Sitting of 10 August 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill; Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill. Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [9th August] as relates to the Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill be now considered.— (The Deputy-Chairman.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On the second paragraph may I take it that it will be understood that this is not to be a permanent Standing Order of the House, but simply an Order to take this Bill over from this session to next session?
MR. SPEAKER: I think that is the inevitable consequence of the terms of the Motion. It is to carry over a particular Bill from one session to the next.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I only desire to make that clear.
Ordered, That the Promoters of the Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill, which has been introduced into this House in the present session of Parliament and which has passed this House and been sent to the House of Lords, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Six o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present session.
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Six o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last st ge of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session.
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages.
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present session.—(The Deputy-Chairman.)
Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—(The Deputy-Chairman.)
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ayr Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Beckenham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Bromley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899, the Mechandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1894, and other Acts for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (EAST INDIA, CHINA, AND AUSTRALIA MAILS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 328.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
  Copy presented, of Return of Advances under the Act during the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 329.]
  CONVENT NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th June; Mr. Sloan]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898
  Copy presented, of Regulation made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department respecting the photographing of Inmates of Certified Inebriate Reformatories [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 330.]
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, during the Session of 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th May; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 331.]
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th May; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 332.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3251 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Charitable Endowments (London). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 333.]
  Charitable Endowments (London). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 334.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 335.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 336.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 337.]
  Inquiry into Charities (Administative County of Durham), Inquiry into Charities (Gateshead County Borough), Inquiry into Charities (Sunderland County Borough). Further Return and Returns relative thereto, Vol. I. [ordered 14th February, 1900, and 9th February, 1904; Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 338.]
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham), Inquiry into Charities (Gateshead County Borough), Inquiry into Charities (Sunderland County Borough). Further Return and Returns relative thereto, Vol. II. [ordered 14th February, 1900, and 9th February, 1904; Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Griffith Boscawen; to be printed. [No. 339.]

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY BOROUGH OF OLDHAM).
  Return ordered, "comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an inquiry held in the county borough of Oldham into endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that county borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; and (2) a Digest showing whether any, and, if any, what such endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the county borough; and (3) an Index alphabetically arranged of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
  POLITICAL OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  Return ordered, "of names of all Pensioners under the Political Officers' Pensions Act, 1869, with the amount of each pension, together with the date from which, and the services for which, it was granted; and the total amount paid in respect of each pension to each pensioner up to the 31st day of March, 1904."—(Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence.)
  PRISONS OFFICERS (ACCOMMODATION).
  Address for "Return of the number of Prison Officers and Staff of all ranks in the several prisons in England and Wales, and of the extent to which provision of quarters for the occupation of such Officers is at present made by His Majesty's Government at or in connection with each of the said prisons."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Small Motor-propelled Vessels for the Navy.
  MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the proofs recently afforded of the trustworthiness, speed, simplicity, and comparatively low cost of small vessels propelled by petrol motors, he will consider the advisability of testing this class of vessel in His Majesty's Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The recent trials have been closely watched by representatives of the Admiralty, and practice tests will shortly be made with motor pinnaces.

  Graduated Income-Tax in Foreign Countries.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office will present to this House a statement showing which foreign countries have established systems of graduated income-tax, or of income-tax levied at different rates on earned and on unearned incomes, or both, with particulars in each case of the rates of tax and the system of assessment and collection.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Secretary of State will endeavour to obtain the desired information with a view to its presentation.

  Naval Works at Dover—Expenditure.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total
  8
  expenditure on the naval works at Dover up to the present date; whether it is still expected that they will be completed in three years; and what is the present estimate of the expenditure in the next financial year and the year after, as compared with that of £335,174 in the present financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman)—

  Expenditure to 31st March, 1903

  £1,470,826;

  Estimated expenditure to August, 1904

  622,878

  Total

  2,093,704

  The expenditure for the two years. 1905–1906 and 1906–1907 is estimated at about £800,000, or about £400,000 average for each year as compared with £335,174. The contract date of completion is 1907–1908, or three years from end of present financial year 1904–1905, by which date it is anticipated the works, will be practically completed.

  London and North Western Railway and Holyhead.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Government are at the present time negotiating with the London and North Western Railway Company, with a view of extending the existing accommodation of the company in the Holyhead Harbour, he will take measures to safeguard the interests of the town of Holyhead against any encroachment of the rights now enjoyed by the inhabitants; whether he will state what progress has been made with such negotiations; and when they are likely to be complete.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The hon. Member will no doubt recollect that in answer to a Question he put on 21st February, 1901,† I informed him that the negotiations with the London and North Western had been abandoned. The Board of Trade have not resumed negotiations with the company for an extension of their accommodation in Holyhead Harbour.
  † See (4) Debates, lxxxix., 686.

  Draft Regulations for Loading, Unloading, and Discharging Ships.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the draft Home Office regulations in connection with the loading, unloading, and discharging ships as advertised differ substantially from the draft regulations finally submitted to the Commission; and, if so, whether, having regard to the nature of the proposals and to the fact that the public at large, particularly shipowners, are not acquainted with the new proposals, he will agree not to enforce the regulations until Members have had the opportunity of considering them and, if necessary, debating them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I think my hon. friend is under some misapprehension as to what has happened in connection with the inquiry which has been held in regard to the draft regulations for docks. The facts are as follows: At the close of the Home Office case it was suggested by the counsel representing the great majority of the objectors to the regulations that the inquiry would probably be shortened if, before the case for the objectors was opened, a conference were to take place between them and the Home Office for the purpose of discussing the points at issue. This suggestion was agreed to on behalf of the Home Office, and several conferences were held, with the result that a settlement was finally arrived at with the majority of the objectors on practically all points. This settlement was embodied in a print which was handed to the Commissioner and also to those of the objectors who had declined to take part in the conference. The latter, however, after consideration, declined to accept the settlement, and accordingly laid their case in full before the Commissioner. The Commissioner has now the whole matter under consideration, and will, I understand, shortly present his Report. It will be seen that before I proceed on that Report to make the regulations all parties will have been fully heard; and, as I stated in reply to
  10
  a Question on the same subject the other day,† I do not propose to postpone the date when the regulations will come into operation.

  Cultivation of Chicory in Great Britain— Adjustment of Excise and Customs Duties.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the recent Report made to the Board of Agriculture on the cultivation and drying of chicory in Great Britain and Belgium, showing that chicory, at one time largely grown in this country, especially in the districts adjoining the city of York, has almost ceased to be grown, and that tins result is largely due to the incidence of the Excise duty on home-grown chicory as compared with the Customs duty on the foreign-grown article, constituting a disadvantage estimated at 28s. 4d. per ton; and whether he will take steps so to re-adjust the Excise and Customs duties on chicory as to place homegrown chicory in at least as good a position as the foreign-grown product.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) My attention has been directed to the Report referred to by the hon. Member. It is quite true that home-grown chicory is at a disadvantage as compared with imported chicory, owing to the incidence, of the existing Excise duty. But any alteration in the rates of duty would require legislation, which I am not prepared to introduce at this period of the session.

  Income-Tax Collection—Proposed Division of Districts.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that a communication was addressed recently to surveyors of taxes suggesting the division of all districts where the collectors of income-tax cannot complete their collections before 30th April instead of 30th June as formerly, he will say whether such communication was issued with his sanction; and whether, in view of the fact that the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 527

  11
  earlier closing of such accounts would involve increased pressure and the making of a number of distraints, he will consider the advisability of postponing any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No such communication has been addressed to surveyors of taxes.

  The Unfunded Debt.
  MR. BRIGHT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of the Unfunded Debt; of what issues does it consist; and whether he proposes, when the money market is favourable, to fund any portion of this debt.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The present amount of the Unfunded Debt is £82,183,000, consisting of:—

  £

  War Stock and Bonds

  30,000,000

  Exchequer Bonds

  20,500,000

  Treasury Bills (for Supply)

  21,133,000

  Treasury Bills for Ways and Means (repayable within the financial year)

  8,000,000

  Temporary Advances on the credit of Ways and Means

  2,550,000

  £82,183,000

  There is no present intention of funding any portion of this debt, but the favourable conditions which the hon. Member's Question presupposes do not now exist.

  Alleged Looting by Tibet Expeditionary Force.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the fact that bales of loot, images of Buddha, and other objects, ostensibly pillaged from the monasteries of Tibet, have arrived at
  12
  Darjeeling; and whether he will give strict injunctions to prevent any pillage of the monasteries and libraries of Lhasa by the expeditionary forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have received no information as to the arrival at Darjeeling of objects ostensibly pillaged from the monasteries of Tibet. The Government of India are fully aware of the necessity of preventing pillage, and are taking all necessary steps.

  Cost of Tibet Expedition.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India what is the total cost of the Tibet Expedition up to the date of the latest available accounts; and what is the estimate of the further expenditure likely to be incurred in connection with it after that that date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have nothing to add to the statement I made on the 28th July.† The total estimated cost of the Mission to 31st March last was £308,500; and the cost since then is estimated at a little over £50,000 a month.

  Expulsion of the Bara Thakar of Hill Tipperah from Agartola.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Bara Thakar, of Hill Tipperah, who was expelled from Agartola last month with his family immediately after having instituted a suit in a British Court of law for the declaration of his rights in respect of the Zemindary Chukla Roshnabad and other properties; and, if so, will he explain why this expulsion has been permitted, seeing that the suit of the Bara Thakar is prejudiced by his enforced absence, and that his efforts to obtain evidence may be rendered difficult by its appearing that the Government of India is against him.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxviii, 1464

  13
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have received no information as to the alleged expulsion of the Bara Thakar, of Hill Tipperah, from Agartola. I will communicate with the Government of India on the subject.

  Petition of Mr. Bruce Reynolds Wilson.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received the petition of Mr. Bruce Reynolds Wilson, of Sudder House, Amballa Cant., Punjaub, India; whether the Papers referred to will be laid upon the Table of the House; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the alleged grievances of that petitioner, or at any rate to have an adequate inquiry made into them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have not received the petition referred to.

  Head Constable Kirwan, of Newry.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Head Constable Kirwan, of Newry, has a house rented next door to the police barracks in which he keeps lodgers; and will he say if this is in accordance with police regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The regulations do not deal with this matter, which, however, will receive consideration.

  Procedure for the Promotion of Colonels.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Promotion Board in 1899 recommended officers of the rank of colonel for promotion, from one selected list; and whether officers on this list, who held commands at home during the South African War but who lost promotion owing to Mr. Stanhope's proposal
  14
  not being carried out, will have their claims considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The procedure of the Promotion Board has always been to scrutinise the list of full colonels and to recommend selected names for advancement to the rank of major-general, but the list of selected names was always subject to revision from time to time by the Board. The functions of the old Promotion Board are now to be merged into those of the new Selection Board. It must be pointed out that officers who are now on the retired list can no longer be considered.

  Patterson Equipment for Carrying Rifle for British Cavalry.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the cavalry in India (Native) have been provided with the Patterson equipment for carrying the rifle, he will explain why the Patterson method has not been adopted at home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Patterson equipment has been, and still is, under trial at home.

  Volunteer Training—Recruits and Trained Men.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Volunteer battalions who were trained in the Field Army for a fortnight during the season 1903, can he state what proportion of the Volunteers, exclusive of officers and non-commissioned officers, were respectively recruits, trained men returned efficient once, and trained men returned efficient more than once.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster). The statistics available do not show the exact figures required by the hon. Member's Question, but the attached table, showing the number of enrolled members (including officers and non-commissioned officers) in their first, second, and later years of service of those battalions which formed part of the Field Army during the training period of 1903 and trained for a fortnight, will give

  15
  information of a kindred nature which it is hoped will be sufficient—

  1st Year.

  2nd Year.

  3rd and subsequent years.

  Total.

  Southern District—

  1st V.B. Hampshire Regiment

  319

  204

  984

  1,507

  Home District—

  12th Middlesex V.R.C.

  91

  61

  663

  815

  16th Middlesex V.R.C.

  88

  68

  778

  934

  2nd London V.R.C.

  146

  125

  761

  1,032

  2nd V.B. Middlesex Regiment

  120

  35

  634

  789

  1st V.B. Royal Fusiliers

  131

  143

  717

  991

  3rd V.B. Royal Fusiliers

  89

  111

  701

  901

  4th V.B. Royal West Surrey Regiment

  258

  76

  737

  1,071

  North-Western District—

  1st V.B. Manchester Regiment

  186

  127

  833

  1,146

  2nd V.B. Manchester Regiment

  206

  241

  907

  1,354

  4th V.B. Manchester Regiment

  204

  151

  967

  1,322

  5th V.B. Manchester Regiment

  105

  121

  677

  903

  1st V.B. South Lancashire Regiment

  254

  153

  576

  983

  2nd V.B. Cheshire Regiment

  203

  191

  612

  1,006

  1st V.B. Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  310

  226

  709

  1,245

  1st Hereford V.R.C.

  301

  127

  695

  1,123

  Scottish District—

  Queen's Rifle Volunteer Brigade*

  386

  301

  1,474

  2,161

  4th V.B. Royal Scots

  259

  97

  552

  908

  5th V.B. Royal Scots

  177

  140

  836

  1,153

  1st Roxburgh and Selkirk V.R.C.

  140

  166

  616

  922

  1st V.B. Highland Light Infantry.

  161

  105

  799

  1,065

  3rd V.B. Highland Light Infantry.

  193

  78

  754

  1,025

  1st V.B. Gordon Highlanders.

  302

  80

  554

  936

  1st V.B. Royal Highlanders.

  173

  209

  527

  909

  9th V.B. Royal Scots

  121

  88

  507

  716

  2nd V.B. Royal Scots Fusiliers

  201

  106

  534

  841

  Graduated Income-Tax—Systems in the Colonies.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will present to this House a statement showing which of the Colonies have established systems of graduated income-tax, or of income-tax levied at different rates on earned and on unearned incomes, or both, with particulars in each case of the rates of tax and the system of assessment and collection.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) If the hon. Member will move for a Return, in the form that the Treasury or
  *Figures for 1st Battalion, Queen's Rifle Volunteer Brigade, which alone forms part of the Field Army, cannot be given separately.
  Volunteer Battalions forming part of the Field Army, 1903
  the Inland Revenue think most convenient, I shall be willing to address a Circular to the Colonies on the subject so as to make the information as complete and as accurate as possible.

  Petition of Church of England Council in Natal.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a petition from the Church Council of the Church of England in the Diocese of Natal to His Majesty the King, praying His Majesty to cause an inquiry to be made into the grievances under which the Church of England body in that Colony are alleged to be suffering, as therein set forth; and

  17
  whether Papers on the subject, comprising such reply as His Majesty may be advised to give the petitioners, can be laid upon the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Such a petition has reached my Department, but I am not yet in a position to tender any advice to His Majesty on the subject, and cannot at present say whether it would, in my opinion, be advantageous to lay Papers on the Table.

  Officers of 4th Division of 2nd Army Corps—Double Issue of Pay.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the last Report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which it is stated that officers were appointed to the 4th Division of the Second Army Corps in October, 1902, although their predecessors did not complete their period of command till the 31st January, 1903, so that there was a double issue of pay and allowances between those dates; and that, when the Treasury refused to sanction this arrangement as contrary to the Pay Warrant, the then Secretary of State for War announced his intention of charging the staff pay of these officers against the moneys placed at his disposal for expenditure not covered by regulation; and whether, having regard to the opinion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, concurred in by the Committee, as to the character of this payment, steps can be taken to prevent similar use of public funds in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) This matter has been fully considered by the Public Accounts Committee. The circumstances were, undoubtedly, of an exceptional character, but the Treasury have received an assurance from the Army Council that the small fund (£5,000 a year) placed, on the recommendation of the Dawkins Committee, at the discretionary disposal of the Secretary of State, will not, in future, be used to pay any charge to which the Treasury have refused assent.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Works.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the
  18
  Admiralty whether he can give an approximate estimate of the cost of the naval works at Chatham, Rosyth, and the Coastguard stations?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR): I cannot add anything to the statement made last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the cost of the works at Chatham, Rosyth, and Coastguard stations.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: How much is to be spent on the Chatham Dockyard extension?
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I think the figure was put at £4,500,000. The preliminary work at Rosyth has just been concluded, but the detailed plans relating to the works mentioned have not been finally approved.

  Reduction of the Militia.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is definitely decided that certain battalions of Militia must be disbanded; and, if so, whether he can promise an early statement on the subject, for the benefit of officers now serving and gentlemen hoping to serve as officers in them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The detailed steps by which those portions of the Militia which are clearly unavailable for purposes of war will be reduced have not yet been decided. But I shall endeavour to give as early notice as possible to the units affected in any way by the proposed changes.

  Furloughs for Troops in India.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the expedient of granting long furlough to troops quartered in India, with a view to rendering long service there more popular, has been considered and rejected.
  MR. ARNOLD- FORSTER: The King's Regulations already provide for the grant of furloughs to troops quartered in India under certain conditions, but I

  19
  am aware that the question of granting longer and more general furloughs has engaged much attention. I believe if it be found necessary to retain men in India for very long periods it would be well worth while to consider the question raised by my hon. friend, but my hope is that the soldiers' term of service in India will be curtailed rather than extended.

  Ex-Lieutenant Witton's Release.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the intention of His Majesty's Government in respect of the convict Witton.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to order that Witton be released.

  Army Recruitment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the new system of recruitment for two or nine years will come into force; and if recruiting for other periods of service for the Line will cease.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not prepared at the present moment to fix a precise date for the commencement of the new system of recruiting. As soon as the new system comes into force the present period of three years service for the Line will cease.
  MR. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider himself at liberty to introduce this scheme before it receives the approval of Parliament?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Legislative sanction is not necessary.

  Chinese Coolies for the Transvaal.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many Chinese coolies have so far landed in South Africa; how many are now on their way; and how many women and children have accompanied them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I understand that 2,976 Chinese labourers have arrived in South Africa and 1,988 are on their way. Wives and families have not accompanied their husbands on the first voyage, but the names of a considerable number have been registered under the Ordinance.

  Treatment of Remanded Female Prisoners at Holloway.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now convey to the House the full report (including that of the medical officer) of the authorities concerned in the case of the women Hudson and Pratt whilst under remand in Holloway Prison.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The Rule applicable to cases of this nature is as follows:—"A prisoner awaiting trial shall not be compelled to have his hair cut except on account of vermin or dirt, or when the medical officer deems it necessary on the ground of health and cleanliness, and the hair of the prisoner shall not be cut closer than may be necessary for the purpose of health and cleanliness." I have called for special reports on the particular case and find that the deputy medical officer saw the women on their reception, and had his attention called by the reception warders to the state of their hair. He found that the hair contained vermin and their ova, and decided that it could only be satisfactorily treated by cutting. He therefore ordered them to be put for the night in isolation cells provided for such cases, and gave written directions that their hair should be cut. This was done next day by a hospital warder. It appears to me that the action of the prison officials in this case was correct. I would only add that I am decidedly of opinion that remand prisoners should not be subjected to any treatment likely to be taken as a special indignity which is not strictly called for by the circumstances of the case; and I will take care that, as in this instance, the medical officer's

  21
  authority shall always be obtained before such prisoners are required to have their hair cut.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the hair of these women was cut after the medical officer had seen it? because my information is absolutely contrary to that.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have made careful inquiry on that point, and I am told this was not done at the instigation of the warders, but after the medical officer had seen the women and satisfied himself of the necessity of the course.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether these two women were told, when they took their bath, not to wash their heads?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: From the evidence I have offered, I do not think washing would have been a sufficient remedy.

  St. Katherine's Hospital, Regent's Park.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, whether any, and, if any, what reforms have been made in the application and administration of the endowments of St. Katherine's Hospital in the Regent's Park, or whether what the Charity Commissioner in 1893 in this House described as a scandal, still exists; whether £6,402 is annually expended upon salaries and management; £561 upon education; and £190 upon gifts; whether the master still receives a salary of £1,200; how many sermons he preaches during the year; and what are the other duties connected with his office; whether there are three brothers and three sisters, each of them receiving £300 per annum, besides being provided with a residence; what are the duties performed by the brothers and sisters; how many inquiries have at different times been instituted into this endowment, and what changes have resulted from such inquiries; and whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House a copy of the reforms which Mr. Skirrow, on behalf of the Charity Commissioners, proposed several years ago, and also a
  22
  statement of the income and expenditure of the hospital during the year ended 31st December last.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I have nothing to add to the very full statement I made in the House on discussion of the Estimates, 27th May, 1902.† If the hon. Member, however, desires to have the figures for 1903, they are open to his inspection at the office of the Charity Commission. But I may say at once that the amount expended on management, including salaries of chapter clerk and surveyor, repairs, and outgoings, is not £6,402 but £2,683. As the hon. Member is aware, the charity is administered under regulations made by the late Lord Chancellor Cairns, acting as visitor under warrant from Her late Majesty as patron, and the Charity Commissioners have no power to modify them.
  MR. CREMER: When did the reduction in the expenditure take place? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures contained in my statement were given me by the Charity Commissioners as showing the amount actually expended on salaries and management?
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I cannot say what figures were given to the hon. Member on a former occasion. I only know that the figures in his Question are not the correct figures for the present time, and that in my Answer I have given the correct ones.

  Ross-shire Fishers' Petitions.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what action the Fishery Board for Scotland propose to take in regard to the petitions which they have received from the districts of Applecross, Plockton, Ardneaskan, Kishorn, and Lochcarron, Ross-shire, relative to daylight fishing and the use of messenger ropes.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The petitions in questions are receiving the consideration of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and are being made the subject of investigation.
  † See (4) Debates, cviii., 720.

  Term of Office of Sir Antony MacDonnell in Ireland.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India at what date Sir Antony MacDonnell's term of office in Ireland expires.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): No definite period was fixed for the employment of Sir Antony MacDonnell under the Irish Government. From the point of view of the India Office, all that I can say is that it is unusual for a member of the Council of India to be absent for any prolonged period, and we shall be glad to have the advantage of his presence as soon as his services, which my right hon. friend highly values in Ireland, can be dispensed with.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Does Sir Antony MacDonnell in the meantime draw salary which is charged on the revenues of India.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; he draws no salary from India as long as he is Under-Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: Am I to understand that Sir Antony MacDonnell's services are to be indefinitely transferred from India to Ireland?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, not indefinitely, but no definite period was fixed, and, so far as the India Office is concerned, his services will be valuable to India as soon as they can be dispensed with by my right hon. friend.
  MR. SLOAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Chief secretary with a view to relieving Sir Antony MacDonnell of his position in Ireland?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if Sir Antony MacDonnell has recommended to the Estates Commissioners for employment Mr. M'Swiney;
  24
  and, if so, will he state what experience he has had of practical agricultural work.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No, Sir.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Arising out of that Answer, may I ask if Mr. M'Swiney is a relative of Sir Antony?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not see how that arises out of the Answer.

  Milford (Armagh) Disturbances.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, the 24th July, Catholics were insulted and assaulted in the vicinity of Milford, Armagh; and that complaint was made especially to two constables (Beattie and Kemp) of Ogle Street, Armagh, who declined to interfere; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made and the assailants to be prosecuted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member does not appear to have seen the reply given by me on Thursday last to the Question by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford.† I am informed that the two constables state that no complaints were made to them of the character referred to.

  Irish National School Teacher, Roll No. 11,035, Circuit 18, Section A.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the salary of national teacher of School, Roll No. 11,035, Circuit 18, Section A, has not been paid for quarter ended 31st March, 1904, seeing the Rules 200, Section (e), Sub-section (1), and 212, Sections (b) and (c), have been fulfilled; and, as there is no mention made of quarterly average, will he say why annual averages are not obtained in this case as in others.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The average attendance for the March quarter was only 8·5. The case has been dealt with in accordance with the invariable practice under Rule 212 (a).
  † See(4) Debates, cxxxix., 955

  Newry Police Force.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why of the thirty-five members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Newry, only nine are Protestants, the remainder being Roman Catholics; whether he is aware that the only Protestant acting sergeant who was stationed in Newry has been transferred; and that an understanding was some time ago arrived at that where a Roman Catholic was in charge of one station a Protestant would be put in charge of the other; and, if so, will he direct that this shall be carried into effect.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are thirty-seven members of the force at Newry, of whom eleven are Protestants. The acting sergeant referred to was transferred on temporary duty. The Inspector-General arranged some time ago that on the occurrence of a vacancy in one of the two head constableships it would be filled by the appointment of a Protestant sergeant. No vacancy has yet arisen.

  Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1903—Administration of Section 7.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the fact that the Estates Commissioners have been impeded in the administration of Section 7 of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1903, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure the satisfactory working of this section.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I stated on the 18th July, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for South Meath,† that the Commissioners were considering what further steps, if any, they are empowered to take under the circumstances brought to notice. The Commissioners are at present consulting counsel as to the construction of Section 7.

  Evicted Tenants in County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 274.
  26
  state or give a Return of the number and names of evicted tenants in county Cavan, and further the number of these tenants who have up to the first day of June last made application to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in their former holdings; and what steps are being taken with that object; also the titles of the estates with which these applications are concerned.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number and names of evicted tenants are not officially recorded. One hundred and thirty-two such tenants in county Cavan have applied for reinstatement and their applications will be duly considered. So far, no opportunity has arisen for reinstating any of them. The names of these tenants, and the titles of the estates from which they have been evicted, will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Land Purchase in County Cavan—Rev. Mr. Slator's Estate.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any application for the sale of the estate of the Rev. Mr. Slator, in the union and county of Cavan; and, if so, are they endeavouring to negotiate for the reinstatement of John M'Nally, whose farm is now in the bailiffs' hands, in connection with this application.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application for the sale of the estate has been made. The evicted tenant's application has been received and will be considered.

  Decisions of Sub-Land Commissioners at Limerick and Tipperary.
  MR. BOLAND: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Limerick, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Sub-Land Commissioners sat lately in Limerick and Tipperary, and gave judgments as to the fixing of fair rents, but as yet no publication of those fixtures have appeared; and, if so, will he see that the usual publication of the decisions shall be given as soon as possible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The decisions of the Assistant Commissioners have been

  27
  notified to the parties, and lists of the decisions were sent down to be placarded on the Court-house at which the cases were heard.

  Evicted Tenants in Limerick—Case of Mrs. Anne Hartigan.
  MR. BOLAND: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Limerick, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received from Mrs. Anne Hartigan, of Clorane Croom, county Limerick, any application for reinstatement to the farm from which her deceased husband, the late Timothy Hartigan, was evicted, being part of the lands of Ballynanty Bruff, county Limerick, owned by Mr. J. C. Wilmot Smith, the Hall, Boroughbridge, Yorkshire; and can he say who manages this farm for the landlord; and is he able to hold forth to Mrs. Hartigan any hope of restoration to this farm in the near future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Applications for reinstatement on this holding have been received from the widow and son of the evicted tenant. Both applications will be considered. The farm is managed by Mr. White, of Limerick.

  Tralee and Dingle Railway.
  MR. DELANY: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a satisfactory agreement between the Irish Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, with reference to the proposed transfer of the Tralee and Dingle Railway to that company, has yet been arrived at; and, if not, what further action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No satisfactory agreement has yet been arrived at. There is a difference of opinion between the Advisory Engineers of the Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company as to the probable cost of working the line. These differences are, I think, capable of settlement, and I will direct my attention to the matter during the recess. Should it be found impossible to arrange for this transfer by, say, December, I shall adopt an alterna-
  28
  tive plan for effecting the same object and place the necessary sum on the Development Grant Estimate.

  Irish Education Return.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to the Salaries and Appointments of Assistant Teachers in Ireland, standing on to-day's Notice Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Return is in preparation and will be communicated to the hon. Member when completed.
  Appended is the form of Return to which the Question relates:—
  Education (Ireland) (Commissioners' Orders).—Return showing (1) number of Orders made by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, between the 1st day of April, 1900, and the 1st day of April, 1904, cancelling the Salaries of Assistant Teachers in National Schools owing to the average attendance being under sixty; (2) and number of such appointments that would not have been cancelled if the average attendance for an Assistant were recognised at fifty instead of sixty; (3) also, up to what date and for what period previously was an average attendance of fifty accepted by the Commissioners as sufficient to qualify a School for the services of an Assistant.

  Dublin Natural History Museum Staff.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what decision has been come to with reference to the increase of the staff in the Dublin Natural History Museum; and whether the necessary increase will be provided for in the Estimates of next year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No decision has yet been arrived at in the matter.

  Valentia Ferry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that no part of Kerry has derived any benefit under the Marine Works Act, and that

  29
  the negotiations for improving the ferry at Valentia have fallen through, he will undertake, during the recess, to reopen these negotiations and to consult local opinion as to the form such improvement should take.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I should be very glad if some satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at with reference to the ferry at Valentia. The Knight of Kerry has offered to provide a steam ferry, but I have received no definite reply from the railway company as to what contribution it would be willing to make towards the construction of the pier. The matter is further complicated by the question of the maintenance of the steam ferry, which is estimated to cost about £1,000 per annum, less earnings. In reply to the latter part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to-day to the hon. Member for West Kerry.

  Tralee and Fenit Harbour Board.
  MR. DELANY: On behalf of the hon.. Member for East Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution of the Kerry County Council dealing with the Tralee and Fenit Harbour Board; whether he is aware that this board is in receipt of a yearly guarantee from the ratepayers of the county, who have no representation on it; and whether, having regard to the allegations of mismanagement made, he can do anything to secure such representation in the interests of the ratepayers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Representations have been made with respect to the constitution of the Harbour Board and it has been pointed out that legislation would be necessary to effect any alteration in the constitution of that body. I may add that the Harbour Board promoted a Provisional Order in the session of 1903 which proposed to increase the number of members of the board to sixteen; three of the additional members were to be elected by the county councils and three by the Tralee Urban District Council. In consequence of objections raised by the county council, however,
  30
  the application for the Provisional Order was withdrawn.

  Enlargement of Holdings in County Kerry.
  MR. DELANY: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board would be willing to give up the farms recently taken by them at Cragg and Arderone, county Kerry, if the old tenants repaid the Board the amount paid for the farms; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, he can advise the Board to adopt this course in the interests of all concerned.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Congested Districts Board having purchased the farms for the purpose of migration and the enlargement of holdings cannot consent to dispose of them in the manner suggested. The ex-tenants being defaulting annuitants, it would be against public policy to reinstate them.

  Memorial for Release of a Child from the Sligo Convent Industrial School.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a memorial to the Lord-Lieutenant, in the case of a child called Travers, aged seven, who was committed to the Sligo Convent Industrial School in May last without the knowledge or consent of the child's guardian, for the release of this child; and, if so, will the memorial be granted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that no such memorial has been received.

  Irish Land Loans to Judicial Tenants.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the fact that land loans, under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, are now limited to three times the amount of the judicial rent, and that in many cases these rents are under the amount of the Poor Law valuation which was the old standard, he will direct the necessary steps to be taken to enable the Board of Public Works in Ireland to deal adequately with these judicial tenants.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland are already empowered to exceed the limit referred to when special circumstances exist requiring exceptional treatment.

  North of Ireland Mail Service.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the offer of the Great Northern Railway Company, Belfast, to carry a supplemental mail bag via Greenore, he will consider the advisability of accepting this offer.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Although the Post Office under its contract with the Great Northern of Ireland Railway Company could claim the right to send between Belfast and Newry the supplementary mail desired by the hon. Member without special payment, it would be necessary to make a special payment for the conveyance of the bag from Newry to Holyhead, and considerable expense would be incurred for mail cart service in London. In view of the high cost of the several mail services already established between England and Belfast, I do not think that I should be justified in authorising an additional mail by the Greenore route. At the same time, if the hon. Member wishes to put forward any views I will consider them.

  Fiscal Policy—Suggested Imperial Conference or Royal Commission.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of the calling of an Imperial Conference thoroughly to examine the fiscal situation of the British Empire.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry by Royal Commission, or other suitable tribunal, upon which Colonial representatives may be placed, as to the fiscal or other measures which may be needful to enable the United Kingdom and the Colonies to co-operate for the defence of Imperial trade
  32
  and for the promotion of freer trade within the Empire.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The House is aware that twice in the course of the last few years, both times in the term of office of my right hon. friend the late Colonial Secretary, there has been a conference in this country representing the self-governing Colonies, in my opinion one of the greatest additions to the machinery of Empire ever made. I hope that these conferences will be frequently repeated, but I do not propose to take any steps at the present moment on the subject.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will my right hon. friend bear the question in mind?
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: May I direct the attention of the First Lord to the fact that my Question refers to a Royal Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true that the Questions of my hon. friends are different, but both of them relate to some mode in which we can discuss with our Colonies subjects of common interest to both; and that is really the essential point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to take the Lords Amendments to the Licensing Bill, and when the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lords Amendments to the Licensing Bill are on the Paper, but I cannot say at present when I shall be able to take them. When the House arrives at this period of the session it is impossible to give the degree of notice I am always glad to give, and which it is the practice to give, at an earlier and less crowded portion of the session. I hope to take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to-morrow and the Committee stage on Friday.
MR. BRYCE: And the Third Reading?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am at present not sure about the Third Reading.
MR. BRYCE: May I be permitted to point out that, though it is difficult to give notice at this time of the session, it is particularly important it should be given in this case, because hon. Members are now making arrangements for leaving London.
Ma. GIBSON BOWLES: What business does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take after Supply is completed?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This evening I propose to take the Report of the Navy and Army Expenditure, 1902–3, Resolution, Report of Ways and Means, and the Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about the Anglo-French Convention Resolution.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: For general reason I should be glad to see passed the Committee stage of the Anglo-French Convention (Expenses) Resolution and the Committee stage of the Anglo-French Convention Bill.
MR. BLAKE: What about the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is unlikely that the Land Bill will be taken to-night.
MR. LOUGHasked whether, considering the difficulty in which the Opposition was placed in desiring to assist the Government in getting absolutely necessary business through, the Bishoprics Bill could not be postponed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that is necessary business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Midnight.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SUPPLY [23RD ALLOTTED DAY]— [9TH AUGUST, EVENING SITTING].
Resolutions reported.
REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,615,509, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  CLASS I.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,088,788, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

  £

  2. Osborne (including a Supplementary sum of £5,450)

  10,550

  3. Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds

  69,100

  5. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  40,700

  6. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  26,300

  7. Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  38,000

  9. Public Buildings, Great Britain

  290,900

  10. Surveys of the United Kingdom

  120,409

  12. Peterhead Harbour

  22,000

  13. Rates on Government Property

  332,277

  14. Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  110,737

  15. Railways, Ireland

  27,815

  £1,088.788"

  CLASS II.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,263,014, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

  £

  1. House of Lords Offices

  9,868

  2. House of Commons Offices

  21,060

  35

  £

  3. Treasury and Subordinate Offices

  54,639

  4. Home Office

  104,094

  5. Foreign Office

  35,771

  6. Colonial Office

  27,750

  7. Privy Council Office

  5,680

  9. Mercantile Marine Services

  69,251

  10. Bankruptcy Department of Board of Trade

  9

  11. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  54,337

  12. Charity Commission

  14,633

  13. Civil Service Commission

  25,110

  14. Exchequer and Audit Department

  39,054

  15. Friendly Societies Registry

  4,881

  16. Local Government Board

  142,089

  18. Mint, including Coinage

  63

  19. National Debt Office

  7,439

  20. Public Record Office

  14,965

  21. Public Works Loan Commission

  7

  22. Registrar-General's Office

  22,146

  23. Stationery and Printing

  404,362

  24. Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  13,171

  25. Works and Public Buildings Office

  39,649

  26. Secret Service

  25,000

  Scotland.

  27. Secretary for Scotland's Office

  10,495

  28. Fishery Board

  10,155

  29. Lunacy Commission

  3,423

  30. Registrar-General's Office

  2,732

  32. Lord-Lieutenant's Household

  2,826

  33. Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices

  14,371

  35. Charitable Donations and Bequests Office (including a Supplementary sum of £130)

  1,148

  36. Local Government Board

  37,886

  37. Public Record Office, Ireland

  3,254

  38. Public Works Office

  21,773

  39. Registrar-General's Office

  6,716

  40. Valuation and Boundary Survey

  13,207

  £1,263,014"

  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,016,511, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come
  36
  in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

  £

  1. Law Charges

  35,232

  2. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  22,199

  3. Supreme Court of Judicature

  177,515

  4. Land Registry

  28,827

  5. County Courts

  23,000

  6. Police, England and Wales

  25,854

  7. Prisons, England and the Colonies

  375,762

  8. Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  113,957

  9. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  21,701

  Scotland.

  10. Law Charges and Courts of Law

  54,148

  11. Register House, Edinburg

  27,678

  12. Crofters' Commission

  2,590

  13. Prisons

  50,570

  Ireland.

  14. Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  33,416

  15. Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

  57,718

  17. County Court Officers, etc.

  66,584

  18. Dublin Metropolitan Police

  37,961

  19. Royal Irish Constabulary

  739,608

  20. Prisons

  65,476

  21. Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  53,000

  22. Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,715

  £2,016,511"

  CLASS IV.
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,110,267, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services, included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

  £

  1. Board of Education

  5,238,437

  2. British Museum

  90,171

  37

  £

  3. National Gallery

  7,065

  4. National Portrait Gallery

  2,682

  5. Wallace Collection

  3,539

  6. Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

  24,407

  7. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  103,200

  8. Public Education Scotland

  1,003,724

  Ireland.

  10. Public Education

  633,625

  11. Endowed Schools Commissioners

  535

  12. National Gallery

  582

  13. Queen's Colleges

  2,300

  £7,110,267"

  CLASS V.
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,130,288, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

  £

  1. Diplomatic and Consular Services

  303,067

  2. British Protectorates in Uganda, etc.

  420,700

  3. Colonial Services

  305,421

  4. Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  52,100

  5. Treasury Chest Fund

  49,000

  £1,130,288"

  CLASS VI.
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £341,246, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

  £

  1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  339,729

  2. Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions

  600

  3. Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  617

  38

  £

  4. Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  300

  £341,246"

  CLASS VII.
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £63,497, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

  £

  1. Temporary Commissions

  25,000

  2. Miscellaneous Expenses

  5,098

  3. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  5,642

  4. St. Louis Exhibition, 1904

  10,000

  5. Ireland Development Grant

  1,000

  6. Repayment to Civil Contingencies Fund

  16,757

  £63,197"

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,690,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

  £

  5. Educational Services

  154,000

  12. Admiralty Office

  327,400

  14. Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

  1,208,800

  £1,690,200"

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  10. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,984,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), viz.:—

  £

  2. Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.

  484,000

  39

  £

  3. Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc.

  817,000

  4. Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

  468,000

  5. Volunteer Corps, Pay and Allowances

  1,220,000

  6. Transports and Remounts

  1,519,000

  7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  4,582,000

  8. Clothing Establishments and Services

  1,156,000

  10. Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services

  1,918,000

  11. Establishments for Military Education

  146,000

  12. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  73,000

  14. Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

  1,666,000

  15. Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

  1,676,000

  16. Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

  189,000

  Army (Ordnance Factories)

  70,000

  £15,984,000"

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  11. "That a sum, not exceeding £536,420, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of the following Service included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, viz.:—

  £

  Post Office Packet Service

  536,420"

  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Four Resolutions postponed.
  Fifth Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he wished to call attention to one or two points connected with the subject of
  40
  denominational religious teaching. Recent Minutes issued by the Board of Education differed in tone from those circulated prior to the Education Act of 1902, and indicated that the Department had adopted a policy which made denominational teaching almost impossible. He felt strongly that if denominational teaching were to be given at all—and Parliament had decided that it should be—then it should be given in no grudging spirit but in the best possible manner, so as to avoid that friction which was one of the worst blots on our educational system. His points related to the time and place at which religious education could be given. Under the Act of 1902 the Board of Education had power to see that reasonable facilities were given for religious education, but in many cases the local authorities, who had power to fix the time at which secular instruction should be given, had drawn up time-tables which denied such facilities. Supposing a school met at nine o'clock, and secular instruction were required to begin at a quarter past nine, it was clear that in the intervening fifteen minutes, during which the register had to be marked and other administrative details to be dealt with, it was utterly impossible that there could be any reasonable facilities for denominational instruction. There could be no doubt that the Board of Education had ample powers to deal with that point, and he wished the Department not to wait until friction had arisen, but to lay down a general principle upon which they would act, in order to endure that the principles of the Act of 1902 should be carried out. He desired that similar facilities should be given to all denominations; in fact, he could not see how any one who approved of denominational teaching could have any other desire.
  MR- LLOYD-GEORGE: Do I understand the hon. Member to suggest that if a local authority gave facilities for religious instruction from, say, a quarter past eleven till twelve o'clock, or from a quarter past three till four o'clock, that would not be reason able?
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he thought that would be reasonable. The religious instruction ought to be given either at the beginning

  41
  or the end, and he considered the best course was that which had been generally followed, of giving three-quarters of an hour at the beginning of the day. What he wanted to ensure was that, whenever the time was given, it should be given ungrudgingly, and in such a way that disputes should not arise between school managers and the local authority. In regard to the place at which the religious education should be given, he said deliberately that the Board of Education had recently placed difficulties in the way of school managers, Nonconformist or Anglican, as the case might be, taking children to church or chapel, if the parents of the children assented to that course. The Education Act of 1870 provided that any religious instruction might be given "in the school or elsewhere," and from that time, until an Answer was given by the representative of the Board of Education to a Question in that House, no difficulty had arisen. In 1871 the Committee of Council on Education in their Report stated that—
  "A time-table may be approved which provides for the attendance at church on specified days of those whose parents do not object."
  In 1899 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, who was then Vice-President of the Committee on Education, stated in that House that—
  "The practice of occasionally taking scholars to places of religious worship during the time set apart for religious instruction has never been objected to by the Committee of Council, and is, in their opinion, legal."
  But since the passing of the Act of 1902, the Board of Education had taken a new departure which, if persisted in, would take away the very privileges which those who believed in denominational education thought to have been preserved by that Act. In May last, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, answering a Question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, said his reply must depend upon the construction to be placed on Section 7, Sub-section I, of the Act of 1870. But that section was the conscience clause, and had no bearing on the question of taking children to church or chapel with the assent and at the desire of their parents. The representative of the Education Department went on to say that
  42
  the section mentioned allowed a parent to withdraw his child from school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parent belonged, but attendance at such observance did not appear to be equivalent to attendance at school, and it followed that the managers of a public elementary school had no right to take the school children to church during school hours. No one suggested that they had, except with the assent of the parents, and if that assent were given the conscience clause did not enter into the question. The hon. baronet added, in the same reply, that religious teaching given in a church could not be part of the instruction provided by the public elementary schools. During the many years in which compulsory education had been given in this country the Department had always allowed religious teaching in that form and had never before taken exception to it. He had received many hundreds of letters upon this subject, and he replied to a request from the secretary of the Church Schools Emergency League for his views in the following terms—
  "I have looked into Section 7 (1) of the Education Act, 1870.
  "It really has nothing to do with the question of so great importance, which you raise, as to the right of managers to continue a practice in religious teaching which has prevailed for so many years.
  "The question to which you call my attention has been carefully framed, and so is the answer.
  "There is no right to take children to church if the parents object, but you are not seeking to set up any such right.
  "There is no power to require the teacher to conduct children to church if he objects, but this is not done in my experience, and his attendance is voluntary.
  "There is no legal objection whatever to the practice of taking children to church, as has been done in the past, and the only difficulty would arise from the local education authorities fixing the school hours for secular teaching at an inconvenient time. On this point the Anglicans should insist on the same treatment as is given to Roman Catholics or Jews, and I can see no answer to the justice of this claim."
  After that the Board of Education raised an entirely new point. They said that the difficulty arose from a by-law which provided that there must be attendance at school throughout school hours. By-laws were sanctioned by and could be altered at the instance of the Board of Education. This particular by-law had

  43
  existed up to 1902, and it had never been suggested that it stood in the way of taking children to church when parents desired it. If the by-law went beyond the Act of 1870, it was ultra vires. Did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education think that, if it were legal under the Act to give religious teaching in churches, the Board of Education were justified in sanctioning a by-law which made religious teaching impossible? No one else had heretofore put any other meaning upon the words of the Act of 1870 than that which he had stated, and the Act of 1902 was passed with that understanding in mind. He did not say that it was a breach of trust, but it was very like misleading the House to permit the Act of 1902 to pass on the basis of that interpretation, and after it had been passed to give a new interpretation and to bring an absolutely new policy into being. Last July a circular, signed by Mr. Morant, the Secretary of the Board of Education, was issued, in which, referring to this particular point, he said—
  "The responsibility which, perhaps, hitherto has not been fully realised."
  meaning that the Board of Education had not hitherto taken a right attitude upon this question, and that he differed from all his predecessors concerning the subject. How was the important question of denominational education to be dealt with if conflicting decisions were given by the Board of Education? One could scarcely complain of friction arising, or of the attitude of certain hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. In fact, he admired those Members, because he thought they were more consistent than the Anglicans had been in this matter. The Anglicans had not been strong enough or straightforward enough; they had spoken in a spirit of apology when they should have made a demand for justice. In July, 1903, the Rev. Mr. Piper, of the Prickwillow Baptist Chapel in the Isle of Ely, wrote to the Board of Education, asking if the Nonconformist children in the parish could be taken to his chapel for religious instruction, the vicar being willing to assent to this arrangement if it were legally allowable; and the Department replied that the proposal had their fullest sympathy, and they trusted that it would be possible to carry it into effect. Did that imply that every denomination
  44
  was to have power to take its own children to church or chapel for religious instruction except the denomination which had provided its own schools? He protested strongly against the recent attitude of the Board of Education as regards denominational teaching. Anglicans ought to take a more decided stand, to insist upon justice, and to maintain their rights. Then, he hoped, friction concerning religious teaching would pass away.
  MR. HAROLD RECKITTcomplained of the Board of Education having decided to sanction the establishment of a new Church of England school at Barton-upon-Humber, providing accommodation for 150 children, whereas there was in the town a preponderance of Nonconformists, and consequently a greater demand for a provided school. The Lincolnshire County Council first raised the matter by saying that it was prepared to provide a school in the Waterside area, but after inquiry they accepted the offer of a Church school for 150 places. The Board of Education held a public inquiry, the report of which contained several passages of considerable interest from the general point of view of education. The population of Waterside was almost entirely working class, and there was a considerable amount of controversy. He gathered from the report that a school for 150 children would meet immediate requirements if the existing schools were continued on the eight square feet basis. But he contended that in a town such as Barton, which was of considerable size, it was not a proper policy to supply merely the immediate deficiency, and he submitted that the Board of Education should take the opportunity of putting both the existing schools on a proper footing, viz. a ten square feet basis in the mixed schools, and a nine square feet basis in the infant school. That, he argued, would be true economy, not only in respect of the rates of Barton, but also of the county. Then they should have one school for at least 300 or 350 children, a fact which was recognised by the Board of Education's own Commissioner, who said that a school of 400 places was required. He considered the Board of Education, in sanctioning the establishment of this school as a mere stop-gap, had taken an improper action,

  45
  because two years hence he believed there would have to be a further inquiry into the necessity for additional accommodation; and he thought, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education knew this part of his constituency, he would be the last to suggest that they should have further controversy about the question.
  Pointing out that the Act of 1902 provided no machinery for ascertaining the wishes of the parents in any particular area, the local authority not even being entitled to take a poll of the ratepayers at the expense of the rates, he submitted that the only method was that of taking evidence at a public inquiry, which, he declared, was a return to the old and objectionable open voting system. He urged that the Board of Education should draw up some regulations as to the method and means of ascertaining the wishes of the parents as to whether there should be a provided or a voluntary school. At the time of the last inquiry, a church census was taken in Barton, showing that, morning and evening services together, there were 871 Church of England and 1,751 Nonconformist worshippers, proving that the Nonconformists were in the proportion of about two to one. Under the circumstances, he thought this evidence might be accepted that Barton was preponderatingly Nonconformist. Yet it had been determined that another Church school was to be established in this town. He wanted to point out that if they took figures, there was an overwhelming preponderance of Nonconformists. If they took the figures in respect to attendance at the Sunday schools in the Waterside area, there was a preponderance of Nonconformists. In the Barton district the Church of England had 594 Sunday-school scholars and the Nonconformists 779.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Are the Nonconformist schools full?
  MR. HAROLD RECKITTsaid they were not full, and there were twenty vacant places due to the difference in the ages of the children. There was a predominance of Nonconformists in that district, and yet it had been determined to put a stop-gap school—a Church of England school—in that town where a demand for a provided school had been made by a
  46
  majority of the citizens. Last year two local elections had been fought there upon these two matters. The county council election resulted in a gentleman favourable to a provided school being returned, for the first time defeating the Conservative in the Barton area, and for the urban district council, out of six places, five were filled by those favourable to provided schools. These facts should have some weight with the Board of Education; but they had nevertheless determined to provide at once a Church school with 150 places, simply from the point of view of saving the local rate for the time being. This would only be a mere stop-gap, and the new school would have to be provided within two years. He thought the proper course for the Education Department to have pursued would have been not to sanction that school in the Waterside area, because they wanted a school for at least 300 or 400 children. Even now the hon. Baronet might put pressure on the Lancashire County Council. He was only too ready to put pressure on other county councils, but when it came to a question of dealing out fairness to Nonconformists in Lincolnshire, he was backward in applying this pressure, unless it was in favour of the Church of England. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University would have served the interests of denominationalism better by erecting a provided school which would have provided for Church of England, Wesleyan, and undenominational education. That would have met the wishes of all classes of parents in that area, and he regretted that the hon. Baronet had not seen his way to do that.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he was afraid it was rather late in the session to discuss small local matters like that which the hon. Member opposite had raised. He wished the House to revert to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division, with which he desired to express his concurrence. He had no special competence to speak upon the legality of this question, but the answer which he gave in 1899 was not his opinion, but the official opinion of the Board of Education arrived at by the Duke of Devonshire on the advice of his permanent

  47
  advisers. That opinion was in accordance with the practice which had existed in the schools since the Act of 1870, and long anterior to that date. The practice was recognised in the words of the statute which were "in school and elsewhere." Those words evidently referred to the well-known practice of taking the children to other places for religious instruction. He would like the hon. Baronet to answer the arguments which had been put forward by his hon. and learned friend. If the practice was legal he ventured to say that the prohibition of this practice by the Board of Education was extremely impolitic. The policy of the Board of Education had always been to keep clear of these religious disputes. There was no occasion for the Board of Education to mix itself up in religious matters, but he was afraid that they were ambitious, not only in regard to teaching the local authorities how to administer the Act, but also in teaching religious bodies how they should teach religion. It would be much better if the Board of Education entirely abolished that plan, they should leave the religious bodies of the country to teach religion in their own way, and leave them to judge for themselves what was the best method of teaching religion to those children whose parents were willing that they should learn it. He hoped that this ill-judged meddling with the religious question would not be persisted in.
  His chief object in rising was to call the serious attention of the House to the recent Report upon the degeneracy of our race, so far as it related to the condition of the children in elementary schools and the spending of the money which the Committee of Supply had voted for education during the present year, and which the House was now asked to affirm. There were many things in that Report which would be ruled out of order if he brought them before the House. It dealt with the question whether the lives of the children were not spoiled before coming into our schools, and took up such questions as their birth, the way the children were suckled, fed, and housed but those were points which he would not refer to. He would confine his remarks strictly to matters which related to the education to be given to the children in the schools
  48
  and to the alarming extent to which this Report proved that a great deal of the money voted was absolutely thrown away. It was much to be regretted that the Committee which inquired into this subject was exclusively official, and it would have been better if some independent men had taken part in the investigations. As the subject dealt so largely with the condition of the children, he thought some representative of the working classes ought to have been placed upon the Committee. One would have thought that upon a question of this kind a woman would have been useful upon the Committee. They had not yet received the evidence, but they had been presented with the effect which that evidence had produced upon official minds.
  The first thing he would deal with was the recommendation of the Committee as to what should be taught. The first thing which they recommended should be taught to the teachers, with the view of being passed on to the children, was the fatal effect of alcoholism on physical efficiency. If that were taught to school teachers in a proper way it would no doubt produce an important and lasting effect in this country. He did not mean that it should be taught as a special subject and crammed up for a certificate. If the teachers were once got really to appreciate and understand the fatal effects of alcoholism on human efficiency, a very great point would be gained. The hon. Baronet had said that the syllabus was already overloaded and that he did not know where to make room for this new subject. He thought they might postpone for a year or two such subjects as psychology and grammar until the teacher and the children were imbued with a knowledge of the fatal effects of alcoholism on human efficiency. What the Committee recommended was that the teachers in public schools should be turned into temperance missionaries, but they did so in a cautious official manner. They evidently placed very great importance on the proposed teaching in the schools of the evils attaching to alcoholism. An expedient of this kind sometimes had the most extraordinary effect. In illustration of this, he might mention that in Belgium the Roman Catholic Church pursued a wise policy in having al

  49
  its priests taught the principles of agriculture. The consequence was that Belgium had become an example to this country in the organisation and the prosperity of its agriculture: It would be found if they looked into this that the priest was at the bottom of the organisation in every parish.
  The second recommendation of the Committee was that children should be taught the "resources and opportunities of rural existence." He had no doubt the hon. Baronet would say "Amen" to that. Some theoretical efforts had no doubt been made by the Board of Education to teach this subject, but, however good their theory might be, what was their practice? A few days before he read the Report recommending that children should be taught the resources of rural existence, he, in company with his right hon. friend the Member for Dartford, visited an experimental school in Sussex, where this teaching was attempted to be carried out. They found most admirable teaching going on. There was a most excellent mixture of theory and practice which excited their utmost admiration. That school, however, was going to have the grant of the Board of Education withdrawn from it. Why? Because there was a difference between the managers of the school and the Board of Education as to whether the sons and daughters of farmers were to spend two hours a week in practical work and three hours in learning French. The managers were willing to consent that two hours a week should be given to French, but the Board of Education refused to agree to that, with the result that notice had been given that the grant was to be withdrawn. Could the Committee imagine anything more foolish than that? Here was an experiment being made, of a kind which they all desired, and the Board of Education came in and washed its hands of it. He had not a word to say against French. It was a beautiful language, and its literature was a great enjoyment to everybody who could read it. But what earthly good would French be to a Sussex farmer? Surely if they wanted to keep boys and girls on the land they might allow people who were making a valuable experiment to go on with it, and not endeavour to stop it by the rules of the Board of Education.
  50
  The Committee also recommended the teaching of cookery, but not to little girls of ten or eleven Years of age who were unable to learn it. They recommended that it should be taught to the older girls in the continuation schools, that the material provided should be such as was usually eaten by the poor, that the apparatus should be simple, and that there should be variety. The hon. Baronet knew how contrary these recommendations were to the actual cookery teaching in our schools.
  The recommendation of the Committee in regard to physical training amply justified what was said by the hon. Member for Camberwell and himself in the debate last year. The result had been to substitute a more thorough, systematic, and complete syllabus in physical instruction than was previously in use. All the practical reforms in teaching which the Committee recommended could be put in force by the hon. Baronet to-morrow without further legislation or an increase of the Vote. He should like the hon. Baronet to state, when he addressed the House, whether the Board of Education would take all these matters into consideration immediately, without waiting for next session, and without waiting for an Act of Parliament.
  Now he came to what appeared to him a most astounding recommendation. They had frequently spoken in that House of how utterly useless and mischievous were what were called "infant schools." There were kindergarten schools to be found in some of our large cities and towns, and against which nobody had a word to say. In those schools the children were generally most admirably treated and taken care of, and everything was done to make their lives happy and to allow them to develop their intellectual character. The Committee recommended that in the country districts the children should be absolutely prohibited from going to school under five years of age, and that school attendance should not be compulsory until they were six or seven. He asked the Committee to consider the enormous waste of money which was going on at present in providing what was called education for children between three and six or seven years of age. How many millions of the money spent were wasted? According to the Report of

  51
  this Committee it was wasted, and worse than wasted, because school attendance at too early an age did the children a great deal of harm. He thought this matter should be seriously considered by the Board of Education before they came to Parliament again asking sums of money to be wasted in the teaching of little children who would be very much better out in the lanes instead of being spoiled by the conditions under which their infancy was passed. He now came to the treatment of the children whom they got in the infant schools. He did not find any strong recommendation as to providing these children with fresh air. The Committee said, it was true, that the teachers should be alive to the value of fresh air, and they said something was wanting in the education of the teachers in practical hygiene. He had no doubt the teachers could state how much oxgyen and hydrogen there should be in the air, but what these good people meant was that they should also know how to supply the oxygen in the air to the children. That was a matter in which the Board of Education was absolutely responsible. These children were taken out of the open and shut up in schools five hours a day for five days of the week. If they did that they were bound to see that they were supplied with fresh air. Any doctor would tell them that an immense amount of injury was done to poor children by their failing to get a sufficiency of that cheapest of God's gifts—fresh air. There were many schools which were not provided with fresh water for the children, and he insisted that the Board of Education should make it a sine qua non that no school should get the grant unless it had proper ventilation and an ample provision of fresh water.
  Then this Committee made recommendations in regard to the feeding of children—a subject which had provoked a good deal of discussion in the House and country. These recommendations were conceived in a most cautious and official spirit, but they threw a great amount of condemnation on the local authorities in this matter. They said that it was universally admitted that "the evils arising from under-feeding were so widespread and in certain localities so pressing that some authoritative
  52
  intervention was called for at the earliest possible moment." And one of the most eminent of the inspectors of the Board of Education in London—Dr. Eichholz—made a special investigation on the subject at Johanna Street Board School in London. That gentleman found that 90 per cent. of the children in that school were unable, by their physical condition, to attend to the work set before them in a proper way, and that 33 per cent. required feeding during six months of the year. That was the practical testimony of a practical man. Everybody knew that there was an enormous waste of the public provision for education in consequence of this want of feeding of the children; and that it was extremely cruel to attempt to force education on children who were insufficiently fed. A large number of children, he recognised, who attended the elementary schools were provided with food by voluntary charitable organisations, but that was not sufficient. Every encouragement should be given to those voluntary organisations, but he suggested that there should be a sort of partnership between them and the local authorities. What the Committee said was that where this arrangement of charitable organisations proved inadequate, subject to the consent of the Board of Education, it might be expedient to permit the application of municipal aid. At the same time they recommended that there should be coercion of neglectful parents. But that required legislation. No municipal authority had at present the power to spend a sixpence in that direction. Would the Government give them that power? They saw no sign of that. The Scotch Education Bill, which had unhappily been abandoned, contained no power to enable the school boards in that country to provide food for insufficiently fed children. The hon. Member for Hoxton had placed an Amendment on the Paper to that effect.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that he thought the right hon. Member was going outside the scope of the Report to which he referred, and pointed to future legislation, which under the Standing Orders he could not do on the Vote now before the Committee.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he would not say another word on that subject. All that he wanted to emphasise was that this Committee recommended that the school authorities should have the power, if other means failed, to feed the children; and he appealed to the hon. Baronet to recommend to the Government that such legislative power should be given.
  There was another subject to which he wished to direct attention, and that was the inspection of schools. There was an enormous cost for inspectors and their travelling expenses. The schools were at present so inspected that the teachers and managers became bewildered and did not know where they were. The local authorities would not accept the Board of Education inspection, and he did not know that they were wrong in that regard, because there was no doubt whatever that the Board of Education inspection of elementary schools was extremely inefficient, on account of the system which had prevailed for years, although there were most excellent inspectors. The principle was that the chief duty of the inspector of schools was to please the teachers, to please the managers, and to please the officials at Whitehall; and one of the most unpardonable sins which an inspector could commit was to speak the truth about the condition of the children. He was aware that no inspector who possessed what was called "tact" would ever send in a disagreeable report to the Board of Education because he knew that he would suffer for it. He was conscious that there was a possibility at the Board of Education to alter the reports of inspectors which were not favourable and to publish them in an edited form. He was quite certain there never would be any improvement in the inspection for which these enormous sums were voted until the Board of Education made up its mind that the first duty, the first qualification, of the inspectors was to speak the truth, and that when they did speak the truth they should realise that they would be supported through thick and thin against both teachers and managers. He saw no sign of improvement in the Board of Education. Everything had been put into water-tight compartments which were independent of each other. Why should schools in which there was given elemen-
  54
  tary, technical, and secondary education, be visited by three different sets of inspectors? That led to great confusion; and the local authorities had wisely refused to accept such inspection, and had appointed inspectors of their own. What was wanted was not more money, but better organisation. Why, the chief inspector was now, at the very busiest and most critical period of the school curriculum, away at the World's Fair in St. Louis.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): He is back now.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYwas understood to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when he was in the Department, he had not brought these questions before the House?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that he had frequently in the House referred to the bad system of inspection. He had never ceased to do so; and he had no doubt that the hon. Baronet, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, would find in the pigeon-holes of the Education Office, unless they had been lost, many of his memoranda in regard to that point, which had received no attention whatever. It was his duty, now that he was relieved from the responsibilities of office, to bring these things under the notice of the House of Commons. He had now been two years out of office, and he wished to draw the attention of the House of Commons to those evils which existed, and which were causing a great deal of overlapping and unnecessary expenditure which ought to be stopped. The only solution of this question was that the Board of Education should give up the idea of inspecting individual schools and leave that duty to the local authorities themselves. These were matters which demanded the attention of the House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had been very much interested in the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. He thought that educationally they owed a great deal to

  55
  the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was unmuzzled. The Board of Education ought to publish some of the memoranda written by the right hon. Gentleman upon the educational condition of the country. They would be not only interesting and instructive, but amusing, and would provide very good material for the controversies that arose from time to time regarding education. As to inspection he thought it ought to be confined in future to the methods of local authorities rather than individual schools. That would be a good thing for Wales, and he trusted that the Board of Education would hand over the duty of inspecting individual schools to the Federation of County Councils in Wales.
  With regard to the marching of children to church he had objected to that himself, but he could not help thinking that the hon. Member for the Stretford Division was mistaken in his interpretation of the Act. That Act did not say that a teacher should take children to church. He was prepared to support a proposal which would make it competent for any religious denomination, during certain hours to be set apart, to take its children outside school hours to another building for the purpose of giving them religious instruction if the parents really wished their children to be instructed in particular dogmas. The hon. and learned Member referred to the case of Mr. Piper, but that was a different matter altogether. Mr. Piper asked if he could take his children to a Baptist chapel in order to give them religious instruction. His recollection was that Mr. Piper asked the vicar for a room in the school for the purposes of religious instruction; and being refused had to take the children elsewhere. But supposing Mr. Piper had a right to a room in the school it would have been wrong on his part to take the children away. What he objected to was the division of a school into seven or eight classes, for it would lead to confusion. If the parents wanted to get their children instructed in any particular building it would be intolerance on the part of any religious denomination to grudge such facilities. For a teacher in or out of school hours to marshal children and take them to any church or chapel in the district would be a very invidious thing to do, because it would be practically bringing the pressure
  56
  of the discipline of the school on the children. If a thing of that sort was to be done it must be at the desire of the parent. [An HON. MEMBER: So it is.] It was not entirely so done. If a teacher asked children to go to church they did not like to refuse because it might be looked upon as disobeying the teacher, and they might be under the impression—quite wrongly, of course—that the teacher might make an invidious distinction. He did not think children should be put in that position. It should be a question for the parent entirely, and the teacher ought not to come into it at all. He understood that the Board of Education held that the teacher should not marshal children to church, and he was glad that was the case. If an individual parent made a request to the teacher to allow a child to attend a particular church or service he was sure the teacher would not object, but no official of a local authority, as a teacher was, should use influence upon the children to organise attendance at any particular place of worship. The Board of Education had taken the right line, and he hoped they would stand firm by their decision. The Act of Parliament provided that religious instruction might be given either at the beginning or the end of the ordinary secular school instruction. Why under those circumstances had the Board of Education taken upon themselves to alter the Act, and to say, in defiance of it, that the religious instruction must be given at the beginning, and that the end was not a reasonable time? The Board was exercising a sort of pressure upon the local authorities in this matter.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education is a Court of appeal, and I am not going to discuss the matter at this stage.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is responsible to the House of Commons, and we are entitled to challenge his actions. He has no right to say he is the Court of appeal.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The hon. Member misunderstands me. Of course I am responsible to the House for the decision of the Board, but I say

  57
  that the Board of Education has to decide certain questions which arise between the managers and the local authorities, and that while these questions are still under review by the Board of Eduaction I think it is undesirable to discuss them in the House of Commons. I do not say that I am not entirely responsible.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was really a very novel doctrine. A local authority in the exercise of its legal right said that the religious instruction should be at the end, and the Board of Education then brought pressure to bear to make the local authority alter its decision. He protested against the Secretary to the Board of Education's action in refusing to discuss the matter. That showed the spirit in which the law was administered.
  He would give another illustration of the way in which the law was administered. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University, in the course of his interesting speech, said that the managers were not sufficiently alive to the value of fresh air in the schools. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they were not sufficiently alive to the value of ventilating the buildings, giving sufficient cubic space to the children, and plenty of light. The first thing the county councils of Wales did was to have a report upon all the buildings in which instruction was given. That the report was impartial was proved by the figures given by the hon. Member for West Ham. They were told that the board schools required £13,000 spent on them, and the voluntary schools £12,000; that many of the schools were not fit places to send children to. The county councils called attention to this, and the School Boards took steps to improve their schools. But the managers of the voluntary schools appealed to the Board of Education, and the Board of Education, instead of supporting the county councils and compelling the managers to spend money upon improving the condition of the schools, their ventilation, their sanitary arrangements and the light and air space—what had they done? They had supported the managers in what was practically a refusal to carry out those recommendations. What was the good of talking about physical degeneration and enforcing
  58
  the law, when upon a matter of that vital importance the Board of Education declined absolutely to support the county councils? The Act stated clearly that the county councils should maintain all public elementary schools if certain conditions were complied with, and one of the conditions was that the managers made "such alterations and improvements in the building as may reasonably be required by the local education authority." Was it not reasonable to call upon the managers to so alter and improve the school buildings as to make them fit for little children to be in for five hours a day? No, the conditions with regard to maintenance the Education Board must maintain, but when the conditions were against the managers the Board of Education was exceedingly long-suffering and indulgent. All they asked was that the managers should take some steps, and if it were simply a question of time—of a few months—he would not say a word.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: They have to find the money.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Ah, the money! If they have not got the money let them hand over the schools. The local education authority have nothing whatever to do with that. You should not undertake a task which you are not financially fit for. Honourable men do not do it.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: It is only a question of time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked what the hon. Gentleman meant by "time." If it was only a question of three or four months not a word would be said, and if the right hon. Baronet, the Parliamentary Secretary, would get up and say he was prepared to carry out these recommendations within the next six months—was that a reasonable time in the hon. Member's (Mr. Platt-Higgin's) opinion?—(after a pause) evidently he was not prepared to give an answer—if the right hon. Baronet told them he was prepared during the coming winter to force these gentlemen to improve their schools and put them into the position which the Board of

  59
  Education demanded with regard to provided schools—then they would be satisfied. But he was not doing it. On the contrary, he was just picking and choosing the things in the Act of Parliament that he was going to enforce; and he was going to enforce them by drastic methods—if he could. But the things that suited the educational interests of the children, if they inflicted a burden on the denominational managers, they were willing to hang up. They had no right to do it. They ought to administer an Act of Parliament of this sort impartially, if at all. What greater harm could they inflict upon children than to send them for five or six hours a day into buildings where they breathed the most fœtid air? It damaged them for life—it ruined them. It would be much better to give them good air and plenty of light than some of the catechisms that they were taught in those schools, and the Secretary to the Board of Education, before he began to enforce the law against the Welsh county councils, should first see that his own friends were complying with it.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSthought the Board of Education were not quite aware of the full force of the interpretation which they had put upon the section of the Act of 1870. That was not the first educational system in this country. We had an educational system many years before that, and under that system children had been regularly taken to church on certain days. Before the Act of 1870 it was perfectly legal for children to be taken to church by the managers of the schools. By the Act of 1870 a new system of undenominational teaching came into force, and all those things mentioned in the Act of 1870 as to giving religious instruction to children in the schools "and elsewhere" simply admitted the practice of the schools in existence before the Act of 1870. But the Act of 1870 neither legalised the practice or made it illegal. It simply said that in the new class of schools—the Board schools—they were not to make that thing necessary which had taken place according to the practice of denominational schools. What was legal in the denominational schools before 1870 was legal after 1870. Where it had been the prac-
  60
  tice, as it had been for fifty years in his own recollection, for the managers of denominational schools to take the children to church the Act of 1870 did not interfere with the practice in any way. That, at all events, was his reading of the Act, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would tell him it was the right reading. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon who had just spoken had talked a great deal about fairness and justice, but underlying that fairness and justice of which they had heard so much was the great fallacy that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it was fair only when they were allowed to have their own way. They entirely forgot what was due to other people. If half the people desired to have denominational teaching what right had the other half who did not desire to have denominational teaching to say they should not have it.
  With regard to the pupil teacher question he might say that in the rural districts that question was becoming a burning one. The training of pupil teachers was imposing a heavy burden on the already overburdened taxpayers in those districts. He had no desire to say a word against the endeavour to raise the standard of education and the power of the pupil teachers, but they could not now be certain of retaining the pupil teachers after they were trained. In old days the pupil teacher was trained in the school in which she taught, but the new rule laid down that a pupil teacher must be six months in the school and six months out of it being trained at a secondary school and therefore it was necessary for each school to have two pupil teachers in training, the one to take the place of the other when she left the school. There were also a great many village schools where two pupil teachers could not be got to train, so that instead of there being two pupil teachers as there ought to be, one being educated at the secondary school, it had become necessary to have an Assistant Teacher, and that laid a still heavier burden on the rates. There seemed to be an idea at the Board of Education that for the training of pupil teachers in secondary schools they should take all the money allocated to technical education and so use it all in

  61
  favour of one particular class instead of leaving it for the help of all trades and all classes. There seemed to him to be a desire to take the burden off the shoulders of the nation, where this burden should rest, and place it on the shoulders of the locality, and to use for this purpose all that technical education money which ought to be devoted to all trades. This was applied to some of the old educational charities. He thought it was extremely unfair to make the local rates provide for the training of the pupil teachers, who in all probability would not be employed in the districts in which they were taught, but in neighbouring towns. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would in his reply indicate that the Board of Education had this matter under their consideration, and that he would say that the local authorities had nothing to do with providing pupil teachers in the schools.
  MR. WALLACEagreed with all that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had said with regard to the teaching of children, but the matter raised by the hon. Member for the Stretford Division was much wider. The hon. Member suggested that children could not be taken to a religious service of a particular denomination during school hours even with the consent of their parents. The question was how the children were to be got to church. They were all agreed that by fair and moral means the children should be induced to attend religious teaching, but how were they going to do it? The hon. Member for the Stretford Division said that under Section 7 of the Act of 1870 the local authority and the teachers were empowered to take the children to church to receive religious instruction. There was no power in the section to do any such thing. It provided that a child could not be compelled to abstain from going elsewhere to receive religious instruction. It gave no authority to the teacher to compel the attendance of a child at a religious service. For the teachers to try to persuade children to attend a particular church would be a gross breach of authority, and the fact that a different view had prevailed did not make it legal. He made these observations strongly, not because he was
  62
  not in absolute sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but because he could imagine nothing more mischievous than for the teachers or the local authority to interfere in these matters. If the teacher was a religious man and chose, outside school hours, to use his or her influence with the scholars to persuade them to go to the place of worship of a particular denomination with the consent of their parents, all honour to the teacher; but while the teacher was acting as a State servant, under the local authority, he had no right to bring influence of that sort to bear upon the scholars in the school. As to the question of maintenance of schools by the local authority, anyone who read the particular section to which the hon. Member for Carnarvon had called attention would see that all this hung together and that the duty of maintenance by the local education authority depended upon the managers performing those particular duties which were laid down by the Act. If the managers did not discharge those duties the local education authority was released from its obligation to maintain those schools. The complaint was that the Board of Education did not insist upon the managers fulfilling their statutory obligations.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid the speech made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon was, on the whole, one of moderation, but when he came to speak of the times at which religious instruction should, be given he should have remembered what he had said before upon this subject. In January last Year, when addressing some of his friends, who were presenting him with an address, he referred to the duties of local authorities under the Act, and said that they should arrange the hours for instruction so that some children might have their denominational instruction in the schools whilst others could go out to play; and he further suggested that this and other steps would make the management of the schools so burdensome that the managers would be willing to throw them upon the local authority. He quoted that as an example of the spirit in which the hon. Member approached

  63
  this question in January of last year. It a teacher used his position in a school unfairly to induce children to attend religious services which their parents objected to, it was exceedingly wrong, and ought not to be tolerated. It would be the duty of the local authority to see that no such thing happened. But if the children were not to go to church with the free consent of their parents that was altogether another question, and he submitted that it was quite inconsistent with the by-law which the Board of Education put forward last year, which provided that children might be withdrawn from religious instruction and taken out of school. Why should they not be allowed to go out in order to attend church, and why should the teacher not be allowed to go with them if no objection was raised by the parents. He was exceedingly glad to hear that the Board of Education had sanctioned arrangements in one case by which the Baptist minister was able to take the Baptist children to his chapel, and he should like to see that practice extended.
  It was rather difficult in a debate like this to fix attention upon one subject, but he desired to call attention to a case which arose under the working of Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act. It was the case of a proposed Church of England school at Hayward's Heath in which town there was last year a deficiency of school accommodation. He did not know the vicar personally, but at the time the school was contemplated the vicar made an offer to the other denominations that he would be quite satisfied if they would erect another school at their own expense. He told them that he did not wish to compete with them at all, but they could not see their way to do what he asked and thereupon the vicar took steps to provide a school at the expense of his friends and himself. This was before the Education Act had been passed, but when the Act came into operation this proposed school came under Sections 8 and 9, and a public inquiry had to be held. An agitation was got up against the school and 298 signatories were obtained against this school, many of which came not from the Hayward's Heath district but from outside. The matter came before the urban council, and twice they passed
  64
  resolutions in favour of the project, once unanimously and once with only two dissentients. The county council remained entirely neutral and took no part in it. A poll of the ratepayers was taken at the instance of the promoters of the school, when 564 voted in favour of the school, 150 returned their papers blank, eight voted against, and 101 papers were either not returned at all or were spoiled. This showed that the neighbourhood was predominantly in favour of the school. An inquiry was held by a gentleman sent down by the Board of Education, and he had to report on three specific grounds: (1) the interests of secular instruction, (2) the economy of the rates, and (3) the wishes of the parents. In regard to the first ground, he reported that one proposal was as good as the other; on the second ground he thought that obviously there would be greater economy if the school was built by private subscription; and as to the wishes of the parents he said that out of 600 children in present attendance only four availed themselves of the conscience clause, and the evidence of parents on both sides was not satisfactory, many having but a vague idea of the difference between the schools, the distance of the schools from their homes forming the chief consideration in their minds. The first remark he wished to make on that matter was that such a situation could not possibly have arisen under the old law. The vicar would have got his school and no one could have said anything against him. Therefore the new law in this respect made a perfect change, and indeed in certain cases it might be a very right change. Again he would say that if the minority for which this particular type of school was built had been prepared themselves to make some effort to provide a school he thought there would have been a very good case indeed. Or further if the Secretary to the Board of Education had been able to say to the promoters of the new school, "Will you allow the ministers of other religions to come in and give religious instruction in the new school according to the wishes of the parents?" he thought that would have been a fair

  65
  proposal to make. But what happened in the present case? The Board of Education decided that there should be a council school on general grounds, and the result was that the majority of the ratepayers were compelled against their wishes to build and maintain a school for which those who wanted it made no effort in the matter of cost. As a matter of policy he was sure his hon. friend must see that it was easier to estrange his friends than to conciliate his opponents. He assumed, therefore, that his hon. friend had been actuated solely by considerations of principle, and he should like to know what principle had actuated him in the course he had taken in this matter.
  As to the question of feeding starving children he heartily welcomed what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. It was an absolute corollary of compulsory education that they should not try to cram instruction into the brain of a little child unless there was some proper food in its stomach, and he hoped some more municipal power might be given in this direction. Of course, parents who could not pay for these privileges could not be in the same position as others. He did not think that the old principle of laissez faire ought to prevent them from grappling with this question.
  MR. H. J. WILSONdrew the attention of the House to a case which took place three or four months ago at Lifton, a Devonshire village, and which, in his view, required investigation. Four boys were turned out of the national school there by the vicar for a remarkable reason. When they were questioned as to what a Christian was the four boys were agreed in declaring that a Christian was a follower of Jesus Christ. The vicar insisted on them saying he was a person who had been baptised by the Church, and on their refusing to do so they were turned out of the school. That was not the way to conciliate anybody in the villages, or to make them any more fond either of the vicar or of religious instruction in public elementary schools. If boys were to be turned out of school "with considerable violence" as one
  66
  report said, or, "with a beating," for such a reason as that, the condition of things could not be regarded as satisfactory. He hoped that the Secretary to the Board of Education would make a statement on the subject during that debate, and if not, that he would promise the House some information on a future occasion.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid his hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford had drawn attention to a matter which was engaging the notice of the clergy throughout the country in a very special manner. It was undoubtedly the case that it had been the practice for a considerable number of years for the children who attended denominational schools attached to the Church of England to attend service in the church on appropriate days. He supposed that a similar practice had prevailed in other denominational schools. It was constantly forgotten by hon. Members who had criticised that practice that these schools were denominational, and that the instruction given in them was denominational religious instruction intended to educate the children in the principles of that particular denomination. Nonconformist parents who disapproved of that teaching were protected by the power to withdraw their children during religious hours. So far as the question of expediency was concerned, surely the only question was whether as a matter of fact the children obtained better religious instruction from the point of view of the denomination by being taken to church than by staying in the school. Apart from the overwhelming arguments of experienced managers and teachers, he should have thought if they desired to bring up children to be devout members of a particular denomination nothing would more tend in that direction than that they should from time to time attend service in the church of that denomination. At the back of all this criticism was a desire to make denominational instruction not particularly efficacious, to take the heart out of it, and to assimilate it to undenominational instruction. He constantly heard in those educational debates language of that character. It was constantly made a matter of congratulation

  67
  that the teaching in a Church school could not really be distinguished from the teaching in a school which was undenominational. The whole point of view was that denominationalism was an eccentricity which they must allow perhaps in form, but if it could be destroyed so much the better. He put it, therefore, to the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether, as one who was a supporter of that system, it was logical or reasonable to restrict a practice which had been going on for a great number of years, which tended to make religious instruction according to denominational principles more efficient, and which was certainly not a violation of the conscience of any human being.
  He understood that it was maintained by some hon. Members that to make attendance at church part of the religious curriculum was an abuse and an extension of the system that ought not to be tolerated, but he did not see why there should be the objection if the children were to be thoroughly taught. Upon the point of law he imagined there was more force in the view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford than had been admitted. The law required the attendance of children at school, and it was reasonable so to interpret the language of Section 7, having regard to a practice extending over thirty years, of giving religious teaching elsewhere than in the schoolroom. When school attendance was made compulsory the existing school discipline was contemplated, and he submitted to lawyers that the point might be maintained. If it were not for the desire to water down denominational teaching nobody would have dreamed of interfering with the arrangement, which was as natural as visiting field or factory. If it was necessary that a particular arrangement in regard to religious instruction should be made for protecting the position of Nonconformists there was nothing to be said against it, but such points should not be pressed merely for the purpose of weakening denominational teaching. Let them try to meet one another and try to understand the differences in their religious points of view and not endeavour to throw difficulties in the way of the working of the system. No one would dispute that if a building used for a school was insanitary and rebuilding was urgently necessary it should
  68
  be rebuilt without delay, but if it was a question of carrying out some desirable improvement not of pressing urgency it was not unwise to allow such reasonable latitude in point of time as was required under financial difficulties. There was a principle of give and take in these matters the Department ought to apply. There would always be in the House and in the country endless friction unless some means could be found to satisfy the conscientious scruples and religious feelings of all classes of the community.
  He submitted this consideration to Nonconformists, that to interfere with a religious system by omissions was as offensive to the feelings of those who believed in that system as if the same thing were done by additions. Suppose they had to deal with the children of Jews and Christians. Would it be a reasonable settlement to say that as they differed in the acceptance of the New Testament that should not be taught, but the Old Testament should be taught, because upon that there was general agreement? It was evident that that would be a decided disadvantage to the one class, and yet that was precisely what was desired by undenominationalists as against denominational teaching. The Christian would consider that to meet the wishes of the Jew vitally important matters had been omitted, and Christian and Jew would be equally grieved if Mormonism were taught. Of course, the Christian would be satisfied with nothing but the teaching of the Christian religion. In a somewhat similar position Churchmen, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists were placed. It was just as unfair to drive every Church of England parent to accept an undenominational system as it would be to compel the Christian to accept the Jewish system because Judaism to a certain extent was accepted by both. He was certain no educational settlement would be permanent until all religious bodies acquiesced in it, and he was sure that until Nonconformist bodies came to understand the Church position and would formulate on their side a reasonable concession to Church feeling they would not approach nearer to a permanent settlement. It lay with the Nonconformists to bring up a scheme of their own to

  69
  meet conscientious difficulties. That would do more than anything else for the advancement of educational progress and religious teaching.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that before making the general statement which he proposed to make he would deal with the complaints and criticisms which had been made in the course of debate. In regard to the complaint about the Barton-on-Humber School the facts were as follows. There was a deficiency of accommodation which arose in a way which he would describe. The local authority announced their intention of providing a school, and the vicar of the parish announced his intention of offering a school—an offer which would have met the necessities of the case. The local education authority appointed a committee which inquired into the matter and they withdrew their proposal to provide a school. Thereupon the vicar was left in the field. He himself was informed there was a very strong feeling in the place, that Nonconformist sentiment was very strong, that the children would be sent a long distance to be free from any possible contamination by Anglican influence, and that, therefore, it would be a very great hardship if a council school were not provided. An inquiry was held, and the result was that, as far as secular instruction was concerned, there would be no difference between one scheme and the other, and that, as far as economy of the rates was concerned, it would be undoubtedly better to accept the vicar's school, which was a school in being. As regarded the wishes of the parents of the children, there were petitions and counter petitions and when he came to inquire into the educational circumstances of Barton-on-Humber it was shown that the feelings of the parents were not as violent as they were asked to believe. The Anglican and Wesleyan schools were attended by children of all denominations, but, as a matter of fact, the members of the church choir attended the Wesleyan school. The deficiency of accommodation had been caused by the closing of the Roman Catholic school, in which all Roman Catholic doctrine was taught. It accommodated seventy-five children, of which number four only were
  70
  Roman Catholics, the rest being equally divided between Non-conformists and Church of England children; and no one was withdrawn from religious instruction. Then came the case of Hayward's Heath. There was no doubt an economic reason for accepting the Church of England school at Hayward's Heath. There was also a fairly equally divided Church of England and Nonconformist population, and the Board of Education came to the conclusion that this was a single school area, and that, on the whole, it was better to treat it as such. The case was undoubtedly a difficult one, but some inconvenience would be caused to the Nonconformist population whose children might have to go some distance to a council school if no such school was to be provided within the area. The Board, therefore, said that if the county council would at once provide a school with accommodation sufficient, they would decide in favour of such school.
  As to reasonable facilities for religious instruction the hon. and learned Member for Stretford seemed to think the Board of Education almost bound to make a general pronouncement as to what should be considered a reasonable time to be allowed for religious instruction. He could not find that any power to do so was conferred upon them by the Act. Their powers were limited to deciding differences that might arise under Section 7 between managers and local authorities. In different parts of the country the local conditions varied widely in regard to such points as the hours when school should be open, whether religious teaching should be given at the beginning or the end of the school time or both, and the Board would have run considerable risk of giving offence and of being considered officious, and he thought would undoubtedly have gone beyond the power conferred upon them by the Act if they had made such a general statement as suggested. It was said that they had put pressure one way or another on various local authorities and actually cut down religious teaching in certain localities. There were but two cases where they had had the matter under consideration, and in neither case had they done anything which would justify anybody in saying that they had

  71
  made a reduction beyond what had been already allowed and would have been considered reasonable and sufficient by most bodies of managers. No such pressure as the hon. Member for Carnarvon had referred to had been put on any local authority. The cases to which he referred had come before them, and there the matter stood. No pressure whatever had been put on the local authority to extend the time already given.
  On the question of reasonable requirements as to repairs, they were really doing exactly what the hon. Member for Carnarvon said they ought to do. He held that these requirements must be reasonable in amount, and reasonable as to the time in which the alterations were to be carried out. The time allowed in the majority of cases was under six months.
  As to the propriety of taking children to church, it seemed to be supposed that the Board had taken an initiative in the matter, but the Board of Education had not been meddlesome. The question arose in a form in which it was impossible to avoid dealing with it. A clergyman announced, his intention to take 500 children to church on Ascension Day, and of altering the hour of meeting by a quarter of an hour in order to give time for the children to go to church and come back for the secular instruction. The local authority said they could not meet him in this, and protested strongly against the action taken. Nevertheless, the children were taken to church; and the Board of Education were asked what was right in the matter. He had to consider the question, and it was not without a full sense of responsibility that he differed from the ruling of his predecessor in office. Under the by-laws which the local authority were required to make, and which had statutory force, the children were bound to be at school during the whole time the school was open. The local authority were empowered by the Act of 1890 to determine the time during which the children were to attend school, and it surely would not have been right to allow the time table, approved by an inspector on behalf of the Board of Education, to be in flat contradiction to the wording of the
  72
  by-law. Therefore they called the attention of their inspector to the matter; but their action was in no way adverse to the interests of religious teaching. They pointed out that if the local authority chose to adopt the new form of by-law suggested to them last year, or if the parents withdrew their children on certain days, as they were entitled to do under the Act of 1890, or if the local authority sanctioned by by-law or otherwise the use of the church as a place for religious instruction, there would be no difficulty in making arrangements with the parents. The idea that the Board of Education had taken away anything from the Church schools to which those schools were entitled and which laid them open to condemnation was chimerical. They had done nothing but endeavour to make the practice of the Board conform to the law as they understood it, and to suggest various ways of including changes in the by-laws.
  He thought he had now dealt with the questions which had been raised, except certain points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, which he would deal with in his general statement with reference to the working of the Act. As to the working of the Education Act, there were 335 local education authorities, and in the case only of five of these was the Act not yet fully in operation. In these cases, too, the Act would be in working before the end of September. More important was the question, What were these local authorities doing in regard to secondary education? The local authorities were required by Section 2 of the Act to consider the educational needs of their area and take such steps as seemed to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, to aid the supply of education in that area. Many local authorities had consulted with the Board in various ways, by deputations, by correspondence, by communication with the Inspectors of the Board, and often, in the case of boroughs, by discussion as to the provision of one or more individual schools; an many had held inquiries themselves, through expert advisers, through committees of experts, or through sub-committees of their own,

  73
  as to the whole condition of secondary education in its relation to education in other forms in their districts. These inquiries had been especially thorough in the cases of Lancashire, Stafordshire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Sheffield and Manchester. Last year he informed the House as to the extent to which reorganisation had taken place in the Board of Education and its inspectorate. He now had only to mention—he did so under the reproach of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University—that they had increased and strengthened the staff of inspectors of secondary schools. As regarded the inspectorate generally, he could not accept the description given by the right hon. Gentleman, either as to the attitude of the local authority towards the inspectors of the Board of Education, or as to the character, quality, and shortcomings of the inspectors themselves; but he could assure him that he would pay as careful attention to the matter as time would allow him, and that if he found the results led him to entertain views of the kind and strength which the right hon. Gentleman described himself as having held, and as having expressed in memoranda which he, personally, had not been fortunate enough to peruse, he could assure him that some change would take place either in the inspectorate or in the secretariat. As regarded the various branches of education with which the Board dealt, he would say little about technical institutes and classes except that their usefulness was unimpaired and that the Board was endeavouring to continue that usefulness for the classes of students for whom they were intended.
  As regarded secondary schools he had something to say, however. Last year he had reason to express considerable anxiety as to the teaching in the smaller secondary schools. It showed too early a specialisation. There was a gradual loss of the cultivation of language and literature, and the tendency was too exclusively scientific, whereas what was wanted really was a liberal education. At that time the Department gave two sets of grants. To schools which were called A schools they gave a much larger grant than to the others, and the requirements
  74
  as to scientific teaching were much more exacting. The others, which were called B schools, received a smaller grant and much more room was left for general education. The history of this was that formerly the only form of higher education with which the Government dealt was the science and art grant for the purposes of science and art classes. These grew into schools of science and these again grew into schools of the A type. Care was taken, he believed, as far as the Board could take care, that a liberal education was given in addition to the scientific teaching, but the demands of science were too hard, the largeness of the scientific grant was too tempting, and the inspectorate at that time was not, he thought, strong enough to ensure that these schools gave the liberal education which the Board desired. They had now tried to effect a change. First, they tried to define roughly what was a secondary school. He believed that the Secondary Education Commission gave up in despair the attempt to define secondary education.
  MR. BRYCE: They did not give it up in despair, but they thought it would be dangerous.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that, at all events, he could not find it in their Report. Practically he thought it well to drop the phrase and to attempt a definition of a secondary school instead. A secondary school was distinct from a technical institute, which gave special teaching of an advanced character, and distinct from continuation classes, which gave a great variety of teaching but no continuity of teaching in any one subject and no general education. The Department, therefore, declared that a secondary school, to meet their requirements, must give a general education to boys and girls up to the age of sixteen and beyond. By general education he meant that undue weight must not be given to any particular branch of education. The education must be complete so far as it went, and progressive and continuous. The boys and girls must learn thoroughly what they did learn, and never be allowed to mark time. The normal type of school would be more of the B type. That was to say, it would

  75
  offer a general education, physical, mental and moral, given through a complete graded course of instruction of a wider scope and more advanced degree than that given at the elementary schools. The Department thus hoped to establish a type of school which would give what he roughly described as a liberal education, but special and much larger grants would be given to schools, which were held to be entitled to them, for special scientific teaching. The A school was revived in that form, but the Department required that the classes which attained to these more special scientific subjects should be of the average age of thirteen, and they varied the grant according to the local or educational conditions. They had suggested that these schools might differentiate their course at the end of two years, that was that there should be a two years course of general liberal education, and that after that there should be the specialised course, more scientific, or more liberal and linguistic, starting at thirteen or fourteen years of age.
  There were two difficulties he should mention; the first was want of money. The Department would like very much to be able to increase their grants and assist more schools, and thus get a stronger hold, and, he believed, a useful hold, upon the secondary education given in the minor secondary schools. There was a second difficulty which he thought local authorities would soon realise, and which once they realised it would disappear. This regarded the government of schools, and the relation of the headmaster to the local authority and the governing body. Local authorities were somewhat apt at first sight to believe that they saved themselves considerable time and secured greater administrative efficiency if they governed the school themselves; practically this meant Government through their organising secretary. The Board had constantly pressed upon them the advisability of appointing governing bodies for schools, with certain powers, limited, no doubt, financially, and urged that if a capable man were appointed as headmaster, he should have full power of conferring with the governing body and expressing his views to that body. The importance of these smaller schools securing an efficient headmaster was very great. He thought the
  76
  authorities would soon realise that unless they established a governing body and gave the headmaster the powers he had described, they would not create the general interest needed, nor obtain the capable men they required, and so would not get what they wanted in the way of a successful secondary school.
  He had been asked about training colleges. He would not weary the House with more than an outline of the sort of changes which the Board desired to make. They had endeavoured to give greater freedom in two ways. They had decided to allow a one-year course at a training college. If they could get better material for the training colleges and reduce the time necessary to be spent there to one year, the student no longer requiring to devote a great deal of his time to acquiring general education which he ought to have acquired previously, he thought it would be an advantage. One of the results would be considerable economy to the local authority, in so far as it would largely increase the annual output of the colleges with no greater outlay. Again, the Board had recognised day-training colleges not connected with a University college or a University. Hitherto the day-training college had always been attached to a University college or a University. He hoped a good deal from this development. He hoped it would tend to diminish the unwholesome appetite for a degree which possessed so many of these elementary teachers. Such an ambition on the part of a student who had not received a good general education caused him to mis-spend time in a course of study which often led to disappointment, and which, if it did not, seldom led to real efficiency. Students who were but half educated and tried to learn more than they could carry were often led astray by lectures which would be useful to older or more fully educated students. They carried away from them only that half knowledge which was really an intellectual defect. He would call attention to an answer from the examination of a pupil teacher in connection with the Queen's scholarships. A question was asked regarding the frontiers of France. The student wrote—
  "The Alps are accessible over their summits, while the Pyrenees are not; they are accessible

  77
  only at their two ends. The Alps divide France from Spain. The Rhone also would seem to form a natural frontier; but the Germans own this."
  That was an indication of the material which went up to the training college. Now for the material which was to be found at the training college. One student wrote that the sonnets of Shakespeare were written in blank verse, another wrote an apparently well-informed description of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, until he came to the last sentence when he stated—
  "The beauty of the story is enhanced by the charm of the metre in which the poem is written."
  A third student, writing of the Renaissance stated, that—
  "The founders of Italian architecture were Torrigiario and Terra Cotta."
  These things struck him as being much worse than ignorance. They showed the confusion of mind of the student and an incapacity for realising the difference between first-hand and second-hand knowledge, or, indeed, the difference between knowledge and ignorance. And thus a lecture which would be useful to others was only misleading to the student who came to a subject perfectly ignorant. This led him to point out that the provision of better material for training colleges by giving a better education to pupil teachers was a matter of great importance. Unless we educated our pupil teachers better, we wasted money at both ends. We wasted the money spent on training colleges by sending raw material of which they could not make good use, and we wasted the money spent on elementary education on account of the quality of the teachers supplied. He described last year the ideal of the Board as to the educational course of the pupil-teacher. What he had said as to the importance of this matter was, he thought, justified by the action of the local education authorities. The Board had had applications within the time the Act had been in operation for the recognition of 211 pupil-teacher centres. Of these, 163 came from local education authorities. The Board had recognised sixty-eight, they had eighty-three under consideration, and they had only refused recognition to twelve. The local authorities were trying to improve the lower-
  78
  grade secondary schools to which it was desired that the intending pupil-teacher should go and they were trying to improve the pupil-teacher centres where teaching and study went on upon the half-time system. The amount spent on the pupil teacher was ludicrous having regard to the necessities. The taxpayers spent £110,000 a year at present on the training of pupil teachers, £216,500 on grants to secondary schools, £375,700 on grants to training colleges, and £10,547,000 on elementary education, the whole value of winch depended on the quality of the teaching given. He thought he had said enough to show how important this subject was, and how it would justify an urgent demand for a larger outlay on the secondary schools and the pupil, teacher centres, so that we might get the worth of our money spent on elementary education.
  Coming to elementary education, as to generalities, he need only say that in the Code this year the Board had said practically all he had to say and they had tried to make the Code as readable as such a document could be. One great problem always before them in elementary education was the question of the condition in which the children went to school, the question of the feeding of the children. He had spoken about this more than once, and he had already expressed his strong desire that the House should have a tangible scheme before it. He had said so much on the subject that he would rather not discuss it further until he could lay something definite before the House. It was idle to waste time in words of sympathy when what was wanted was action. He had said, and he still thought, we could do a good deal by indirect effort, by teaching the laws of health in schools and pupil-teacher centres and training colleges and by improvement in the teaching of cookery. He felt that there was a great deal of force in the suggestion that in certain poor districts there should be special schools on the lines of the day industrial schools for underfed children. Then there was the problem of the children who were not permanently underfed but went to the school from time to time in a starving condition. In regard to this he most frankly said, without reference to the fiscal question, that he was not a free-fooder.
  MR. CROOKS: Not altogether.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Well, not a "whole-hogger," but he felt that the matter could only be dealt with by legislation. The other great outstanding problem concerned agricultural education. What was wanted was to keep the children on the land. He thought that both in the country and in the towns too much time was spent in book work. The children in the elementary schools were very near to the hard facts of life, and such children must lose interest in their work as their time was drawing to a close, if they did not see in it any connection with the work going on around them, and he would like to see a more practical character given to the teaching in elementary schools both in the towns and in the country. In the country, however, they must meet the preliminary difficulty of finding teachers who could give the sort of instruction which would bring rural matters home to the child. Teachers would not at the outset of their career assign themselves to the country. The ambition of teachers would, he thought, tend towards the great towns where the great prizes were to be found, and therefore they could not hope to prepare the rural teacher in Training Colleges. They must try to instruct him when he was already employed in the rural school, and the Board were in communication with the Board of Agriculture on the subject, and he trusted that the two Departments would work together, and that the Board of Agriculture would supply lectures and centres in which courses of instruction might be given which might help and guide teachers in rural schools. But then there was the other question as to attendance. Many people in the country, especially the farmers, thought that the Act of 1902 had increased the hours of school attendance and had deprived them of the services of those boys who would otherwise work in the fields. He thought that Act had had this effect, that the local education authorities, under pressure of the rate and with the desire to get the utmost Parliamentary grants, had been stricter in the matter of school attendance
  80
  than local authorities were before; but he had endeavoured to disabuse those who had communicated with him on the subject of the idea that the Act of 1902 had had any direct effect on the attendance of children in the rural schools. The truth was that the local authorities had not yet learned to take advantage of what was called Robson's Act. That Act enabled a boy of eleven, if he gave a certain number of attendances, to work for months together in the fields, though he was not entitled to total exemption till he reached the age of thirteen. The rules as to attendance were very complicated, they were more than that, they were tangled, and he hoped that in the course of the winter the Board might be able to work out these rules of attendance and communicate with the local authorities in the country so as to enable them to get the full benefit of Robson's Act, and then, he thought, without loss of grant to the local authorities, they might bring back into the Code that scheme of grants, which he was very sorry to have to let drop this year, and which be thought would have been of considerable advantage to the education of the country at large. If, however, the local authorities were to take full advantage of that Act they wanted centres or else evening schools for half-timers, so that if boys were set free to work in the fields during the last portion of the year, they might be able, without breaking the thread of their work, to get their teaching in the special centres provided for the purpose.
  He thought he had now reviewed the educational circumstances of the day as far as he could. The Board of Education had had a very difficult task thrown upon it It had had to decide a great many questions under the Education Act, some of them very important and some of them not so important—but all important to the persons concerned—questions between managers and county councils, questions as to the application of endowments, questions as to foundation managers, and questions as to what were necessary schools. It was impossible to decide between the parties with satisfaction to both, and the disappointed party generally thought that the Board had not merely done wrong but had been prejudiced in its

  81
  wrongdoing. The Board had had, however, to work through these large educational problems, dealing with an infinite amount of detail, and buffeted by the storms of that religious controversy of which they had heard so much in the House and not so much in the country. Still he hoped that throughout they had endeavoured to impress upon those with whom they had been in communication the true meaning of the often misused word "education." They had endeavoured to impress on those with whom they had had to deal that education was not merely a means of obtaining a Parliamentary grant for a school, not merely a means by which some learning was acquired to turn to immediate account commercially or otherwise; they had rather suggested that, when education was spoken of as a ladder by which a successful boy or girl might climb above his or her original surroundings to something higher and better, that, after all, was only a part of its function and that education brought its reward to the successful and the unsuccessful and un-ambitious alike, by offering a training of mind and character which gave a fuller sense of the interest, reality, and seriousness of life.
  MR. CROOKSsaid there seemed to be an unreality about the discussion. First of all they heard a plea for the ratepayer. Would the hon. Member for West Ham, from whom in the course of the debate he heard an interjection, join him in saying that all education should be paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer so that they might get rid of all questions as to the inequality in the matter of education of local burdens? When he heard of the difficulty of finding money to put Church schools in a proper sanitary condition be remembered a case in which a plea was put forward that there should be better ventilation in a school. They found it difficult to get money for the purpose, and instead of improving the ventilation they put up a new text. They boasted of having done that. It might be thought from what some people said in discussing questions of education that parents were able to take proper care of their children day and night. As a matter of fact, in the poor districts the training of the children had to be left in the hands
  82
  of the teacher. What chance had agricultural labourers of attending to the instruction of their children? They considered it a hardship that the children were not allowed to go out and earn a shilling or two. A farm labourer and his wife toiled from morning till night and the instruction of the children was necessarily left in the hands of the teachers. What was wanted was a better class of people to train the children. The training in the secondary schools was not of the class they ought to get. The teachers were very much below the requisite standard. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education help them in that direction? When children won junior scholarships it was difficult to get them to go to the higher elementary and secondary schools to continue their education. What was the cause of that? It was because of a bit of foolishness on the part of the children. Their clothing was not equal to that of the other children attending the secondary schools, and they had a disinclination to go to those schools. Could anything be done to improve matters in that respect? It seemed that the opportunity for acquiring knowledge was limited to those boys and girls who could be well dressed. It was very sad, but it was so. Every child, no matter how humble his or her position in life, should have an opportunity of getting on, and he thought the Education Department should create more secondary schools. By that means the class of children to whom he referred would be able to continue their education. Of late Years they had endeavoured to make education a little more attractive. He would never be content with the educational arrangements of the country until the workman's son and daughter were given the same opportunity as the children of the middle and upper classes. Every child should have a square opportunity of gaining the position he was fitted to fill. A good milliner or dressmaker was almost as valuable to the nation as even a learned professor of Oxford or Cambridge. They were useful to the whole community, and certainly they helped to create the wealth of the nation.
  Dealing with the question of underfed children attending schools the hon. Member urged that something should be done in this matter at once, and that it should

  83
  not be put off to next year. The question had been discussed for years, and it would be postponed again and passed on to the hon. Gentleman's successor if the policy which had been pursued in the past were continued. That would not be a very bright outlook for the poor children. He did not think any special grants were required to enable them to feed the children who came to school hungry. Everlasting credit was due to the people who had privately organised a scheme for providing free meals, but they were unable to cover the whole ground. They had the same cry every winter—casual employment, sick father, mother broken down in health, children going to school unfed. In the poorer districts the children, after three years of age, when they had got to feed on other than maternal sustenance, began to fade away and get weaker and weaker. Were they going to keep these children of from three to five years away from school? He hoped not. They were better cared for in schools than in the slums and courts of the East End. Why should these children be kept on private charity? If anyone went into an infirmary he would be amazed to find the number of young men and women who were absolutely broken down because they were insufficiently fed between five and twelve or fifteen years of age. It would never do to have special classes for underfed children in the schools. That would be to put a badge upon them; and children; be they ever so poor, had some sort of natural pride. Nothing could be easier than to provide two meals a day for all children at the board schools; and it could be done at very little expense. There might be a general rush at first, for the novelty of the thing, but the local authority would very soon be able to gauge to a pound how much the scheme would cost. Some people would, no doubt, say that the parents could feed their children if they were only a little more careful, did not drink so much and spend their wages in riotous living. But, be that as it might, it had nothing to do with the children, and it was the children that they had got to look after. If the Education Department was to have regard to the future, they would have to take up this question of feeding
  84
  the children as one of the first principles of education. When it was said that that would relieve the parents of their responsibility, his answer was that if they did not do this for the children when they were young they would have to pay for it when they were older and became useless members of society. The House of Commons was the place where some help should be given to these poor little children. These should not be starved for the convenience of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education, of the Treasury, or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their duty was clear that when the children were compelled to go to school they should be fed to enable them to get some benefit from their education.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that they had had a very interesting discussion on many questions of immediate significance in regard to education. There was one part of the speech of his hon. friend who represented the Board of Education which was of very great, immediate, and grave importance in regard to the working of the Education Act. He referred to the training of teachers. His hon. friend had referred to the extraordinary discrepancy there was between the amount of the Parliamentary grant for elementary education and that given for the machinery which was to bring about what they all desired to see accomplished. To his mind that was unbusiness-like when they were dealing with a great national question. He said advisedly that the sooner the State took up the responsibility of training the teachers the better. That was the only security they could have for the smooth and easy working of the Education Act. Many hon. Members knew the difficulties which were gathering round them in regard to this question of the training of teachers. In his own county they had a great scheme for pupil teachers' centres, but there was no security that the adjoining counties were doing anything in the matter. The onus of the training of pupil teachers should not be thrown on the locality. It was a lamentable thing that the claims of higher education had to be ignored by the county authorities owing to the very large burden thrown upon the ratepayers

  85
  by the training of pupil teachers. In some counties as much as £16,000 or £18,000 was spent for that purpose alone. The result was that the county authorities were reluctant to add to the rates by putting into operation the provisions of the Act with respect to continuation schools and higher education. If that state of things were permitted to continue the work of education would be seriously hampered.
  He had hoped that they would have been able that afternoon to talk about education, and not have again to discuss the festering difficulty of which hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be so fond. He was old enough to remember Mr. Forster's Act, which enabled children to be sent to church or not, according to the wishes of the parents. If the attendance of children in church for religious instruction was compulsory, there would be a grievance; but it was entirely permissive, and provided the parents did not object he could not see anything objectionable in the practice. With regard to the question of underfed children, he thought it was surrounded with serious difficulties, but it was undoubtedly a great evil in large industrial centres, and he should heartily welcome any attempt to deal with it. Local effort in this direction should be stimulated as far as possible; but, where the public purse was concerned, care should be taken to differentiate as between parent and parent. There should be different treatment for the frugal parent and the man who, earning good wages, spent three-fourths of it in drink. He knew it was difficult, but it ought not to be impossible, to deal with the question. He would welcome any possible scheme; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman and his Department would listen with a willing ear to any suggestion that was brought forward.
  MR. BRYCEcomplained that it was impossible in the time left to them to do justice to the grave questions raised, and that it was also impossible for various Members who desired to do so to bring various grievances and differences in the working of the Act of 1902 before the House. He hoped they would not again have the Education Estimates thrown over to what was practically the last day of the session. He could not conceive by
  86
  what principle of interpretation it could be held that the taking of children to the church on Ascension Day was religious instruction. It might be a good deal better than instruction, but within the meaning of the Acts of 1870 and 1902 it was not instruction. There was nothing in either the Act of 1870 or that of 1902 to limit the power of the local education authority. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the right hon. Member for Cambridge University touched from different points of view upon a question of the utmost importance, and this was the condition and health of the children. There was one remarkable document which ought to be remembered in this connection. It was not more, he thought, than a month ago that a memorial was presented by a large number of very eminent professional men, physicians and surgeons of the greatest distinction and weight, urging that far more attention should be given to the teaching of principles of health in elementary and secondary schools than was now done. They put it that not only should teachers be instructed in these principles and be directed to give instruction to the children, but that proper provision should be made in the programme or syllabus of the schools for a subject of this extreme importance. He had rather hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would have adverted to that Report, but he hoped he might at any rate take it that he was not indifferent to its importance and that some attempt would be made by the Board to give effect to it.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Although I did not deal with that at length, I did say I thought something might be done by teaching the elementary principles of health in the schools and pupil teachers' centres.
  MR. BRYCEproceeding, said he hoped prompt steps would be taken, because it was eally a question of urgent importance. He earnestly hoped the Board would make it one of their first duties to teach the principles of health to teachers. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had pointed out that the Board of Education, according to the evidence which had reached him, was not

  87
  doing all that it ought to do to secure that the buildings of elementary schools which were being handed over to the local authorities had been put into a proper hygienic state. He had heard evidence from other parts of the country that the Board had been lax in requiring the local trustee or manager to fulfil what was the clear duty imposed upon him by the the Act of 1902; and the hon. Gentleman had said with great force that if the Board were going to insist upon the scrupulous performance of its duties by the local education authorities, this was all the stronger reason why it should insist upon local managers and trustees doing their part of the duty, which consisted in handing over the buildings in a proper state to secure the health and comfort of the children. This was an aspect of the matter he hoped the Board would bear in mind. If they were going to be exact in one direction, they must at least be as exact in another direction.
  Turning to the question of the training of teachers, the hon. Member said that it was rather a matter of national than of local concern, because no local authority spending money upon the training of teachers could count upon retaining those teachers for its own service. Sooner or later the thing would become a national concern, and the expense would have to be paid out of the national Treasury. The whole subject of the training of teachers required radical reform. He entirely objected to denominational colleges, not merely because they were denominational, but because he did not think they were as efficient as they ought to be. He hoped they were not to take what fell from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education as indicating that he was unfavourable to a connection between training colleges and Universities, because he believed the best training colleges were those which had connection with the Universities.
  The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had made the important admission that no system of education could be permanent unless all religious bodies acquiesced in it. This was undeniably true. No system would be satisfactory until they had a much more
  88
  general consensus of opinion than yet existed. The moral of this remark was that the present system could not last; and he could assure the noble Lord that he and those who thought with him believed it to be the duty of every one, no matter to what denomination he belonged, to endeavour to arrive at an agreement on the subject, to endeavour to put forward moderate and reasonable proposals which would have some chance of meeting the views of reasonable men in all ranks, and, above all, the general views of the parents in the country. It was not the extremists, but the general views and wishes of the parents, which they ought to endeavour to meet. He earnestly hoped that the next few months would be utilised for this purpose, but he did not believe any such arrangement could be arrived at upon the basis of the present Act. He thought it would be absolutely necessary to have new legislation, departing in some considerable respects from the Act of 1902, before this could be attained. That it would be attained in the long run he did not for a moment doubt, but he hoped that the spirit in which he believed the Secretary to the Board of Education and the noble Lord desired to approach the subject would so far prevail that it would be seen that the Act of 1902 could not be maintained, and that every one would endeavour to find remedies for the existing evils in amendments of the Act which could be accepted with the least debate and controversy.
  MR. DUKEsaid the true religious feeling of the country would welcome the remarks just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. During the long and often embittered debates on the Education Act of 1902 the great obstacle to anything like agreement was the religious controversy, and the difficulties had been aggravated rather than diminished by the subsequent course of events. If the right hon. Gentleman's speech introduced anything like a rational spirit into the controversy it would mark a very wholesome new departure. But the Secretary to the Board of Education must not lay the flattering unction to his soul that the happy time was at hand when it would

  89
  be possible to disregard that religious controversy and consider the interests of education altogether apart from the religious divisions which bulked so largely in the question. In his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Stretford the hon. Baronet did not appear to appreciate the substance of the difficulty or the reality of the feeling which existed in the country. The question was not one of the mere technical interpretation of a by-law; it went far deeper than that. The whole question of the association of religion with the education of the children was concerned, and the conflict between the two hostile camps was as to whether the teaching of religion should be isolated from the general educational system in elementary schools. The difficulty could not be disposed of by the statement that a by-law existed which prevented schools from having a time-table in a particular form. What the friends of Church schools desired to know was what practical course the Board of Education were going to take as to the interpretation of the by-laws. Personally he thought it might fairly be argued that the recent interpretation was the more correct, but regard should be had to the fact that Church schools were an institution which had grown up, which had rendered great services to education, which had been fostered by the State and which the State had practically pledged itself to preserve subject to certain conditions, and the Board of Education had to consider whether they would strike out of that institution that which the friends of Church schools regarded as one of its most valuable features. That was the substance of the difficulty, and he believed that on both sides of the House there would be a desire that that difficulty should be met.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.
  Sixth, subsequent, and postponed Resolutions to be Further Considered at this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [23RD ALLOTED DAY] [9TH. AUGUST, EVENING SITTING], REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th August], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Fifth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £7,110,267, be granted for Expenditure in respect of the outstanding Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services.'"
  Question again proposed.
  MR. DUKE,continuing, said when the situation was examined in the light of what had gone on for many years, there could be no question of the acute character of the difficulty created. Until 1870 no person obviously had any right to raise the question as to the mode in which a manager of the schools then existing, and receiving grants, might think fit to provide religious education for the children in those schools. The trust deeds under which the schools were governed were well known, they were recognised by the Committee of Privy Council dealing with education, and no difficulty arose with regard to them. In 1870 the existing practice was recognised by the Act of that year. Under the Act of 1870 until 1899 the practice was so clear and so entirely unquestioned that in 1899, when apparently the attention of the Committee of the Privy Council for education was definitely called to the matter, there was an authoritative pronouncement that the practice of taking children to church for religious education was a legal practice. With that pronouncement the parties to the struggle over the question remained satisfied from 1899 to 1902. It was admitted that the practice was a legal practice, and although that might be a mistake of those who had the administration of the law with regard to education, it was a mistake they made in common with the Committee of Council itself, and to suggest that the recent declaration of the Board of Education did anything else than revolutionise the practice in this respect was to suggest that which was not the fact. Right or wrong the practice was admitted by the

  91
  Board of Education. Now it had been discovered that it was possible to construe the Acts and by-laws in such a way that a practice which was always regarded as a legal practice was to be pronounced an illegal practice, and it was suggested that the managers of the schools were to be content, because that was the result of by laws sanctioned by the Board of Education. Those who were interested in religious questions would not wonder at all that school managers who had for years carried on their schools in the belief that this was a legal practice were shocked that the Board of Education, by an administrative act, should have condemned it as illegal. This had happened at a critical time. There was an endeavour in some quarters to improve the Church schools out of existence and he hoped the Board of Education would see that this was a time when a discovery, such as that which the recent circular had made, should be handled with a little consideration for those who had undertaken the duties of school managers.
  Those who read the correspondence which had passed between the Baptist Minister of a little village in Essex and the Board of Education, would see that there was a totally different manner of dealing with this delicate and difficult question from that exemplified in the recent circular. That circular declared the impossibility of proceeding on the present lines and peremptorily declared them to be illegal. When the case arose with regard to this Baptist school the attitude of the Board of Education was one of sympathy and advice and almost of assistance. Apparently the procedure so simple and easy to adopt in the case of this Baptist school was very difficult to adopt in the case of the Church schools. What Church people desired to know was whether there was a difference made which was unfavourable to Church people. He did not think that that was likely to change the attitude either of Churchmen or the supporters of Church schools. But it would be an unfortunate thing if a small, organised and resolute minority was able to secure from the Board of Education terms which a reasonable consideration did not secure for those who, in past years, had carried
  92
  on the education of half the children of this country. A letter full of sympathy had been sent to the pastor of that Baptist church who, he agreed, deserved encouragement because of his care for the spiritual interests of the children of his congregation; but in place of that sympathetic letter and the encouragement and advice which was given to the Baptist pastor, what was found for the managers of Church schools was the circular signed by Mr. Morant. It was true that this circular was issued to the inspectors, but it had found its way to the great body of managers of Church schools in the country, and they regarded it as showing a different tone and feeling on the part of the Board of Education towards the managers of Church of England schools to that shown towards the managers of dissenting schools. Nobody supposed that in this matter the Board of Education, with a stroke of the pen, could alter the law or remove all the difficulties.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if the hon. and learned Member contended that the interpretation of the law by the Board of Education was incorrect?
  MR DUKEsaid there were two interpretations, one of thirty-three years continuance and one of three weeks. It might be the second was correct, but there seemed to be a doubt about it. When the Board of Education came to decide whether the local education authority was reasonable or unreasonable in its requisitions, what he wished to press was that the Board should deal with this question so that Churchmen would not be prevented from having their children taken to church for religious education during the short period which was provided. It was said that there was a danger of proselytising, but that was not the case. What they asked for was limited to the period of instruction which was set down in the time table for religious teaching, whether it was half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour. It was not sought that any minister of any church should have the right to take any child anywhere, but it was claimed that at the discretion of the managers of the school it should be possible to give that kind of education

  93
  to the children of members of the Church of England which they desired and in the manner in which they had been accustomed to receive it.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he wished to say a few words in support of the Board of Education and the attitude they had taken up in this matter. He had gathered during the debate that the point they were discussing was originated by a Question put by one of his colleagues representing Liverpool which had elicited the ruling which formed the subject of so much of this discussion. He thought they might have asked themselves whether there really was a religious difficulty in this matter of education. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had left no doubt that, in his opinion, there was such a difficulty, because he was careful to explain in detail the objections which the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Church must feel to that mutilated form of religion which was described as undenominational. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education read out some details about attendances at schools which might have led the House to think that it was a matter of entire indifference whether the children attended a Wesleyan or a Roman Catholic school, and this caused a ripple of somewhat cynical laughter amongst his hon. friends, who consoled themselves with the belief that there was no religious difficulty outside the House. But later on he dashed their hopes to the ground because he instanced the case of a clergyman who insisted in the teeth of the local education authority in taking 500 children from school to church on Ascension Day. Although he did not agree with his noble friend the Member for Greenwich in his general attitude upon these educational matters he thought he was nearer the truth when he said that there was a real religious difficulty than those who said that no such difficulty existed outside the House. He did not desire to take up the time of the House discussing the legal aspects of this question. His hon. friend the Member for Plymouth had practically admitted that at any rate it was not clear that there was nothing in the contention of the Board of Education. He understood that their ruling
  94
  amounted to this, that the local education authority inherited or had the power to determine whether or not religious education should be given elsewhere than in a school during school hours. He thought that the position which followed from the Acts of 1870 and 1876 was distinctly strengthened by the Act of 1902, which threw on the local education authority the cost of maintaining these schools apart from the upkeep and expense of the fabric.
  He wished to say a few words as to the expediency of the policy which had been adopted by the Board of Education. What was it that caused the insertion of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause in the Act of 1902? It was nothing less, if his memory served him right, than some of those very practices of taking children from the school to the church to attend services which were repugnant to the parents of the children. This led the Government to recognise a feeling that they were bound to give expression to in the Act of 1902. He did not desire to go into controversies which perhaps were not acute at the moment, but were still acute enough to cause trouble in the future. It was well-known that in many churches the children were taken to children's Eucharists and masses, which were repugnant to Nonconformists, and aroused a feeling of indignation of which the Government were bound to take heed. In the overwhelming majority of the 8,000 single-school areas the only school was the Church school. That of itself was a hardship of which the House was bound to take note. Many of the scholars were the children of Nonconformist or Protestant Anglican parents who entirely objected to their children attending services of which they did not approve. It had been said that they need not attend without their parents' consent. But how was the consent of the parents to be obtained? Everybody who knew the conditions of village life must recognise that it was an invidious thing for a child to be withdrawn from religious instruction under the Conscience Clause. Therefore, if at the wish of the clergyman the children were assembled in the school and the request was made that they should attend a particular service in church on a particular Saint's Day,

  95
  there might not be compulsion, but there was a kind of moral coercion which they might not find themselves in a position to resist. The difficulty arose largely in the case of the single-school areas. If they had an adequate system of education, catering impartially both for those who were in favour of denominational instruction and those who desired what some people were pleased to call a torso of religion, these difficulties would not arise. They could all agree upon the ideal in this matter, that they should banish from their education the religious difficulty once for all. It was perfectly easy to agree upon an ideal, provided it was made wide enough, and the terms were not too strictly defined. It was when they came to practical proposals that the real difficulties asserted themselves. On a balance of grievance he considered that the hardship suffered by Nonconformists was more rather than less than that suffered by Churchmen. In towns they always had a choice of schools. It was in the country districts that this particular difficulty arose. He was glad that the Government recognised the fact, and were prepared to safeguard the interests of the children, and to prevent them from being insidiously proselytised from the faith of their parents. He was glad his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education had taken the stand which he had done in this matter. The support which the Secretary to the Board of Education had received from his own side might not have been so vocal as the attacks that had been made upon him, but it was none the less real and substantial, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would persevere in the extension of the principles of the Act of 1902 which was laid down in his ruling on this question.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he would resist the temptation to refer to many interesting topics which had been discussed in the course of the debate. He simply rose for the purpose of putting one Question to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education. A year or so ago he raised in the House some question connected with the staff of the Special Inquiry Department of the Board of Education. He asked the hon. Baronet whether the work which was at that
  96
  time in course of preparation in that Department, and some special reports with which some progress had then been made, were going to be continued and the reports published. The reports about which he asked specifically related to the industrial training of native races, the educational system of Russia, the secondary education system in France, and the education system in Germany, and the hon. Baronet assured him that the work would be continued in the same way and that reports would be published. But thirteen months had passed and the only report which had been issued was a very tiny report relating to the question of Lancashire children who were working half time. What was time Department now doing with regard to the reports about which he asked thirteen months ago, and were they going to be given to the public or not? If not, why had the change been made.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he wished to congratulate the hon. Baronet, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on the course which the debate had taken. Those who heard the discussions on the Education Bill in 1902 would recollect that statements were freely made to the effect that, that Bill, when it became an Act, would not work, that it would give no end of trouble in its administration, and that the whole wrath of the country would be poured on the head of his hon. friend. The empty Benches opposite that afternoon showed how much foundation there was for those vaticinations. The subject which had occupied the attention of the House was the recent decision of the Board of Education in regard to religious instruction. It was probable that he was one of three men in the House who had had practical experience on that subject. He had taken part in it for twenty years, and, although he did not speak as a lawyer, he spoke as one closely acquainted with the Education Act, and he believed that no other decision could have been come to than that arrived at by the hon. Baronet. The by-law laid it down that the attendance of children was to be in school from nine to twelve o'clock, and the children could not be taken out of school to go to church between those hours. As a mere question of policy the decision of the

  97
  Board of Education was right. There were many parents who were quite prepared to accept for their children the religious teaching in the school, but they said that religious teaching in the church was not of the same character as in the school, and it would be quite unfair that the children should be taken to church services which the parents could not approve of.
  There was no problem of greater importance or urgency in the field of education than the training of teachers. Local authorities were hesitating in every direction as to what they should do, and there was no uniformity of practice. His hon. friend, he knew, recognised the difficulty, but had offered no solution. His own opinion was that the State must eventually take into its own hands the training of teachers, and not throw that duty upon the local authorities. He wished to refer to the action of the West Riding County Council in deciding to deduct from the salaries of the teachers in voluntary schools the time given by them to denominational teaching. He suggested that such a practice was quite illegal and would bring the West Riding County Council under the purview of the Bill which had just passed its Third Reading (the Education Defaulting Authorities Bill). He believed some members of the West Riding County Council, in adopting the resolution to which he referred, were acting in ignorance, and he wanted to give the Secretary to the Board of Education an opportunity of making a statement to the public. A resolution of that character inflicted immense misery on teachers, and he wanted the hon. Baronet to declare that night that the West Riding County Council, in insisting on carrying out that resolution, would be acting contrary to law. He submitted that this was an urgent question demanding some statement from the hon. Baronet before the House.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,)appealed to the House to allow this Vote to pass now.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY [9TH AUGUST, EVENING SITTING] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of Sixth, subsequent, and postponed Resolutions.
  Sixth and Seventh Resolutions postponed.
  Eighth Resolution—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £63,497, be granted for Expenditure in respect of the outstanding, Services in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services.'"
  MR. BLAKEsaid he wished to take the opportunity of making sonic protest against the course pursued by the Government in regard to Irish Estimates during the present session and at this time. This Irish Development Grant was a new Parliamentary departure, based on sound principles in so far as it secured to Ireland a proportionate sum to the Equivalent Grant given to England. Criticism had come from both sides of the House that the plan adopted by the right hon. Gentleman interfered with Parliamentary freedom of action. His contention was that the Estimates should show the amount of balances, and the manner in which they were to be applied from year to year. Now this Estimate was discussed on the Vote on Account on the 16th March, and the suggestion was then made as to the importance and propriety of devoting a large sum having application to the Development Fund to the subject of primary education in Ireland, inasmuch as it was that subject that was the source of the original grant. On that occasion this particular was referred to by his hon. friend the Member for Waterford, namely, what was necessary to enable the attendance to be reduced from sixty to fifty in primary schools in order that an assistant teacher might be allowed for schools with the reduced number of pupils. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary considered that subject, and made a suggestion favourable to it, and it was indicated that it might be favourably dealt with at a future time by a Supplementary

  99
  Estimate, about which there could be no difficulty. Since that time, until the 4th of August, nothing was done in a Parliamentary sense. There might have been some pour parlers and negotiations for proceeding with this Estimate, but no Supplementary Estimate was produced; a Paper, however, called a revised Estimate was laid upon the Table on the 4th August, and that document altered both the amount of the proposed grant for the year and the character of the application. The original Estimate comprised an item of £75,000, which was only nominally under consideration, because by the Irish Land Act it was expressly provided that what was necessary was pledged out of the Development Grant. What were free from discussion were items in the original Estimate of £39,000. Out of this £39,000, £21,000 was dropped in the revised Estimate, an amount more than half the original Estimate. The new Estimate consisted of £63,900, of which £39,412 was absolutely new so far as the original Estimate was concerned. He should have thought that a Supplementary Estimate was necessary in order to properly introduce this subject in Supply at all. But instead of that this revised Estimate was produced, and then that morning, owing to the operation of the guillotine, the whole Vote was passed through without any opportunity of discussion, and to-night they had but a few moments allowed before the guillotine fell again, during which to say a few words upon this Vote. He protested against this method of dealing with any Parliamentary Vote and still more with reference to this particular Parliamentary Vote. What was the efficiency of the security insisted upon and stipulated for if the original Vote was to be so distorted and changed as this Vote had been? Nearly half of the original Vote was being withdrawn, and a sum equal to the whole amount of the original Vote was being introduced as late as the 4th August without any explanation from the Minister in charge and without any opportunity for discussion. He made this protest now and he would not waste words upon it. It would be a delusion and a share if such a course as this were to form a precedent at all. He protested against such a method of conducting business, and against the security
  100
  Parliament supposed itself to be possessed of as to the appropriation of public money being absolutely thrown on one side by the course now pursued. All that would have been necessary to do this thing regularly was at some period after the 16th March to have reached some calculations and to have put those calculations upon the Paper so that the views of the country and of Parliament in reference to the old items, the items omitted and the new items inserted might be obtained.
  He would say a few words in reference to the substance of the matter as it now stood. He had said what he desired to say so as to prevent this from being turned into a precedent, and to insist that they should have the right to full discussion, and have ample time for discussion, upon this Vote in a future session. What remained of the free part of the old Estimate consisted of the Marlborough Street Schools, upon which his hon. friend the Member for Waterford made a full statement on the 16th March, to which he did not wish to add anything and which might be summarised in this way—that whereas there was a time at which it was said that the building account for this institution and the three other institutions should cease and that they should be put upon a fair footing by arrangements made in 1900 and completed in 1902, that was now being departed from by a grant being made out of this fund to one of these four institutions—Marlborough Street Training College—while the others were placed in an unequal condition by being compelled to build at the expense of the Roman Catholic Church. No provision was made for these institutions, while £50,000 was given to the Marlborough Street College. He would add also, as his hon. friend said upon that occasion, that with reference to the Training College Vote it was an old claim, a claim made before the Development Grant was thought of—and it exemplified the danger they had feared from the beginning, that this might be used as machinery for taking out of purely Irish funds for Irish purposes sums that ought to borne by the Treasury and by the general taxation of the country.
  Well, then, there was £1,000 for the Bann, which he supposed the right hon.

  101
  Gentleman would expend. He thought they all understood that it did not serve its purpose. They saw what the purpose was, and how little it was served, but it went. Then there was the question of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, which appeared not to have been satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman's own mind, since in the interval he had dropped it. In the new Estimate he was delighted to see the Vote for the half-year for the assistant teachers in the national schools for the purposes to which he had already alluded. He only wished that a much larger proportion of this part of the Development Grant had been reserved for the purposes of primary education in Ireland. Considering the needs of primary education it was deeply to be regretted that any subject with which Parliament was free to deal should be given a preeminence over education. The provision of a dredger was open to the same observation, and it had also to be noted that needs of this description had hitherto been met by the Treasury out of general taxation, so that this was another instance of a purely local fund being applied to a purpose which had hitherto been provided for otherwise. It was not only the initial expenditure, but the permanent running charge of £3,000 a year which had to be taken into account. With regard to the railway grant, that was a dangerous kind of thing to meddle with, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, but he had made a better choice of railways in taking the Newry instead of the Tralee and Dingle line, and in that sense the present proposal was an improvement. He could only repeat that his main purpose in rising was to prevent in mother session what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have been successful in doing this year, and against which he had entered his protest.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said that so far as the hon. Member's protest was against the form of this revised Estimate he agreed that it ought not to be a precedent, but he would remind the House that the Estimate presented at the beginning of the year was introduced under wholly exceptional circumstances which could not recur. The principle
  102
  of this Development Grant was instituted only last year, at a time when attention was absorbed in the passing of the Land Bill. During the autumn he had to enter into very complicated financial arrangements with the Treasury in order to start the Land Bill and the Department, so that it was physically impossible to have an Estimate at all at the beginning of the year. He therefore adopted the device of introducing a skeleton Estimate, promising that it should be revised in the course of the session in accordance with the opinions of hon. Members from all parts of Ireland. He could not quite accept the suggestion that the whole of the sum was to be given to education. Upon the original Estimate in its exceptional form he put two items which ought not to be placed upon a normal Estimate, viz., a sum of money for the Tralee and Dingle Railway, stating at the time that no money could be spent this year unless a satisfactory arrangement was arrived at with the Great Southern and Western Railway, and a sum of money for the Bann drainage. The arrangement with the railway was not completed, and unless it was completed before December he would proceed on alternative lines. As to the Bann drainage, he must consider the very important report which had been presented on that subject before he could frame any scheme for dealing with the matter. He thought these considerations justified the omissions from the revised Estimate. As to the additions, the reduction from sixty to fifty for attendance was, he believed, the unanimous desire of all hon. Members for Ireland, and the same was true in a substantial degree with regard to the dredger. The provision of a dredger would enable greater attention to be given to the eastern portion of Ireland than hitherto, but it would, of course, go round the country. In the same way the selection of the Newry Railway was supported by a very large body of Members. The dredger and the railway represented capital charges which in no way prevented the money ultimately going to educational objects when some proper method of allocating the money had been devised. So much of this money as was not expended in the year passed out of the range of the burdens

  103
  imposed in respect of the Land Bill; it went into the capital account, and could be distributed at leisure. It was evident, therefore, that it would be possible to devote a great portion of the money to education when the proper time came. He might point out that the hon. Member was unduly sanguine if he thought he could get all these moneys upon the ordinary Votes. These were purposes to which money was not devoted in England; therefore money peculiarly Irish had to be devoted to them, or the purposes could not be served at all.
  And, it being Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution then under consideration.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKERthen proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of each Class of the Civil Services Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, and the Revenue Departments Estimates.

CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  CLASS I.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class I. of the Civil Services Estimates," put, and agreed to.
  CLASS II.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Navy Estimates."
The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 332.)

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the out
The House divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 333.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Caldwell, James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Benn, John Williams

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Arrol, Sir William

Bigwood, James

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Atikson, Rt. Hon. John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Chapman, Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Boulnois, Edmund

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Balcarres, Lord

Bousfield, William Robert

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

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

Brassey, Albert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Brodick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bull, William James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Bartely, Sir George G. T.

Butcher, John George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Percy, Earl

Crooks, William

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Cust, Henry John C.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, Ernest George

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen

Jacoby, James Alfred

Randles, John S.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

Dickson, Charles Scott

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Rea, Russell

Doughty, Sir George

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

Remnant, James Farquharson

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Renwick, George

Duke, Henry Edward

Keswick, William

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Knowles, Sir Lees

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Elibank, Master of

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Emmott, Alfred

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Spear, John Ward

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tomkinson, James

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Macdona, John Cumming

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tuff, Charles

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Maconochie, A. W.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ure, Alexander

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Malcolm, Ian

Valentia, Viscount

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Gretton, John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Webb, Colonel William George

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Weir, James Galloway

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Morrell, George Herbert

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Harwood, George

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wylie, Alexander

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Helder, Augustus

Nicholson, William Graham

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Fellowes.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Bell, Richard

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, Donal

Bright, Allan Heywood

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Toulmin, George

Cremer, William Randal

Lewis, John Herbert

Tully, Jasper

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Murphy, John

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

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Grant, Corrie

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. David Thomas and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Partington, Oswald

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Higham, John Sharpe

Robson, William Snowdon

Question, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI. of the Civil Services Estimates," put, and agreed to.

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flower, Sir Ernest

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Arrol, Sir William

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Mount, William Arthur

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute

Balcarres, Lord

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balfour, Rt Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds

Gretton, John

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nicholson, William Graham

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'donderry)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Bigwood, James

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Percy, Earl

Bingham, Lord

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pierpoint, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Boulnois, Edmund

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bousfield, William Robert

Helder, Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brassey, Albert

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bull, William James

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Randles, John S.

Butcher, John George

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ratclitf, R. F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Renwick, George

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

Hunt, Rowland

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Chapman, Edward

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jeffrey's, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Keswick, William

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Knowles, Sir Lees

Spear, John Ward

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Crooks, William

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cust, Henry John C.

Legge, Col. Hon. Hencage

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Tomlinson, Sir WM. Edw. M.

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Tuff, Charles

Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Dickson, Charles Scott

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Valentia, Viscount

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Doughty, Sir George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

Webb, Colonel William George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Durning, Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart

Macdona, John Cumming

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wylie, Alexander

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Maconochie, A. W.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Fellowes.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Fisher, William Hayes

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Benn, John Williams

Brigg, John

Bell, Richard

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Bright, Allan Heywood

Broadhurst, Henry

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Caldwell, James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cremer, William Randal

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Dalziel, James Henry

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Spence, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants.)

Delany, William

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Sullivan, Donal

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

Jones, William (Garnarvonshire

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Tomkinson, James

Doogan, P. C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Elibank, Master of

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Tully, Jasper

Emmott, Alfred

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ure, Alexander

Evans, Sir FrancisH. (Maidstone

Lewis, John Herbert

Wallace, Robert

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Ffrench, Peter

Moss, Samuel

Weir, James Galloway

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Murphy, John

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Malley, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grant, Corrie

Partington, Oswald

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Joseph Walton.

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Harwood, George

Robson, William Snowdon

standing Resolutions reported in respect of the Army Estimates."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the out
standing Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates."
The House divided—Ayes, 166; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 334.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Davenport, William Bromley-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

Howard, J. (Mild., Tottenham

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Arrol, Sir William

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Doughty, Sir George

Hunt, Rowland

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Balcarres, Lord

Duke, Henry Edward

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW (Leeds

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

Keswick, William

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Knowles, Sir Lees

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bigwood, James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpol)

Bingham, Lord

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Boulnois, Edmund

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Bousfield, William Robert

Flower, Sir Ernest

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Brasses, Albert

Forster, Henry William

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gardner, Ernest

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Bull, William James

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

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

Butcher, John George

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Gore, Ho. S. F. Ormsby-

Lowe, Francis William

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Gretton, John

Macdona, John Cumming

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Chapman, Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall

Maconochie, A. W.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hambro, Charles Eric

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Malcolm, Ian

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F;

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Corbett, T. L. (Down, South)

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Helder, Augustus

Morpeth, Viscount

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Morrell, George Herbert

Cust, Henry John C.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Ratcliff, R. F.

Tuff, Charles

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, Viscount

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Renwick, George

Walker, Col. William Hall

Nicholson, William Graham

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Webb, Colonel William George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Percy, Earl

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Pierpoint, Robert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wylie, Alexander

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Spear, John Ward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Fellowes.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Randles, John S.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Robson, William Snowdon

Bell, Richard

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Benn, John Williams

Harwood, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

Brigg, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bright, Allan Heywood

Horniman, Frederick John

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

Caldwell, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Cremer, William Randal

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sullivan, Donal

Crooks, William

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kilbride, Denis

Toulmin, George

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tully, Jasper

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Ure, Alexander

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galleway

Emmott, Alfred

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Evans, Sir Francis. H (Maidstone

Moss, Samuel

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Murphy, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Malley, William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Partirgton, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Wallace.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)

Grant, Corrie

Rea, Russell

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
Not amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he had put down this Amendment in order to have an opportunity of asking the Attorney-General to explain the meaning of the words "including the repealed portions thereof." He should like to ask what were the repealed portions of the Act, and, if they were repealed, why they were repealed, and why they should now be restored in this Bill. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'including the repealed portions thereof.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said that the machinery of the Act of 1878, which provided for the creation of four Bishoprics, was being utilised for the creation of the new Bishoprics of Birmingham and Southwark. All that was required was to see that the machinery should be applicable to these two new Bishoprics with certain modifications. He thought there was no objection to dealing with the Act of 1878 in that way.
MR. LOUGHexpressed the opinion that this was one of the worst examples of legislation by reference that

113
it was possible to find. He did not think the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman for re-enacting these repealed clauses were sufficient. If they were to be re-enacted they should be re-enacted seriatim in this Bill. It was an extraordinary thing to suggest that these clauses should be revived in this way, and he appealed to the House to leave out these words.
MR. CALDWELLasked whether there was any precedent for what was being done in this case. He reminded the House that in legislation by reference Acts of Parliament were referred to which were extant. That was quite intelligible, but to refer to clauses of an Act which had been repealed and were not operative, was an unheard-of thing to do. If a copy of the 1878 Act was referred to, these repealed clauses would not be found in it, and, if the Act was printed without these sections, how were they to know where these repealed clauses were. This was quite a novel proceeding, and the Attorney-General must know that there was no precedent for it. The whole object of it was, in his opinion, to get the Bill through easily. If these clauses had been put into the Bill it would not have been easy to get it through the House. The Bill had been drafted in the fewest possible words for the simple purpose of reducing the difficulty of getting it through the House.
MR. MOSSasked how Section 10 of the Act of 1874, which had reference only to the Archdeacon of St. Albans, would be relevant to the present Bill.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there were provisions of special significance in the Act of 1874 which were necessary for the Bishoprics there dealt with, but provisions such as that dealing with St. Albans would not, of course, relate to the Bishoprics of Birmingham and Southwark.
MR. WHITLEYthought the explanation of the Attorney-General only made the matter worse. It would be quite absurd to retain the words, "and the repealed portions thereof." Why
114
should not the particular section be enumerated, so that people might know exactly what was meant? It really seemed as though the Law Officers did not know what had and what had not been repealed, and unless the clause were amended he should support his hon. friend in the division.
MR. HIGHAMpointed out that the Act of 1878, by which four new Bishoprics were created, was passed amid energetic protests and without adequate discussion, in the month of August, and now this Bishoprics Bill was being passed under exactly similar conditions. The present Bill, however, was even more ridiculous. The Act of 1878 referred back to Acts of Queen Anne and George III., so that the Bill now under discussion was based not only upon the Act of 1878, but upon Acts of Queen Anne and George III.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not see that this has anything to do with the Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLpointed out that it was part of the repealed portions which were to apply to this Bill.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No, it is not.
MR. CALDWELL: Section 2 is a repealed portion.
MR. HIGHAMsaid that no proof had been brought forward of the need for additional Episcopal supervision, and the people of Yorkshire would strongly deny any such necessity.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's observations might have been relevant on the Second Reading, but they are not relevant to this Amendment.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYthought the House was being asked to take a most unreasonable course. When they took out of the Act of 1878 the portions repealed there was very little left. He had copied out the repealed portions of the Act, and they covered four closely written foolscap pages. Those were practically dead clauses and they did not exist on the Statute-book. After being defunct for

115
ten years they were being resurrected and revivified and imported into an Act of Parliament. That was a very unusual proceeding. These clauses had been dead for ten years and the House could have no knowledge of them except by turning up the original Act of 1878. This was an unheard-of proceeding, and perhaps the learned Attorney-General would tell them how much of the original Act of 1878 now existed. He hoped these clauses would be incorporated and set out in the Bill.
MR. DALZIELsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pay some heed to the arguments which had been put forward in favour of this Amendment. He ventured to think that had it not been for the hurry to get measures through at this period of the session the fairness of the arguments in support of this Amendment would have been recognised. They were proposing to pass a Bill which referred to Birmingham and Southwark, and they were at the same time introducing something which was altogether foreign to the purpose of the Bill. He doubted whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House to do what the Government proposed to do, because by the Bill as it stood they were ignoring an Act of Parliament which had already been passed, and which dealt with something altogether different to the purposes of this Bill. When they were directly repealing or re-enacting a particular portion of an Act of Parliament surely it ought to be clearly set out. He supported the Amendment because it dealt with this all-important question of legislation by reference. After the many protests they had made upon previous occasions he never expected to hear any more of this practice being adopted. The references alone would take anybody a couple of hours to look up. It ought not to be necessary to spend hours in the Library to understand what they were asked to do by this Bill. The protest they were making was a protest against the policy of the Government with regard to this practice. The Government seemed to him when they were instructing the draftsman to tell him that they would like his work all the better if he could put the question into one clause, so as to
116
exclude all possibility of Amendments. In ordinary circumstances it would be only reasonable to ask the Government to insert just what they wanted to carry out. He submitted that the Amendment was one which ought to be accepted. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to adjourn the debate upon this Bill in order that he might bring forward a clause drafted more in accordance with the object they had in view. If the olive branch was not held out from the Treasury Bench he hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that this Bill was introduced in March, and on the 16th of May his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment made exactly the same proposal, and after full discussion he withdrew it.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that relates to the Amendment before the House.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that it was exactly the same Amendment which was negatived without a division by the Standing Committee on Law.
MR. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member was speaking of a Bill which had been previously passed.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he was much gratified by the tone adopted in the Standing Committee.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the hon. Member was technically accurate. The fact was that he did not press the matter to a division because he saw he was in a hopeless minority. He merely mentioned that fact to the House to show that there was no ground for complaint.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he thought the tone of the discussion on that occasion was a sign of union and cooperation, and a desire to make the national Church useful. He hoped the same tone would prevail on the present occasion.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid he wished to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the statement made

117
by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark that there were certain clauses referred to which had no existence in law. Without these clauses the House could not possibly understand the Bill. Surely they were entitled to be told where they would find the lost clauses. He understood the Attorney-General to say that they had been repealed. If they were repealed they were not law. The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to say that none of them knew how much or how little had been repealed. If
the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, and the Prime Minister did not know whether these clauses had been repealed or not how were uninstructed people to get at the facts? He hoped the Prime Minister would come to the aid of the House in a matter of such vital importance as this.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 62. (Division List, No. 335.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morpeth, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Arnold-Forstor, Rt. Hn Hugh O.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Mount, William Arthur

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flower, Sir Ernest

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, William Graham

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pierpoint, Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bigwood, James

Hambro, Charles Eric

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bingham, Lord

Hamilton, Marq. of L'nd'nderry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bond, Edward

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)

Randles, John S.

Bousfield, William Robert

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Brassey, Albert

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Ratcliff, R. F.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bull, William James

Hunt, Rowland

Remnant, James Farquharson

Butcher, John George

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Renwick, George

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Keswick, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Chamberlan Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chapman, Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Spear, John Ward

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Tuff, Charles

Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

Valentia, Viscount

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lowe, Francis William

Walker, Col. William Hall

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

Webb, Colonel William George

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

Macdona, John Cumming

Whitmore, Chas. Algernon.

Dickson, Charles Scott

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Maconochie, A. W.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Doughty, Sir George

Malcolm, Ian

Wylie, Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Duke, Henry Edward

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Fellowes.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Harcourt, Lewis, V. (Rossendale

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bell, Richard

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

Benn, John Williams

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Horniman, Frederick John

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Brigg, John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sullivan, Donal

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Kilbride, Denis

Tomkinson, James

Cremer, William Randal

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Crooks, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Tully, Jasper

Dalziel, James Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ure, Alexander

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Delany, William

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Elibank, Master of

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Evans, Sir FrancisH (Maidstone

O'Malley, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Partington, Oswald

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

Ffrench, Peter

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Broadhurst.

Grant, Corrie

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that in proposing this new clause he had no intention of impeding the passage of this Bill; but it raised the question of the relations between the Episcopal Bench and the House of Lords. He only wished to raise a very minute portion of that question, which he, however, thought was quite relevant to the question before the House. It was said that if the Church of England was to carry out its functions, having regard to the enormous increase in the population, it should have many more new Bishops. The question he wished to raise was, whether it was fair to the older Bishops, some of whom occupied Sees of great historical importance, that they should be passed over by these new Bishops? Some people thought that Bishops should be very great persons indeed, living in great style, and practically occupying the position of Peers of the realm. That was not his view, and therefore he begged to move the new clause standing in his name.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'Act, to insert the words 'but no Bishop appointed in pursuance of the provisions of this Act shall be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords, unless at the time of his appointment he was a Peer of the realm, or shall, after his appointment, become a Peer of the realm by descent or creation.'"—(Mr. Brynmor
Jones.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the House would be of opinion that it was better to leave this matter in regard to the new Bishops to be dealt with by the general law as embodied in the Act of 1878. The new Bishops would be on the same footing as the other Bishops.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. HIGHAMmoved to omit Subsection (a) of Schedule I.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 5, to leave out paragraph (a) of Schedule 1."—(Mr. Hibham)
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid it was desirable that there should be this provision, because power to rearrange boundaries was necessary to the effective working of these bishoprics.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'with,' in page 2, line 10, stand part of the Bill."
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he saw no reason why the patronage of the old Bishops should be given to the new Bishops. It was perfectly well known that the Bishops had not done their duty too well. There were High Church and ritualistic practices, and it would be well to safeguard the new

121
Bishops against temptations of that kind, though he did not suggest that they would succumb to such temptations. If, as a Nonconformist, he had to take part in making new Bishops, he wished to make them as harmless as possible.
With that view he supported the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 336.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Duke, Henry Edward

Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fielder, Edward Brocklehurst

Morrell, George Herbert

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Arrol, Sir William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mount, William Arthur

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Flower, Sir Ernest

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, William Graham

Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbe tJohn

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Percy, Earl

Bigwood, James

Gretton, John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bingham, Lord

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bond, Edward

Hambro, Charles Eric

Pretyman, Ernest George

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hamilton, Marq. of L'nd'nderry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bousfield, William Robert

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Randles, John S.

Brassey, Albert

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bull, William James

Henderson, Sir A. (Statford, W.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Butcher, John George

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Renwick, George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Causton, Richard Knight

Hunt, Rowland

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Chapman, Edward

Keswick, William

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Knowles, Sir Lees

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Tuff, Charles

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Walker, Col. William Hall

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Webb, Colonel William George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Crooks, William

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

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lowe, Francis William

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wylie, Alexander

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Macdona, John Cumming

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Maconochie, A. W.

Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Doughty, Sir George

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kilbride, Denis

Brigg, John

Ffrench, Peter

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bright, Allan Heywood

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Broadhurst, Henry

Grant, Corrie

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Caldwell, James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Cremer, William Randal

Horniman, Frederick John

Lough, Thomas

Dalziel, James Henry

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Delany, William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Murphy, John

Doogan, P. C.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nannetti, Joseph P.

O'Malley, William

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Sullivan, Donal

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

Rea, Russell

Tomkinson, James

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifon)

Toulmin, George

TELLERS OF THE NOES—

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tully, Jasper

Mr. Higham and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ure, Alexander

Shackleton, David James

Weir, James Galloway

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

MR. HIGHAMmoved to omit the words "with his consent," on the ground that if the provision was necessary it was not wise to allow the Bishop of Worcester to block the transfer of patronage.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'with his consent.'"—(Mr. Higham.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYpointed out that it was not unusual, when a transfer of this kind was made, to provide that the consent of the present occupant of the office should be given. It was only in conformity with practice and with what was right that these words should be retained, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
MR. LOUGHthought the words ought to go. Even if his own judgment was in favour of the intention of the Bill, the Bishop of Worcester might not feel free to consent to something restricting the rights of his successors. The Government ought to have the courage to decide this matter for themselves, and not to
put it on the Bishop of Worcester. It was not a matter affecting emoluments or anything in which the Bishop might have any narrow or personal interest; therefore he thought that Amendment should be accepted.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHconsidered that the words constituted a grave reflection upon the Bishop of Worcester, because they suggested that he might withhold his consent to proposals which the Government considered were for the good of the Church. It was very undesirable that patronage in the neighbouring diocese should be exercised by the Bishop of Worcester, and he hoped the Government would agree to omit these words.
MR. MOSSsaid that unless the words were deleted the schedule would be an absurdity, because it already provided, without the consent of the Bishop, for the re-arrangement of the boundaries and the taking away of rights of patronage, and the matters here dealt with were a necessary consequence.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 337.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bousfield, William Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brassey, Albert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Arrol, Sir William

Bull, William James

Davenport, William Bromley-

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Causton, Richard Knight

Dickson, Charles Scott

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Doughty, Sir George

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

Ceecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balfour, Rt Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds

Chamberlain, Rt Hn (J. A. (Worc

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chapman, Edward

Duke, Henry Edward

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

Bigwood, James

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

Fielden Edward Brocklehurst

Bingham, Lord

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bond, Edward

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fisher, William Hayes

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Randles, John S.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Forster, Henry William

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

Reid, James (Greenock)

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Renwick, George

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Macdona, John Cumming

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Maconochie, A. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Gretton, John

Malcolm, Ian

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

Hall, Edward Marshall

Montagu, G: (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morpeth, Viscount

Tuff, Charles

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morrell, George Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Walker, Col. William Hall

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Mount, William Arthur

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Webb, Colonel William George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Hunt, Rowland

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Nicholson, William Graham

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Wylie, Alexander

Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

Parkes, Ebeneze

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Keswick, William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Knowles, Sir Lees

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pretyman, Ernest George

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Pryce- Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

NOES.

Bell, Richard

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shackleton, David James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Butcher, John George

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Kilbride, Denis

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Cremer, William Randal

Layland- Barrett, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Crooks, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Toulmin, George

Dalziel, James Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ure, Alexander

Delany, Willliam

Lewis, John Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, John

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Malley, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Partington, Oswald

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

Grant, Corrie

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Mr Higham and Mr. Moss.

MR. CALDWELLmoved to omit Subsection (b) in the first schedule, explaining that it was to provide for the apportionment of money obtainable from the sale of Church lands. A sum of £15,000 was to be utilised for the building of a new palace for the Bishop of Rochester. There was a sum of about £60,000 involved, and it seemed to him that two Bishops were about to swallow up all this money between them. The object of his Amendment was to raise a protest against all that money going to the Bishop of Rochester. If there was a sum of £60,000 available for the diocese as a whole, why
126
should practically the whole of it be distributed between two Bishops? That money ought to go to promoting the spiritual welfare of the diocese as a whole. Under this sub-section the Bishop of Rochester got £15,000 for a residence, and he must have a very big salary in order to keep up a house of that kind. Why should the new Bishop not have this money? Why should the Bishop of Rochester have this money for a new residence whilst somebody else took over his old house? He protested against the use of public money for this purpose instead of it being devoted, say, to the

127
raising of the stipends of poor curates in the diocese or in aid of useful parochial work.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 16, to leave out paragraph (b) of Schedule 1."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words of paragraph (b) to the word 'fifteen' in page 2, line 21, proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR LEES KNOWLESsaid that the sale of Addington, augmented by the payment by the Archbishop for accrued dilapidations, and reduced by the discharge of a mortgage, raised £46,000, of which £29,000 was devoted to the cost of the site and the erection of the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. That left £17,000, making, with accrued interest, the sum of £19,000 and this provided £15,000 for the new residence of the Bishop of Rochester and £4,000 for the Bishopric of Southwark.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked what was to become of this money? Was it to be a sort of trust? The money was not being spent to augment the salaries of the poor clergy, but upon two Bishops. He thought £15,000 was a very large sum to spend upon a residence. It was rather a large order, and they ought to have some further explanation from the Government in regard to this proposal.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that this money was being spent for a public purpose. If the present residence of the Bishop of Rochester were transferred to the new Bishop of Southwark another residence for the former Bishop would
have to be provided, and £15,000 could not be considered an extravagant sum for that purpose. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the difficulty about this Bill had arisen from the fact that there were in the proposed new diocese a large number of clergymen carrying on the work of the Church on very insufficient remuneration, and they felt that the sum of £15,000 might be much better spent in allowing the work to be done by individual clergymen than in building a palace for a new Bishop. Hon. Members on that side of the House, who loved the Church probably as much as hon. Members opposite, felt that in the present position of the Church of England thousands and tens of thousands of pounds ought not to be spent in building palaces for Bishops. There were a number of clergymen who had not the wherewithal to carry on their work in a proper manner. He thought that the funds accruing to the Church could be best used to enable the clergymen carrying on the spiritual work of the diocese to do it in a proper way, and this section of the Bill was opposed to that because it placed a large amount of money at the disposal of the Bishop instead of the hard-working clergymen.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he did not think, all things considered, that £15,000 was too much to provide a suitable house for the efficient conduct of the work the Bishop would have to do.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 131; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 338.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bigwood, James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bingham, Lord

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chapman, Edward

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Bond, Edward

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Arrol, Sir William

Bousfield, William Robert

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Balcarres, Lord

Bull, William James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'.

Butcher, John George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Causton, Richard Knight

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Dalkeith, Earl of

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Keswick, William

Percy, Earl

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Knowles, Sir Lees

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Doughty, Sir George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lee,ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Pretyman, Ernest George

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Randles, John S.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol,S.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Remnant, James Farquharson

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Lowe, Francis William

Renwick, George

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Macdona, John Cumming

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Maconochie, A. W.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Malcolm, Ian

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Gretton, John

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tuff, Charles

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Valentia, Viscount

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Morpeth, Viscount

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Morrell, George Herbert

Webb, Colonel William George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Mount, William Arthur

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Hunt, Rowland

Nicholson, William Graham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Fellowes.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Parkes, Ebenezer

NOES.

Brigg, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

Shackleton, David James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Broadhurst, Henry

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, Donal

Cremer, William Randal

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Crooks, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Toulmin, George

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tully, Jasper

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Moss, Samuel

Walker, Col. William Hall

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Weir, James Galloway

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Malley, William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rea, Russell

Higham, John Sharpe

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Tomkinson.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

MR. MOSSsaid he moved his Amendment as a protest against the unequal manner in which the endowments of the Church were distributed. It was a perfect scandal to the Church that some of the most hard-working clergymen in the great centres of the population were only paid £50, while others had salaries amounting to many thousands.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'four thousand,' and insert the words 'three thousand five hundred'"—(Mr. Moss)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words 'four thousand' stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid it must be borne in mind that this was a very ancient See indeed, and that the funds for the new Bishopric had been very largely subscribed in the district. Under these circumstances he trusted the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he objected to taking this sum of £8000 from the Bishopric of Worcester for the purpose of endowing this new Bishopric of Birmingham. Why should not the people of Birmingham, which was a very wealthy community, raise all the money necessary to endow the new Bishop? They were being asked to transfer £800 from the diocese of Worcester to the diocese of Birmingham; and he was surprised that the people of Birmingham should have made such a suggestion. It was said that the Bishop of Worcester had consented; but the proposal would not operate during the lifetime of the present Bishop.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 29, to leave out paragraph (4) of Schedule 2."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That paragraph (4) of Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the House would reject the Amendment. There had been very large subscriptions from Birmingham for the purposes of the new Bishopric, and it was not unreasonable in carving out this new Bishopric that the sum mentioned should be transferred from the diocese of Worcester. The unselfish devotion of the present Bishop of Worcester was well known.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. The most populous part of the diocese of Worcester was being taken away; and, surely, it was not unreasonable that a few hundreds a year should be taken away also.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1902–3, RESOLUTIONS REPORTED.
Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year
132
ended the 31st day of March, 1903, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

(a) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £388,335 5s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £437,337 3s., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £49,001 17s. 5d

(b) That the recepits in aid of certain Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the sum of £4,598 15s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule, while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £207,119 8s., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule, so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £202,520 12s. 8d.

(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

617,270

4

0

Total Deficits

365,747

13

11

Net Surplus

£251,522

10

1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations-in-Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is

133
necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1902–1903. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

…

Wages, etc. of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

119,682

16

6

…

…

6,668

4

6

2

…

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

12,203

12

7

…

…

13,000

4

0

3

…

Medical Establishments and Services

…

4,575

15

0

1,083

0

6

4

…

Martial Law

437

17

5

…

45

8

7

5

…

Educational Services

4,804

11

7

…

131

18

4

6

…

Scientific Services

…

1,215

7

8

…

2,004

3

1

7

…

Royal Naval Reserves

…

22,764

2

1

35

6

5

8

…

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.

Sec. 1

…

Personnel

188,522

13

7

…

…

1,210

7

8

Sec. 2

…

Materiel

…

243,960

11

7

…

132,921

4

11

Sec. 3

…

Contract Work

…

53,937

6

11

…

9,912

7

1

9

…

Naval Armaments

…

66,440

15

5

…

37,807

9

7

10

…

Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

…

39,183

12

10

3,317

14

6

11

…

Miscellaneous Effective Services

45,859

17

4

…

…

1,183

10

4

12

…

Admiralty Office

4,451

14

0

…

…

10

8

1

13

…

Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

…

454

19

11

…

745

8

0

14

…

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

6,584

9

8

…

…

1,434

2

5

15

…

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

3,639

14

5

…

77

5

4

Amount written off as irrecoverable

6,919

10

1

388,335

5

7

137,337

3

0

4,598

15

4

207,119

8

0

Net Surplus, £49,001 17 5

Net Surplus, £202,520 12 8

Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

£251,522 10 1

Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1903, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—
(a) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £2,235,435 4s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £2,266,558 17s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross
1. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
estimated expenditure by the net sum of £31,123 13s. 2d.
(b) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £523,014 8s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £938,463 11s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £415,449 3s. 2d.
(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for

135
Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

2,613,688

15

8

Total Deficits

2,167,115

19

4

Net Surplus,

£446,572

16

4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in

Schedule.

Number of Vote

Army Services, 1902–1903.Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations-in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

…

1,028,191

3

0

…

7,958

15

7

2

Medical Establishments: Pay, etc.

…

31,748

10

7

…

19,727

19

10

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc.

324,011

2

9

…

612

7

11

4

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

…

248,246

2

10

…

73

1

2

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

23,391

15

2

…

…

1,672

1

3

6

Transport and Remounts

624,534

10

4

…

246,678

7

6

7

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

…

359,562

0

7

67,354

14

9

8

Clothing Establishments, and Services

…

402,078

19

10

…

207,828

6

10

9

Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

…

182,606

9

3

27,700

12

3

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including staff for Engineer Services

670,280

2

6

…

…

185,595

14

1

11

Establishments for Military Education

4,591

15

2

…

…

5,321

7

7

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

291,872

9

5

…

…

519,286

5

5

13

War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

34,424

0

10

…

120

0

4

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

253,696

5

1

…

68,069

3

9

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

…

12,532

1

6

112,464

17

1

16

Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

…

1,593

9

9

14

5

0

Balances irrecoverable

8,633

2

11

2,235,435

4

2

2,266,558

17

4

523,014

8

7

938,463

11

9

Net Surplus, £31,123 13 2

Net Surplus, £415,449 3 2

Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

£446,572 16 4

WAYS AND MEANS [9TH AUGUST].
Resolution reported.
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, the sum of £73,083,164, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways
reduction of the net charge as Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned
and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Victor Cavendish.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
"To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the Service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and five, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day.

INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): There are two principles that I have endeavoured to embody in this Bill: first, that safety for the nation in time of danger should be secured by the Government being allowed to exercise control over wireless telegraphy, and, secondly, that we should not allow a big monopoly to grow up which, at some time, the State might have to purchase. The advisability of securing the latter is very obvious when one regards the results of the telephone monopoly. Fears have been entertained in certain quarters that this Bill would be in some way harmful. I have endeavoured to meet, and I think that in each case I have succeeded in meeting, the views of hon. Members who entertained those fears by Amendments which will be passed by agreement. The class with whom I have the greatest sympathy are those who wish to go in for experiments in this science, and I have been able to frame a clause which will give absolute freedom in that direction, merely requiring registration on the part of those who wish to engage in experiments. In a matter of this description the House will doubtless desire that the Act should be administered as liberally as possible, and I shall certainly do my best in that direction. For what it is worth I will give an undertaking that no request for a licence for experiments shall be refused unless the refusal has been approved by me personally. I will also insert a clause limiting the operation of the Bill to two years, so that at the end of that period, with the experience that will then have
138
been gained, any necessary alterations may be made.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. LOUGH,who had given notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, said he would agree to the Second Reading only on the understanding that substantial Amendments were to be placed on the Paper in the sense indicated by the noble Lord, for the purpose of minimising, if not altogether removing, the objections entertained to the Bill. Having been a long time in the House, he was naturally somewhat sceptical about the promises of Ministers, and he was not at all sure that the Amendments which had been promised would be such as to make it possible to regard the Bill with any favour. He objected to a Bill of this character being rushed through at such an hour, and at such a period of the session; if the matter was of so pressing a character it ought to have been dealt with two or three months earlier. If any mistake were made through its being taken under pressure much harm might result, and in assenting to the Second Reading he wished to reserve to himself full rights to object to the Bill, if necessary, after the promised Amendments had been placed on the Paper.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment. Read the third time, and passed.

SHOP HOURS BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th August], proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee),

139
"That a clause (Exemption of Shopkeepers), be read a second time."
Question again proposed.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the object of the clause was to preserve to small shopkeepers the power to earn their livelihood. Many shopkeepers employed no assistants, and transacted practically the whole of their business either early in the morning or late at night. He had received many letters from shopkeepers saying that they sat in their back parlours all day doing practically no business and that if they were compelled to close at seven o'clock their means of livelihood would be taken away. He moved a similar clause in Committee, but was defeated, the main objection being that it would be unfair to compel the big shopkeeper to close while the small shopkeeper was allowed to keep open. To meet that objection he had so altered his proposal as to allow the larger shopkeeper to keep open provided he kept no assistants at work after the given hour. The Voluntary Early Closing Association had given him an instance of a firm in the neighbourhood of Oxford Street where that plan was adopted, and he hoped the House would agree to the new clause.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said the object of the Bill was to enable shopkeepers in any district, by a two-thirds majority, to avoid being compelled by one or two recalcitrant individuals to keep their shops open until abnormally late hours. The hon. Baronet appeared to think that some of the shopkeepers desired to keep their shops open. He could assure him that that was not the fact. The views of the late Lord Salisbury upon that point were considerably modified by the evidence brought before the Select Committee of the House of Lords.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYreminded the hon. Member that he pre-
140
sented a petition signed by 400 people asking for an Amendment in this direction.
MR. COCHRANEsaid they were all familiar with petitions, and he preferred to rely upon the evidence presented before the Select Committee and the Report based thereon. But the class in which the hon. Baronet was interested were not lost sight of in the Bill. The proposed new clause would make it impossible for any small shopkeeper to avail himself of this Bill. Provision was already made that in making the order the local authority might have regard to the requirements of any special class of shops, and define the shops to which the order should apply. Therefore, if the local authority, who would have full knowledge of the requirements of the district, came to the conclusion that a special class of small shopkeepers should be permitted to keep open to a later hour, they would have power to exempt them from the order. That, he thought, would be a far better way of meeting the difficulty than that proposed by the hon. Baronet.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid there was an enormous number of small shopkeepers—who did not really compete with the big shopkeepers—who desired to keep their shops open to such hours as they thought fit, and the big shopkeepers did not object to their so doing. He should, therefore, support the new clause.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYheld that it was most unreasonable to prohibit an adult man from employing his evenings as he liked, and he certainly would not be a party to any such prohibition. He believed the Bill would inflict a great hardship upon many of the poorer people who could not get out to do their shopping earlier in the day. While fully sympathising with the desire to see shops closed earlier, he believed that this drastic legislation would do more harm than good.
Question put.
New clause (Power of county councils to delegate powers under the Shop Hours Acts, 1892 to 1895):
"Where an order under this Act is in force in any metropolitan borough or urban district the council of the county in which the borough or district is situate may delegate to the council
The House divided:—Ayes, 26; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 339.)

AYES.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Knowles, Sir Lees

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Doughty, Sir George

Lowe, Francis William

Walker, Col. William Hall

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Hambro, Charles Erie

Mount, William Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Herbert Robertson.

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Prightside

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fisher, William Hayes

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Gardner, Ernest

Percy, Earl

Arrol, Sir William

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Grant, Corrie

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Randles, John S.

Balfour, Rt Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Bingham, Lord

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry)

Rea, Russell

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bond, Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bousfield, William Robert

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Renwick, George

Brassey, Albert

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Brigg, John

Higham, John Sharpe

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bright, Allan Heywood

Horniman, Frederick John

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hunt, Rowland

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Butcher, John George

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Caldwell, James

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Shackleton, David James

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, Donal

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. F (Worc.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Chapman, Edward

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Toulmin, George

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tuff, Charles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Valentia, Viscount

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Webb, Colonel William George

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Whiteley, H. (Ashon und. Lyne

Delany, William

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Macdona, John Cumming

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Doogan, P. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Malcolm, Ian

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Fellowes,

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Ffrench, Peter

Moss, Samuel

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

of the borough or district, either with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think it, their powers under the Shop Hours Acts, 1892 to 1895."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELmoved an Amendment to leave out the words "metropolitan borough or." As the Bill was first introduced the powers under the Act were to be conferred on the London County Council, but in passing through the Committee the Government accepted an Amendment substituting the metropolitan borough councils for the County Council. He took a very strong objection to this change, because he believed that its effect would be to a very large extent to make the Act unworkable in London. The Act was already trammelled by many difficulties and obstacles, and it was necessary to secure a two-thirds majority of the shopkeepers before the hours could be reduced. Then they had to obtain the consent of the local authority and the Home Office. It was necessary to have the areas as large as possible, and then they would not have people closing at eight o'clock whilst their competitors in another district might continue open until nine or ten o'clock at night. In London they had twenty-nine separate districts. In support of the contention that the County Council should be the authority to deal with this matter he said he would give one or two illustrations. Fulham Road, which consisted to a large extent of shops, was on one side in the borough of Chelsea, while on the other side it was in the borough of Kensington. If different hours were fixed for these two boroughs very great difficulties would arise. The same could be said of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road, where there were two or three different authorities concerned. He trusted the House would revert to the form in which the Bill was originally introduced.
Amendment proposed to the proposed clause—
In lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'metropolitan borough or.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed clause."
MR. COCHRANE,in opposing the Amendment, said it was true that when this Bill was introduced the definition of local authority was different from
144
what it was at present. But the Bill had been drafted and redrafted again and again, and it was considered that what was now proposed would be more convenient. There must be boundaries, and even if the County Council were the authority, the streets must be boundaries in London. The Home Secretary would be able to adjust such differences as might arise, and see that these were not glaring inequalities in the various localities as between one side of a street and the other.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he could not speak as a supporter of the Bill, but as it had reached this stage he was in favour of the experiment being tried. In regard to the Amendment now under discussion there was no doubt that previous Bills had made the County Council the authority in matters of this kind. If his hon. friend divided the House he would vote with him.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was generally in favour of the County Council getting powers in regard to matters with which they could properly deal, but he was of opinion that in this case it would be absolutely hopeless that any good effect could be secured from the Bill if they made the County Council the authority. How could the County Council get the assent of two-thirds of the shopkeepers all over London? There would be extreme difficulty in getting it. He thought there was a better chance of getting some benefit in London from the Bill if the borough councils were made the authority.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. STUART SAMUELmoved an Amendment to Clause 2 to enable persons of the Jewish religion to keep open their shops at certain hours on Saturday to which closing orders might apply. His object in moving the Amendment was to prevent the imposition of the new and serious disability which would be established by the clause if passed as it now stood. The

145
exemption he asked was already recognised in Statutes already passed. The special exemptions applied to Jewish occupiers of factories were set out in Sections 47 and 48 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. Where the occupier of a factory or workshop was a person of the Jewish religion he had the following privileges: If he kept the factory or workshop closed on Saturday until sunset he might employ young persons and women on Saturday from after sunset till nine o'clock in the evening. If he kept his factory or workship closed on Saturday both before and after sunset he might employ young persons and women one hour on every other day in the week (not being Sunday), in addition to the hours allowed by law to non-Jewish occupiers, such hour to be either at the beginning or end of the period of employment, but not to be before six a.m. or after nine p.m. It might be said that under Section 2, Sub-section 3, of the Bill, a closing order might "authorise sales after the closing hour in cases of emergency, and in such other circumstances as might be specified or indicated in the order," and that consequently a local authority could, where necessary, insert in the closing order special exemptions for the benefit of the Jewish shopkeepers, but that argument was not maintainable. In the first place the words "in such other circumstances," being coupled with the word "emergency," would be construed to mean "circumstances" ejusdem generis with "emergency"; and, if so, the fact that Jewish shopkeepers kept their shops closed from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset might not be a "circumstance" within the meaning of the sub-section which the local authority could take into consideration. It might probably be further said that a Jewish shopkeeper who wished to open after sunset on Saturday would be able to do so by substituting another day for Saturday under Sub-section (b) of Clause 2 of the Bill. But that was no answer. In the first place, such sub-section only applied when the closing hour was fixed earlier than seven p.m., so that if it was put at seven, or later, there was no power of substituting at all. Again, even where the closing hour was fixed earlier than seven, and so another day could be substituted for Saturday, the substitution would still involve
146
a special loss to Jews—a loss so heavy that the power of substitution became of no real value to them. For instance, if a closing order fixed one o'clock for Saturday, a Jewish shopkeeper, in order to open on Saturday evening, after the termination of his Sabbath, until ten p.m. that evening, would have to close at one o'clock on some other day of the week, and thus his shop, unless Friday were such a day, would be actually closed for at least two and a half days in each week; and if Friday were such a day, two days as against one and a half days in the case of his non-Jewish trade rivals. What the Jews had to look to the Government to safeguard was, that, as the Bill actually authorised a Saturday closing order, if such an order were made it should not place the Jewish shopkeepers under an unreasonable disability. He contended that what he asked for in his Amendment was reasonable. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 29, after the word 'proper' to insert the words 'Provided always that every closing order which fixes a closing hour for Saturday shall contain a provision authorising the occupier of a shop who is a person of the Jewish religion, and keeps such shop closed from sunset on any Friday until sunset on the Saturday immediately following, to open that shop on such Saturday at or after sunset and to keep it open until ten o'clock in the evening of the same Saturday.'"—(Mr. Stuart Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. COCHRANEsaid he could not accept the Amendment, and he had reason to believe that it was disapproved of by other hon. Members of the same faith as the hon. Gentleman.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2. line 15, to leave out Sub-section 6 of Clause 2."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the sub-section to the word 'substitute,' in page 2, line 18, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. LOUGHsaid that this Sub-section 6 would render the whole object of the Bill perfectly futile.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he objected to this sub-section in Committee and he did so still. Why on earth should a shopkeeper have to fix a day on which he should close his shop? It might just as well be said that all business should be regulated by some municipal authority.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that, under the Bill, a particular trade had the option of fixing any particular day on which to close. The object of the clause, was to give greater freedom in that direction. However, he did not consider that the matter was of very great importance; and he would not resist the Amendment.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wished to support the observation of the hon. Member. He was aware that shopkeepers had approached trades union officials and had asked them to use their influence to secure the closing of shops on a particular day and he, therefore, hoped the House would support the proposal of the Government.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 3, at end, to add the words 'provided that every closing order shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is confirmed, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it praying that the order may be cancelled, His Majesty in Council may annul the order, and any order so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no effect, but without prejudice to any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the order and without prejudice to the power of making any new closing order.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. LOUGHmoved, in page 5, line 6, to insert, "The sale of confectionery."
148
Strong representations had been made to him on the subject. The Amendment would be very useful in connection with children's holidays; and he hoped it would commend itself to the favourable consideration of the House.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 6, at the end, to insert the words 'The sale of confectionery.'"—( Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. COCHRANEsaid it would be better to rely on the local authorities in the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [LORDS.]
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment. Read the third time, and passed.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of certain Expenses incurred by the Fishery Board for Scotland under any Act of the present session to regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland (King's Recommendation signified), this day.—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at eighteen minutes before Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill; Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Poor Law Authorities (Transfer of Property) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Education (Local Authority Default) Bill. Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord President [E. Vane (M. Londonderry)]). (No. 189.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Three o'clock.