropist, but he also recognised the interest of the man who was carrying on an honest trade, and he did not see that he was bound to sacrifice his opinions to those of any philanthropist. The Bill, as he had said, was a compromise Bill, and he had to face opposition from both quarters. He had been far too long a member of a Grand Committee not to know that it was an extraordinary arena in which anybody might very easily have a fall, and that the decisions come to in the Grand Committee did not always reflect the opinion of the House. Why should the eighty or eighty five members of the Grand Committee decide questions of great policy in such a way that they were not to be allowed to discuss them when they came down to the House? As to the time-worn cry that the opinion of the Scottish Members was over-ruled by the English Members in the House, he had heard that so often that he paid no more attention to it than to the old cry of "wolf." He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries had voted in many a division when he had not given them the benefit of his attendance during the debate. As to this particular Amendment hon. Members seemed to forget what his difficulties were. He had put down the Amendment because he wanted to see whether it would be a compromise which would be generally acceptable, but he did so along with another determination to which he had come as to the hours of closing in the evening. He had thrown in the weight of the Government against his hon. friend behind him, who spoke in support of his present position. Hon. Members seemed to forget the extraordinary difficulty of the situation. He agreed that there might be cases where the opening of the public-house in the morning was a
  1532
  temptation to the working man, but they had got to consider the whole situation throughout the country. When they came to what was called the predominance of Scottish opinion, if hon. Members asked their constituents whether they thought it would be for their convenience to cut off all forms of getting liquor before nine o'clock, he believed they would find that Scottish opinion was the other way. He had no hesitation in saying that throughout the length and breadth of Scotland that the trade of the grocers would be practically hampered if they did not allow them to open at eight o'clock. He had to consider what was just and right not only for one section of the public, but for the community as a whole, and he had come to the conclusion that the best thing he could do was to make the concession he had made as to the later hour of closing, and at the same time to stick to the hour of opening which had obtained in Scotland all these years—namely, eight o'clock.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that all Scottish Members asked was that the Lord Advocate should adhere to his own Amendment, allowing a discretion up to nine o'clock, and which must be taken to express the Resolution he had come to as the Member of the Government in charge of the Bill. He, as a Scottish Member, resented the interference of certain hon. Members representing English constituencies, who naturally considered the subject from a different point of view. And as to the cynical sneer at the time-worn cry of the opinion of Scottish Members, what were Scottish Members there for except to voice Scottish opinion? It was the time-worn cry of Scottish Members that ought to decide Scottish questions in this House. It was absurd for the responsible Minister for Scotland in this House to sneer at the opinion of Scottish Members. Scottish Members in this House had an overwhelming case for the cry they made.
  *MR. SHAW-STEWARTsaid he thought that a large majority of Scottish Members were in favour of this Amendment. They had, up to the present, only heard the voice of one Scottish Member, besides the right hon. Gentleman himself, who had raised his voice against this Amendment. He

  1533
  believed one hon. Member for Edinburgh did advocate a glass of beer for breakfast in the morning. The speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs must have carried conviction to all who heard it. The hon. Member explained how working men arriving late at big works were locked out and had no other place to go to but the public-house. If that was the experience of his hon. friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs, surely the same experience obtained over the length and breadth of Scotland. That was a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment providing that public-houses should open at nine instead of eight o'clock. There was another argument which made them anxious to discuss this question and to divide upon it, and it was that until to-day they were under the impression that the Lord Advocate was going to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, and they were all quite satisfied to accept his Amendment as reasonable. There was, perhaps, one class upon whom it would have fallen hard, namely, the licensed grocers, but an Amendment standing in his name would have enabled licensed grocers to have sent out their goods at eight o'clock.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that never in his life had he received so many telegrams as he had done that day protesting against this Amendment.
  *MR. SHAW-STEWARTsaid his right hon. friend ought to be too old a campaigner to be influenced by telegrams. He believed that the Lord Advocate was anxious to do justice to all parties, and he had endeavoured to do so on the present occasion, but, in arriving at the decision he had done, he was sure he would not have the majority of the votes of Scottish Members with him.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was sorry the Lord Advocate had not given them a more adequate excuse for his proposal. The present Government were so tottering and weak that they could not receive a few telegrams without giving way. The Lord Advocate had gone away from his own Amendment, and had given no reason for doing so except that he had
  1534
  received a certain number of telegrams. The Minister for Scotland appeared to have the greatest contempt for the opinion of Scottish Members. He believed that three - fourths of the Members representing Scotland were in favour of later opening in the morning. He should be very curious to see whether Edinburgh was going to rest satisfied with the position taken up by its representative that the capital of Scotland was to be the one place represented in the House of Commons which was against later opening so far as public-houses were concerned. He should await the result with interest, because he doubted whether that was the real position in Edinburgh. The strongest argument for later opening was a very simple one. Working men mostly went to work at six o'clock, and their break-fact hour was between eight and nine o'clock. If the public-houses were open, instead of going home the men would probably go to the nearest public-house and have breakfast there, followed by a certain amount of liquor. It was the practical experience of employers in Scotland that once working men got to the public-house during the breakfast hour they were practically useless for the rest of the day. It was the duty of a Government pretending to be doing something for temperance in Scotland to lessen the temptation to working men at that hour of the morning. He was sorry that the Lord Advocate had allowed himself to be prevailed upon by the English legion in this matter, and he had allowed their influence to outweigh his judgment by taking up a position which would not be supported by Scottish opinion.
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid that nothing had surprised him more in this debate than the character attributed to the working men of Scotland. He claimed to have some acquaintance with Scottish working men, and undoubtedly there was not a single feature in the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs which he could identify as being characteristic of them. The hon. Member had said something about them drinking whiskey at eight o'clock in the morning. Did he mean to say that that was the habit of the

  1535
  working men in Scotland? If he did, all he had to say was that it was contrary to his experience of them.
  MR. DALZIEL: Then why do you want to keep the public-houses open?
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid he could only speak from his own experience, and upon that experience he wished to enter a protest against the character which had been given to Scotch working men in this respect during the present debate.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was sure the hon. Baronet did not wish to misrepresent him. He did not say anything of the kind. What he said was that there were Scottish working men who could not stand the temptation of being in a public-house at that hour of the morning.
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid that his right hon. friend the Member for North-East Manchester drew a picture of a man coming home early in the morning to whom a glass of whiskey proved irresistible. So much for Manchester working men, but he was sure that was not the case in the country districts of Scotland. Although he had received no telegrams upon this subject, he had received many letters from individuals with whom he was acquainted, and those letters pointed out the extreme inconvenience which would arise if the Lord Advocate gave way to the pressure put upon him. There was one other feature to which he, as an old Member of the House of Commons, begged to enter his earnest protest, and that was that these Grand Committees, which were a comparative innovation in Parliamentary procedure, should claim a monopoly of infallibility, as if every decision they arrived at during the luncheon hour or other time was to be treated by the House of Commons as infallible; indeed it seemed to be a kind of blasphemy to question the propriety of decisions arrived at upstairs. He thought the Report stage of any Bill was the proper one to revise the decisions arrived at upstairs, and he trusted the Lord Advocate would adhere to his original intention.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that as a challenge had been thrown out he should like to say that so far as his experience went the opening of public-houses in the early morning was a great source of trouble. Speaking as one who went a good deal amongst the working classes he could testify that this was one of the greatest sources of evil amongst them. He had been in public-houses himself in the early morning, and he had seen thousands of instances of British working men losing their employment by going into public-houses at eight o'clock in the morning. The Lord Advocate did not appear to know his own mind, for he placed a reasonable Amendment on the Paper, and at the instance of hon. Members behind him, who were always ready to bring up Amendments against the cause of temperance, he withdrew it.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that was not the case.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid the right hon. Gentleman stated that he had no settled conviction upon this point.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I never used any such phrase in my life.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to know his own mind for many days together. This Amendment was neither in the interests of temperance nor in the interests of the people of Scotland.
  MR. CALDWELLpointed out that in the Bill, as it came from the Committee upstairs, the period of opening was to be not earlier than eight o'clock and not later than ten o'clock, and when the Lord Advocate suggested nine o'clock it was agreed to as a compromise. Therefore the whole of the Committee upstairs were obviously in favour of nine o'clock, because ten o'clock included it. The Committee upstairs were of opinion that it should be left to the licensing authority to say whether it should be eight o'clock or nine o'clock. They were now to proceed to a division and the Lord Advocate, with the assistance of English and Irish votes, would vote down the opinion of the people of Scotland, although the circumstances in regard

  1537
  to this question in England and Ireland were totally different to Scotland. In Scotland thay had Sunday closing, but there was not an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency who would venture to vote for the opening of publichouses on Sunday. It was not fair, in a matter which so materially affected the interests of Scotland, that they should be outvoted by hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom where the circumstances were entirely different.
  *SIR ANDREW AGNEWclaimed that hon. Members opposite did not express the real feeling of Scotland upon this matter. It might be perfectly true that the majority of hon. Members representing Scotland were going to vote for nine o'clock, but that did not prove that that was the feeling of Scotland. He doubted whether half-a-dozen Scottish Members had ever told their constituencies that they intended to vote for later opening.
  MR. CALDWELL: They have always said so at every election.
  *SIR ANDREW ANGEWsaid that the hon. Members might have done so, but he doubted whether half-a-dozen Scottish Members had done it. He had never heard this question discussed in Scotland at all. He had heard plenty of discussion as to whether in the larger towns they should close at ten o'clock if they liked, but the question of ten o'clock opening in the morning had never been mooted in Edinburgh. There was no mention of it before the Royal Commission, and it was not alluded to either in the
  Majority or the Minority Report. He did not believe that this question had been considered in Scotland at all. He had heard a good deal of discussion upon this subject, but he had never heard any allusion to the later opening of public-houses or of licensed grocers' premises until an Amendment was proposed in Committee the other day. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock had spoken of thrusting upon the trade an obligation to open at unprofitable hours. He had received several dozen letters upon this subject, and not one of them complained of having anything thrust upon them, but they all pointed out how inconvenient it would be to have any change made in the present law upon this point.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIGsaid the hon. Member for South Edinburgh was mistaken in saying that this matter of later opening was only mooted for the firs time in Committee upstairs. The Secretary for Scotland last year in another place advocated the keeping of public houses closed an hour later than eight o'clock, and when a large deputation, of provosts, magistrates, and town councillors from all parts of Scotland met the Secretary for Scotland in Edinburgh, at which he was present, he repeated his opinion, that it would be in the interest of the public to open an hour later in the morning. That was a very strong argument in favour of the House accepting the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 184.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Flower, Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Forster, Henry William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nrn.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bond, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Gretton, John

  Butcher, John George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Groves, James Grimble

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Elliot, Hon A. Ralph Douglas

  Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hobhouse, RtHnH (Somrst E.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith,H.C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Stroyan, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  O'Malley, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Walrond,Rt.HnSirWilliamH.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Whiteley,H(Ashton und. Lyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lucas, Regl'd J. (Portsmouth)

  Raach, Major Frederic Carne

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Lundon, W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Maxwell,RtHn.SirH E(Wigt'n

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  NOES.

  Allen,CharlesP.(Glouc, Stroud

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Reid,SirR.Threshie(Dumfries)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Russell, T. W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, Marq. of(Londondy

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Shackleton, David James

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayne, Rt. Hon, Charles Seale-

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Brigg, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  John-tone, Heywood

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

  Burt, Thomas

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Talbot,Rt.Hn.JG.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor,Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington

  Tennant, Harold John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tomkinson, James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Newnes, Sir George

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Elibank, Master of

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir John Stirling-Maxwell

  Emmott, Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  and Mr. Cameron Corbett.

  Proposed words inserted in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 65, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'not earlier than eight and not later than ten of the clock as the licensing Court may direct.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 66, line 18, to leave out the words 'such hour,' and insert 'eight of the clock.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question put, "That the words 'such hour' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 71: Noes, 132. (Division List No. 185.)

  AYES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brigg, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Black, Alexander William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Harwood, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Runciman, Walter

  Burt, Thomas

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shackleton, David James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Partington, Oswald

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Hunter Craig.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gretton, John

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arrol, Sir William

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Purvis, Robert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Helder, Augustus

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somrst E

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bond, Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Russell, T. W.

  Butcher, John George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Callings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stroyan, John

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Valentia, Viscount

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh N.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  William, Rt Hn J. Powell- (Birm.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. Bath)

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Forster, Henry William

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Gordon Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  O'Malley, William

  Question proposed, "That the words 'eight of the clock' be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the reason why it was necessary to take a division on each of these Amendments was that in the

  1543
  schedule there were three distinct certificates, the first for inns and hotels, the second for public houses, and the third for grocers. By dividing on each they were taking the only possible way of making a protest against what was proposed by the Government.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid he felt very strongly on this Amendment, but he
  was bound to say that after the decision of the House on the first question he did not think they should delay business by dividing again.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 186.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gretton, John

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Purvis, Robert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Helder, Augustus

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge. Sir Robert T.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bond, Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somrst E.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Butcher, John George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Russell, T. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew}

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stroyan, John

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lundon, W.

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tollemache, Henry James.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Williams, Rt. Hn J. Powell- (Birm

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Worsley Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Flower, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Black, Alexander William

  Cameron, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cawley, Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Elibank, Master of

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norman, Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Partington, Oswald

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Harwood, George

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr.

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hunter Craig.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Question put.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 66, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'not earlier than eight and not later than ten of the clock as the licensing Court may direct.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 67, line 25, to leave out the words 'such hour' and insert 'eight of the clock.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 67, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words 'not earlier than eight and not later than ten of the clock as the licensing Court may direct.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 70, to leave out Schedule 11."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 71, column 1, line 15, to leave out the words '43 and 44 Vict., c. 20,' and insert the words '63 and 64 Vict., c. 28,'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 72, column 3, line 11, at end, to insert the words 'Section two hundred and thirty-seven,' the words 'be intoxicated while on duty, or if,' and the word 'he' where first occurring."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he thought there was a general feeling in the House in favour of taking a Third Reading of the Bill that night, so that it might go to another place in time for its fair consideration.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a third time."
  MR. BLACKsaid he did not suppose that anyone wished to divide upon the Third Reading; but before that was taken he might be permitted to express the feeling on both sides of the House in regard to the great courtesy and skill with which the Lord Advocate had conducted the proceedings both in the Standing Committee and in this House—proceedings which he had enlivened with a fund of anecdote worthy of Dean Ramsey, and a humour which was supposed to be only characteristic of the Sister Isle. He wished to direct attention to the degree in which Scotch opinion had been overridden in the House. In the first place the proposal of the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs to remit the Bill to a Committee consisting of the Scotch Members was rejected. He ventured to say that had that proposal been carried the Bill would not only have been a different but a better Bill than they now had. There were many divisions in which Scotch opinion was wholly on one side, and the Lord Advocate and the English Members on the other side. Nothing could have been more striking than the division which took place after the dinner hour, when the Lord Advocate, with the assistance

  1547
  of English Members, insisted on thrusting down the throats of the Scotch Members a proposal opposed almost unanimously by the Scotch Members. A great blot on the Bill was the continuance of the justices on the licensing authority. That should have been a representative body nominated by the County Council. Another matter of universal condemnation in Scotland was the retention of the Appeal Court. Could anything be more absurd than an appeal from the judgment of gentlemen who knew the whole circumstances to that of gentlemen who knew nothing about them? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that ignorance was the true qualification for a licensing authority. He ventured to say that had the matter been left to the Scotch Members alone the appeal would be swept away. Another blemish in the Bill was the retention of the word "court" instead of "authority," which implied that the constitution of the licensing authority was altered, and that they were not allowed to exercise discretion. That was against not only Scotch opinion but against the opinion of the Prime Minister, expressed on April 8th last. On the whole, however, there was no doubt that the Bill was a great improvement on what had hitherto obtained in Scotland, and he was sure that throughout the length and breadth of Scotland an effort would be made to carry it out in such a way that it might be a real measure of temperance reform.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIGsaid he had been somewhat amused when the Lord Advocate characterised this Bill "as a generous attempt at temperance reform." He entirely dissented from the expression of such an opinion, and he felt certain that the Scotch people would not be at all satisfied with the measure, which might be called a Police Licensing Act, instead of "a generous attempt at temperance reform." They in Scotland who wanted local veto and popular control would never be satisfied until they got them. He believed that the Bill had been promoted in the interests of the Trade. The publicans had been far more considered in framing and carrying out the Bill than the public of Scotland. Although they were very thankful for the measure, so far
  1548
  as it went, it did not at all represent the views of temperance reformers in Scotland.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that they could not regard the Bill as anything whatever in the nature of temperance reform. He knew of nothing in the Bill that would promote temperance more than the existing law. On the other hand, it opened the door to a great deal of abuse. The Bill had one great merit, however—it was a consolidating Bill, and that was a great gain to the community. The constitution of the Licensing Courts would in many cases be materially changed by the Bill. The measure was certainly an advance on the existing state of things, but still in some places it was regarded as of a retrograde character. At the present day, for the granting of licences, magistrates were absolutely imperious, and it was well known that in a great many boroughs the magistrates had sole control of all licences within their jurisdiction. That was taken away from them by this Bill, and they were now mixed up with the county authority. It was, therefore, a disfranchising Bill so far as many boroughs in Scotland were concerned. On that side of the House they had always gone in for popular control of the liquor traffic, and he was sorry to notice that the Bill only conceded that to a certain extent. They were, however, prepared to accept it as the best possible temperance measure they could get from the Tory Party, but the Government must understand that they accepted it only as an instalment of reform and not as a final solution of the problem.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETTprotested against the description which the last speaker had given of the Bill. Those of them who were extreme temperance men were sometimes accused of refusing to accept half a loaf, but he believed that all earnest temperance men in Scotland welcomed the Bill with a great deal of cordiality. As to grocers' vans they undoubtedly now were something like travelling public-houses, and the restrictions imposed by this Bill would go far to check the abuse of their use. He did not think they could fail to be grateful for what the Bill proposed to do in reference to clubs, for he

  1549
  acknowledged that the great bulk of the evil which was being done by these drinking clubs would be prevented in the future by this measure, and if the Bill did no more than that they would have every reason to be thankful for it.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered—
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSmoved to omit, after "the expression 'local authority' means," the following—"In the case of a municipal borough with a population according to the census of 1901 of over 10,000, the Borough Council, and in the case of any other urban district with a population according to the census of 1901 of over 20,000, the District Council, and elsewhere the County Council," in order to insert "the council of any municipal borough or urban district or rural district."
  He said that this Amendment did not in any way affect the principle of the Bill. It affected mainly, and almost wholly, small places and purely rural districts, and he firmly believed that unless it was accepted the Bill would work incalculable harm in the agricultural parts of England. The Amendment did not interfere with the Bill as it affected large towns, and if it were accepted the Bill in that respect would remain unchanged. In the course of his observations, therefore, he would confine himself to its effect on the districts he had named, and he hoped that the House would bear with him while he endeavoured to make clear what evil the Bill would work if this Amendment were not passed. He also hoped that in any discussion that might follow, the condition of things in our large towns would not be debated, because it was not affected by the Amendment. Much depended on the by-laws, and the nature of the by-laws depended on those who had the making of them, and unless great care was taken there would be considerable hardship inflicted on the poorer classes. In the Grand Committee the original form of the Bill was altered, and its administration was placed in the hands of the local authority as defined by the
  1550
  Education Act of last year. It was given into the hands of boroughs with over 10,000 population and of urban districts with over 20,000, while rural districts and smaller boroughs were placed in the hands of the County Councils. This was the first time in the history of legislation—with the exception of the Bill of last year—in which local authorities were not allowed to make by-laws for themselves. This was altogether contrary to the report of the Departmental Committee. The argument in favour of the clause as it stood was founded on the Education Act of last year, though there was no comparison whatever between the two. This was a measure to regulate the labour of children in rural districts, and there could not be a uniform code as the conditions varied so greatly. Under the Bill as it stood the local authorities would have to bear the expense of any inquiry, while they would not have the power to make the by-laws under which the expense would be incurred. The Departmental Committee in their Report said—
  "The main question is rather one of labour than of school attendance and that labour by-laws should be made by the municipal authority."
  Again—
  "Many boroughs, including non-county boroughs, have already the power to make by-laws for good Government under local acts and power to deal with street traders."
  And again—
  "Circumstances and conditions vary so widely in different occupations and different localities that it is impossible to propose a uniform code. Therefore, we recommend that the necessary regulations by by-laws for the occupation of children should be made by local authorities."
  It should be borne in mind that children of fourteen and sixteen years of age did a great deal of work in these places. It could scarcely be called work, perhaps, but it was employment in which they gained a little money, and at the same time it was one in which they delighted. The Report of the Departmental Committee stated that, as far as the health of the children was concerned, the labour seemed to be the least injurious of any of the kinds coming under their notice, for it was all, or nearly all, in the open air, and mostly took place in summertime. Of course, it was necessary that the education of

  1551
  the children should be primarily looked after, but hon. Members must not think that there was no education except that which was got out of books. That was a great mistake. The most valuable training that was to be had was often obtained in the process of these farming occupations. He had received a large number of letters from rural districts upon that question, but he would quote only one from a clergyman which put the point very concisely:—
  "May I put a case to you. I have been a vicar and rector of two country parishes, twenty-three years in Suffolk, and twenty-one in Berkshire. Of most of that time I have taken children out of school hours and had them to work, in the house if girls, and in the garden and stable if boys. Many have thus got a technical education and been started in good places from me. If this Bill passes as it now stands this work will stop. I have a boy, now nearly twelve, who came to me eighteen months ago. He has learnt to clean shoes, knives, etc., to milk, help in stables, even to harnessing a pony, and got some knowledge of poultry-keeping, and growing encumbers and melons in frames, and, in fact, is generally useful, and perfectly healthy. He is always at school, but expect he gets more useful knowledge under me. He began at 1s. weekly, but now earns 3s. Why should he be deprived of this only to spend out-of-school hours in idling about and being a nuisance to the village?"
  Now as to the question of bye-laws. There was great danger, if they were made by a central authority, that they would not be favourable to the occupations with which he was dealing. The object of his Amendment then was to put the administration of the Act under municipal boroughs, under urban districts, and under rural district councils. This would cover every inch of the county, and secure that the administration of each district should be by those who knew most about the district, and had its interests most at heart. It was in accordance with all precedents that the power of making by-laws under an Act of Parliament should be given to those responsible for the good government of the districts to which they referred. He would like to read a few of above a hundred boroughs which would be affected by the Amendment:—Yeovil, Hertford, Buckingham, Shaftesbury, Mon mouth, Bodmin, Launceston, Tavistock, etc. All these places were to be put under the County Councils, and hon. Members well knew what jealous rivalry there already was between these bodies. On
  1552
  what ground was it possible to justify the dispossession of these local authorities which for ages had carried on the work. Many of the urban districts were boroughs under another name. They were endowed with powers almost equal to municipal powers, and they had with in their areas great diversities of occupations. Why should they not be entrusted with the administration of this Bill? The County Councils did not want the work, indeed they would rather be without it, because they realised the difficulties which would be set up if they attempted to impose by-laws on these self-governing communities. He would like to read one very strong protest which he had read in the Press—
  "I hear that a strong recommendation has been sent to the Home Secretary on behalf of the Rural non-County and Urban District Councils in favour of Mr. Collings' Amendment for including these bodies as administrative authorities under The Employment of Children Bill. They contend that to pass them by in this matter is to impose something like an insult upon them after their historic experience of administration. They submit also that the County Councils who are to administer rural districts are entirely unfitted for the purpose, since they cannot be properly acquainted with local circumstances."
  In the evidence given before the Departmental Committee they would find the hon. Member for Tavistock said he was in favour of Rural District Councils having this jurisdiction, and another witness said he did not believe the borough to which he referred would ever consent to take by-laws from the County Council. He believed there would be perpetual friction in the administration of the Bill unless his Amendment was accepted. Take Devon as an example of how the localities would be affected by this Bill. There were in it twenty-four urban districts—some agricultural and some watering-places, besides seven rural districts, containing about 400 parishes principally occupied in agriculture. How was it possible for the County Council to know what was best for such an infinite variety of requirements as existed in that county? Whatever the use of those regulations might be in large towns, he contended that they were absolutely unnecessary, even foolish, when applied to villages and country places. Hon. Members talked about trading at night; but the children in country districts were in bed

  1553
  at eight o'clock. If any by-laws were to apply, his contention was that they should be made by the authority which knew the conditions under which local occupations were carried on. There was one clause which said that no child under the age of fourteen—
  MR. TENNANTsaid he wished to ask if the right hon. Gentleman was entitled in his Amendment to discuss all the clauses in the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the subject of his Amendment, which is simply what should be the authority. Some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman appear to me to be irrelevant to the Amendment.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he was endeavouring to explain that the requirements were such as could not be administered by a central authority, but by the authority for the locality where the occupations were carried on. For instance, it was proposed that no child under fourteen should begin work before 6 a.m., but that the local authority should have power to alter that. At harvest time or at fruit-picking, say in Devonshire, a farmer would have to send to Exeter to get the by-law temporarily altered, in order to meet the requirements of the locality. The fact was that unless the Amendment was accepted it would make the employment of children in such districts almost impossible, because it had to be considered in connection with the severe penalties that might be imposed; and he ventured to state that in the face of such penalties there would be no child employment at all. The Report of the Committee was all in favour of the principle of the Amendment. Not only that, but there was the discredit that would otherwise be brought on the local authorities, of whom they prided, and rightly prided, themselves. He would give another reason. If the Amendment were not accepted, then other Acts, such as the Cruelty to Children Act, which was now administered by the three authorities named in the Amendment, would be taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of
  1554
  the County Council. In his opinion, unless the Amendment were accepted, discredit would be cast on the local authorities. He did not know what county Members would think when the local authorities were deprived of the rights and privileges they had exercised almost from time immemorial. He hoped his right hon. friend in charge of the Bill would exercise some consideration. There were many hon. Members on both sides of the House who saw the difficulties that would arise if the clause remained as it was. In his opinion, the Bill would create evil, and the only way to reduce it to a minimum in the country districts was to place the administration of the Act in the hands of the authorities who knew the requirements of the people for whose good government they were responsible. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 11, to leave out from the word 'means,' to the end of line 17, and insert the words 'the council of any municipal borough, or urban district, or rural district.'"—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in case of' stand part of the Bill.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,)said he hoped he might be allowed to reply to the speech of his right hon. friend in the hope of getting the Bill through. He was sure that everyone sympathised with his right hon. friend in his anxiety to safeguard the interests of the rural population, in which he took so much interest; but on this occasion he thought his right hon. friend had been led a little too far. What was the history of the Amendment introduced upstairs? His right hon. friend must remember the Bill, as it was originally drafted in 1901, when his right hon. friend was more or less responsible.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he was not responsible?
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid he was sorry his right hon. friend had so far neglected his duty. The Bill was drafted in 1901 and the authorities then introduced were all the Borough and County Councils. Then the Education Act was passed; and it became

  1555
  apparent that it was in every way desirable not to have conflicting authorities; and a very slight modification of the original proposal met the unanimous view of the Committee upstairs.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he protested against the alteration at the time.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid it was agreed to delay the discussion until the definition clause, but his right hon. friend's enthusiasm was so faint that he did not submit his Amendment when the definition clause was reached. He did not desire to say anything of an argumentative nature. The Committee adopted the words of the Education Act which somewhat reduced the number of Borough Councils by imposing a limit of 10,000 population. As introduced, the Bill conferred powers on sixty-three County Councils, and 319 Borough Councils. The Committee cut out 110 Borough Councils and added sixty-two Urban District Councils of over 20,000 population, That was undoubtedly a very great improvement. If they were to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. friend they would have to add over 700 Urban District Councils and 661 Rural District Councils, each of which would have the power to make by-laws which should have to be referred to the Home Secretary for his approval. He would ask his right hon. friend really to consider what would be the effect on the Home Office. There might be as many as 1,792 different sets of by-laws throughout the country; and what chaos would not that occasion. He would appeal to his right hon. friend not to press the matter further. He hoped he had sufficiently placed the arguments before the House, and that they would now be able to get on with the Bill.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he did not think that the Under Secretary had by attacking his right hon. friend [Mr. COCHRANE dissented] in any way assisted the passing of the Bill, because undoubtedly his right hon. friend had taken a great interest in the matter and was fully alive to its importance. There was a strong feeling, at any rate in the West of England, that the Government were attempting to crush out the
  1556
  smaller municipalities. He was as anxious as the Under Secretary to see the Bill pass, but if the hon. Gentleman had accepted an Amendment to enable the County Councils to delegate their authority to smaller country authorities and to boroughs this Amendment would not have been moved. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted that the original Bill did include municipal boroughs, which showed that the Government of that day, with the benefit of the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division, recognised that these small municipalities ought to be treated as living entities who would look after the interests of their own people. All that was now changed. They had passed the Education Act, and they were asked to take that as an admirable authority. But he did not think they ought to copy that Act as regarded local areas and local authorities. But would the education authority use their officers to put this Act into force. It would be an extraordinary thing if the officers of the education authority were to be called in to put in force these by-laws. The Home Office already had to consider by-laws for various matters, and he believed the County Councils would much prefer that the small municipalities and Urban and Rural District Councils should themselves have the power of making these by-laws. If the County Councils had to make them it would lead to much trouble and friction, as the Act would certainly not work smoothly if municipalities were to have forced upon them by-laws which they had had no hand in making. There could be no danger in allowing these local bodies to frame their own by-laws, because no by-law could come into force until the Home Office had approved of it. Moreover, England was treated unfairly in this matter as compared with Scotland. Every small School Board in Scotland was to be entrusted with a power that was denied to municipalities in England, as also were boroughs of 7,000 inhabitants. If for no other reason than that he would support the Amendment.
  MR. BROADHURSTappealed to the House to come to a decision on the Amendment, the principle of which had been debated at considerable length in the Committee upstairs. He was in favour in the abstract of giving every

  1557
  Council the power to make these by-laws, as he was no believer in the justice at all times of large majorities. Large numbers were as often in the wrong as small minorities, and small Councils, in his opinion, were as capable as large Councils. But unless more rapid progress were made, the passage of the Bill would be endangered. He wished
  the Urban and District Councils to have this power, but rather than insist on that and lose the Bill he would take the measure as it stood.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, (Division List No. 187.)

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Anstruher, H. T.

  Garfit, William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Asher, Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gretton, John

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Partington, Oswald

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Black, Alexander William

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x

  Purvis, Robert

  Brigg, John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Randles, John S.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Butcher, John George

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Caldwell, James

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Caverndish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rose, Charles Day

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Joyce, Michael

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Knowles, Lees

  Runciman, Walter

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Russell, T. W.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Denny, Colonel

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowe, Francis William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Edwards, Frank

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Arthur, Charles, (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Tennant, Harold John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Toulmin, George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Rigg, Richard

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Lambert, George

  Spear, John Ward

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Bond, Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Chapman, Edward

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Norman, Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flower, Ernest

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Jesse Collings and

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Sir Edward Strachey.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Resolution agreed to.

  MR. ALBAN GIBBSsaid the Amendment he desired to move provided that the City of London should retain powers which it already possessed under enactments to be repealed by this Bill. He believed it was purely by accident the provision had been omitted, and without detaining the House he would simply move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 11, at end, to insert the words, 'the City of London, the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of that City in Common Council assembled, in the case of.'"—(Mr. Alban Gibbs.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  And, it being Midnight, further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday.

  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION (EXPENSES.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of land for the further Extension of the Patent Office,
  1560
  and for purposes connected therewith.—(Mr. Elliot.)
  Resolution to be reported this day.

  MILITARY WORKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND.)
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to make further provisions for defraying the expenses of certain Military Works and other Military Services, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding £5,000,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to make provision for raising, in the manner provided by Section 2 of The Military Works Act, 1897, the sums so issued by terminable annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years from the date of borrowing."
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Brodrick, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Stanley.

  MILITARY WORKS BILL.
  "To make further provision for defraying the Expenses of certain Military Works and other Military Services," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]

  TRADE MARKS (COTTON WARES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.