Sitting of 18 April 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—East Cowes Gas Bill [Lords]; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [Lords]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [Lords]; Southend and Colchester Light Railways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Tuesday, May 2nd.
  Great Western Railway (New Railways) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Aberdare Urban District Council Bill (changed from "Aberdare Tramways Bill"). As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Aylesbury Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Colne Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Ealing Corporation Bill; South Oxford-shire Water and Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [Lords]; Worcestershire County Council (Bridges) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill (by Order). Adjourned Debate on Question [April 12th] further adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.
  Municipal Corporations (Merthyr Tydvil Scheme Confirmation) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Barnet, Brockenhurst, Farnham, Gosport and Alverstoke, Houghton-le-Spring and District (Amendment), Lichfield, Ludlow, Lytham, St. Albans (Rural), and Ware," presented by Mr. Bonar Law; supported by Mr. Victor Cavendish; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bishop's

  423
  Stortford, Dover (Extension), Hemsworth and District, Marlborough, Tottington, and Woking (Chertsey Extension)," presented by Mr. Bonar Law; supported by Mr. Victor Cavendish; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland, under The Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Act, 1900," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; supported by Mr. Walter Long; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

  DIVORCE BILLS.
  Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Serjeant Hemphill, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Joseph Leese, The Lord Advocate, Sir Robert Reid. Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Thomas Shaw, were nominated members of the Select Committee on Divorce Bills.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to the House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with documents deposited in the case of McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

PETITIONS.

  CANADIAN AND FOREIGN STORE CATTLE (IMPORTATION INTO GREAT BRITAIN).
  Against "alteration of existing regulations; and Motor-Cars, for alteration of
  424
  regulations, Petition from Apply; to lie upon the Table.

  DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Lancashire and Cheshire; and. the Southern Counties; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Burghead; Carnoustie; Glasgow (five); Larkhall; Leith; Montrose; Perth; Rothesay; and Sanquhar; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Heybridge; and Kew and other places; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (COMPANIES) BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Lincoln; and Market Drayton; to lie upon the Table.
  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  Petition of Thomas Allen, for alteration of the Order in Council of the 6th March, 1902; to lie upon the Table.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Drawback, on Tobacco Stalks.
  MR. DUNCAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant tobacco manufacturers the power to claim the draw back on tobacco stalks when delivered to the bonded warehouse nearest their manufactories.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Tobacco manufacturers may claim drawback on tobacco stalks—(a) When delivered to a Customs bonded warehouse for the purpose of being converted into sheepwash or of being denatured; (b) when delivered to a King's warehouse and abandoned to the Crown; (c) when shipped for exportation. I am considering how far it may be possible to provide by law for the deposit in bonded warehouses of tobacco stalks intended for exportation, and for payment of the drawback at the time of warehousing instead of after shipment as provided by The Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863.

  Telegraphic Withdrawals from Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended December 31st, 1904, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal; and will he also state the number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank during the year ended December 31st, 1904, was 216,243, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal was about Is. 3d. The number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day was 15,269, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice was about 9d.

  Temporary Hands in the Post Office Engineering Department acting as Linemen.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether a number of temporary hands of the Engineering Department, London, have been placed on the class of acting linemen for maintenance purposes, with an increase of three and a half hours work per week, without any increase of pay; and, if so, whether, seeing that these men are continuously employed, he will make the position an established one, with a reasonable increase of pay for the extra time thus imposed.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A large number of temporary hands have been given continuous employment since 1903 as "authorised maintenance" men. With few exceptions the hours of duty of these men have not been increased; and where it has been necessary to increase the hours of duty a proportionate increase has been made to the wages. I do not propose to convert their places into established situations; but they have been given certain privileges and many of them may become established linemen as vacancies occur.

  West Indian Mail Contract—Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in deciding the new West India mail contract, due consideration will be given to the services in that regard for the past sixty-three years of the Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company, to the favourable Resolution respecting it of Colonial Legislatures, and to the fact that it was the only tenderer to the public invitation last year, and offered to carry the mails on a three per cent, return on the capital invested in the service.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Answer to the Question is in the affirmative; but I must add that these are not by any means the only points to be considered.

  Sorters in East Central Section of Sorting and Registered Letter Offices— Punishment Duty.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General

  427
  what is the number of sorters employed in the East Central Section, London Postal Service, Sorting Office, and the number of hours of punishment duty awarded for errors of duty, from January 1st to March 31st of the present year; also the number of sorters employed in the Registered Letter Division, East Central Section, and the number of hours punishment duty awarded for errors of duty in that division, from January 1st to March 31st of the present year.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will obtain the information asked for and communicate it to the hon. Member.

  Huddersfield Post Office Assistant Superintendentship.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the cause of the delay in filling the post of assistant superintendent at the Huddersfield Post Office, which has been vacant since October 31st last; and, seeing that the work is now being performed by an officer of a lower class, whether, when the appointment shall be made, the appointment and any consequent promotions will be allowed to date from the occurrence of the vacancy, in order to obviate the loss of the increased emolument payable on promotion to the officers who are not responsible for the delay.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A revision of the higher appointments at Huddersfield is pending, and until this is settled the vacancy referred to cannot be filled. I hope, however, to come to a decision very soon, and I will then consider whether the circumstances can be regarded as so exceptional as to warrant the promotion being dated back.

  Scotch Land Law—Position of Lessor under a Building Lease.
  Ms. EUGENE WASON: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether, seeing that, under Section 200 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, the right of a lessor under a building lease, however few remaining years have to run of the lease, can be confiscated under a process against the. lessee, although the lessor is no party to the action or may not know
  428
  of this action, so that a party purchasing holds the land in perpetuity without being liable to pay any tack duty or being subject to any building regulations of the estate on which the subjects are situate, he will be prepared to take action to have the law modified.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) My attention has been called to the decision in the Court of Session in the case of Young v. Grainger. I am not, however, at present prepared to promote legislation on the subject.

  Eviction of Crofters on the Culloden Estate, Black Isle, Ross-shire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that further eviction of crofter leaseholders on the Culloden Estate, Black Isle, Ross-shire, are contemplated, will the Government now arrange to introduce legislation for the extension of the benefits of the Crofters Act, 1886, to crofter leaseholders.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am unable to add anything to the Answer given on the 20th March.†

  Infant Mortality.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware of the percentage of deaths of infants; if he receives tabulated records of the deaths in different urban and rural districts; and if in future he will direct a medical inspector to visit such localities and inquire into the causes producing such results.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Local Government Board are aware of the percentage of deaths of infants in different parts of England and Wales. Their information on this subject is derived from particulars given in the weekly and quarterly reports of the Registrar-General as to certain towns, and from the annual reports of the medical officers of health of urban and rural districts, copies of which are sent to the Board. I could not undertake to direct a medical inspector to visit every locality in which there is a high rate of infantile
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii., 460.

  429
  mortality, but where this is the case the circumstance is taken into account with other considerations in determining whether there should be a medical inspection of the district.

  County of London—Rateable Value and Non-representation.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state the total rateable value of the county of London; the proportion of the total rateable value which is represented by railways, limited companies, and other bodies not entitled to vote; and the proportion of the total rateable value which is represented by persons who compound for their rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The total rateable value of the administrative county of London, according to the valuation lists which came into force on the 6th April, 1905, subject to appeals, is £41,657,244. A statement published by the London County Council shows that the rateable value of railway property in the county, according to the valuation lists which came into force on the 6th April, 1901, was £2,307,864. The Board are not in a position to give the other particulars asked for.

  Gambling in Futures and Options, etc.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to apply the principle of Leeman's Act respecting bank shares to all gambling in futures, options, warrants, metals, shares, commodities, and foodstuffs, to prevent fictitious dealing in property and articles which have no existence, and therefore cannot be delivered.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade are not prepared to initiate legislation for the purpose desired by the hon. Member.

  Position of the Buoy at the Entrance to Lough Foyle.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Gas and Bell Buoy, which was to be erected at
  430
  the Tuns Bank entrance to Lough Foyle, has, despite the protests of the masters of the Canadian mail steamers and of the cross Channel steamers, been erected by the Commissioners of Irish Lights at the other side of the entrance to the lough, where it is not only useless for the purpose for which it was intended but when the light goes out becomes a danger to vessels making for Lough Foyle; and, if so, will he request the Commissioners to have it removed from its present position to the Tuns Bank, the place designated for it by all the master mariners frequenting the Port of Londonderry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The reasons which guided the Commissioners of Irish Lights in selecting the existing site for this buoy were given by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on March 29th, 1904.† The Commissioners now inform me that they cannot yet say whether they will be able to bring the buoy nearer to the bank or not. The Board of Trade have no power to interfere with the discretion of the general lighthouse authority in the matter.

  Illegal Trawling by Foreign Boats Manned by British Crews.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if he is aware that, following upon the recent conviction in "Wick Sheriff Court of the flag captain of the foreign trawler "Apollo" of illegal trawling, the flag captain of the trawler "Strome," a vessel registered under a foreign flag, but manned by an English crew, has since then been convicted in the same Court of a similar offence, and that the flag captain, although a foreigner, resides at Grimsby; and whether he can state if any decision has been arrived at yet to prevent a recurrence of these illegalities.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I am informed that the captain of the "Strome" was fined £75, and that the fine has been paid. If there is any repetition of the offence he will be liable to fresh proceedings. †See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 966

  Financial Control in Macedonia.
  MR. BOND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been reached as to the participation of all the great Powers in the financial control to be established in Macedonia.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The question is still under negotiation, and we are not yet, therefore, in a position to make any statement in regard to it.

  Civil Service—Salaries of Assistant Clerks.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the salaries of assistant clerks serving when the amended scale of pay was introduced in 1902 were not increased to the amount of which they would have been in receipt if the new scale had been in force at the date of their appointment, in accordance with the terms of Clause XV. of the Order in Council of November 29th, 1898, and following the precedent set in the case of the junior clerks in the Office of Woods, when their increments were raised in 1897.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The question of giving retrospective effect to the concession granted to the assistant clerks in 1902 was fully considered at the time, and I am unable to depart from the decision then arrived at.

  General Index to "Hansard" extending over a Long Period.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a general index to Hansard extending over a long period has been projected; has any progress been made with such index; has the work been abandoned; and, if so, on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that such an index has been contemplated by a private firm of publishers, and that considerable progress was made in the work, but that it has, however, now been abandoned, on the ground that sufficient financial support was not forthcoming.

  Annual Leave in the Customs Service.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that in the Customs Department port service clerks are granted twenty-one days annual leave after five years service; messengers eighteen days after five years service; and that house porters, constables, and watchmen receive sixteen days; whereas the senior abstractors or assistant clerks, whose average length of service is over eighteen years, are granted only fourteen days; and if he can grant to the latter class such an extension of their annual leave as will bring it more into harmony with that of other ranks in the Customs Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The matter of leave referred to by my hon. friend will be dealt with in the reply to the memorial from the assistant clerks, which will shortly be issued.

  H.M.S. "Prince George" in Collision with a German Vessel—Liability for Damage of German Government.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether the cost of the repairs to H.M.S. "Prince George," which collided with the "Friedrich Karl" on March 31st, have been repaid by the German Government; and, if not, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to claim the cost of the repairs in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) This repair has already been executed. It is not intended to present any claim to the, German Government in respect of it.

  Obsolete Warships.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the total amount realised by the sale of obsolete warships included in List No. 3 (except cases in which disclosure of the purchase money has been refused in the public interest); the total amount of the original cost of the warships; and the cost of repairing them during the past ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The amounts realised by the sale of the obsolete vessels already disposed of have been

  433
  furnished in reply to the hon. Member's Questions of April 3rd and 4th †and the information asked for in the second and third parts of the Question will be found in the Return No. 74–1 recently issued.

  Rocket Practice by Coastguards at Regattas.
  SIR THOMAS DBWAR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, prior to the year 1896, it was the custom of the coastguard stationed at Fowey, Cornwall, to hold their practice with the rocket life saving apparatus at the Lerryn Regatta, on the Fowey River; and, in view of the instructive value of such exhibitions to persons residing in coast villages, can he arrange for the practice to be resumed at Lerryn Regatta; and will he consider the expediency of ordering similar practice to be held at other regattas when such a course can be adopted by the local coastguard without impeding the ordinary duties of the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It is not considered that these exhibitions at regattas have any instructional value for the working of the rocket life-saving apparatus, nor are they desirable from a service point of view, and it is not proposed to resume the practice at the Lerryn or other regattas.

  Coastguard Service at Poldhu.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that on the occasion of the wreck of a French vessel off the Cornish coast at Poldhu in February last, as well as at the more recent wreck of the "Khyber," the only persons saved were rescued by civilians, and that although the latter vessel was anchored close to the shore and rockets were fired throughout the night she was unable to attract the attention of the coastguard; will he state how many coastguardsmen are stationed in the vicinity, and how their absence from the scene of the respective wrecks is accounted for.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) A complaint as to the failure of the coastguard
  † See (4) Debates; cxliv., 103, 304.
  434
  to render assistance until too late in the case of the French vessel has already been received and fully inquired into, when it was found that there was no foundation for the charge. It would be premature to make any statement at present as regards the case of the "Khyber," in view of the inquiry which is being held by the Board of Trade.

  Board of Agriculture Departmental Committees.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the Departmental Committees appointed by the Board and the various subjects into which they were instructed to inquire since July, 1895.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) Departmental Committees have been appointed by the Board during the period named on the following subjects, viz.—

  1896.

  Pathology of Swine Fever.

  Sale of Ordnance Survey Maps.

  1897.

  Laws relating to Dogs.

  Universities and College Estates Acts.

  1898.

  Inland Transit of Cattle.

  1899.

  Glanders.

  1901.

  Milk and Cream Regulations.

  Agricultural Seeds.

  Scottish Agricultural Prices.

  Louping Ill and Braxy.

  1902.

  Butter Regulations.

  Glanders (Scientific).

  1903.

  Forestry.

  Dipping and Treatment of Sheep.

  Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act.

  1904.

  Fruit Industry.

  Railway Rates on Agricultural Produce.

  1905.

  Grouse Disease.

  Direct and Indirect Taxation.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the particulars of the calculation which have led him to the conclusion that of the estimated Tax Revenue for 1905–6 direct

  435
  taxation will contribute 50·2 per cent. and indirect taxation 49·8 per cent.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The calculation is based on the assumption that indirect taxes are all taxes levied in respect of consumable articles, with the exception of the export duty on coal, whether paid into the Exchequer or Local Taxation Accounts, and that direct taxes are represented by all other taxes.

  Dredging of Irish Harbours.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that the Board of Works shall supply a sufficient dredging plant, and such other appliances as may be necessary, to maintain the smaller harbours around the Irish coast in an efficient condition.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Board of Works has no such responsibility as is suggested by the lion. Member's Question. They are at present merely acting as managers of the dredger bought out of the funds of the Development Grant to reduce the cost of dredging to the authorities of harbours which cannot afford to maintain or hire dredgers.

  Cork Lunatic Asylum—Overcrowding caused by Patients from other Districts.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted by the management committee of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum on the 21st ult., calling his attention to the fact that many insane patients of other countries and of other counties in Ireland have been committed and remain chargeable to local rates at an annual cost of about £1,240; and whether he will comply with the request of the committee and promote a Bill this session enabling it to deport such patients, with a view to reduce the present overcrowding in the asylum and to relieve the local rates of this charge.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The resolution has been received. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation of the character suggested.

  The Irish Lights Board.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the want of representatives of the principal ports in Ireland on the Irish Lights Board, he will bring in a Bill to reconstitute the existing Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary has asked me to reply to this Question. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to introduce such a Bill.

  Cultivation of Beet Sugar in Ireland.
  Ms. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that it has been proved that the saccharine contents of sugar beets grown in the United Kingdom, but more especially in Ireland, considerably exceed the average of those grown in Germany, Austria, Russia, France, Belgium, and Holland, and that the yield of home-grown roots is higher than those grown on the Continent, and of the suitability of soil and climate, steps will be taken to establish a beet sugar factory in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Although good yields of high quality sugar beet have been at times obtained in Ireland, the Department are satisfied that, for the reasons given in answer to the previous Questions on this subject, beet would not prove so remunerative as other root crops now grown, and they are therefore not prepared to take steps with a view to establish a beet sugar factory in Ireland.

  Nurses Trained in Irish County Hospitals.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, by the arrangements enforced by the Local Government Board for Ireland in their Nursing Circulars, the Irish county hospitals are not recognised as training schools, and nurses trained in these institutions are debarred from occupying the position of charge nurses for district hospitals; and whether, in view of the experience of leading physicians and surgeons in this matter, and of the fact that nurses so trained are

  437
  recognised as trained nurses in Great Britain and by the English Local Government Board, he will take steps to abrogate the rule in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Many of the Irish county hospitals are recognised as training schools for nurses, and the Local Government Board regard as "qualified nurses" parsons who have obtained certificates of proficiency from these institutions. In order to encourage the appointment of at least one qualified nurse in each Irish workhouse, it is provided by Section 58 of the Local Government Act of 1898 that one-half of the salary of such nurse shall be recouped from the local taxation account; and to insure that none but nurses of high qualifications should obtain these appointments, the Board only recognise the certificates of general clinical or other hospitals where there is a good teaching staff and a large number of beds available for instruction. The present arrangement has been found to work satisfactorily, and has received the approval of the medical profession generally.

  Tyrone County Hospitals and Training of Nurses.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will lay upon the Table of the House the report of the medical inspector of the Local Government Board as to the capabilities of the Tyrone county hospitals for training nurses.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Such Reports are confidential documents, intended for the information of the Board, and it would be contrary to the invariable practice to make them public.

  Schedule of Infectious Diseases in Ireland—Measles.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Local Government Board for Ireland have omitted measles from the schedule of infectious diseases, in view of the character of this disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The infectious diseases to which the Infectious Disease (Notification) Act, 1889, applies are specified in Section 6
  438
  of the Act, and do not include measles. Power is, however, given to the sanitary authority by Section 7 to order, subject to the Board's approval, that the Act shall apply in their district, permanently or temporarily, to measles or any other infectious disease not mentioned in the Act.

  Applications of Evicted Tenants on the Boxwell and Coolroe Estates.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether applications from the evicted tenants on the Boxwell and Coolroe Estates for restoration under The Land Purchase Act, 1903, have been received by the Estates Commissioners; and if any progress has been made as regards restoring these tenants to their homes.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Applications have been received from seventeen evicted tenants from the estate of Mr. P. Boxwell, but the landlord has signified his unwillingness to sell unless all the tenants on his property should agree to purchase. The Coolroe Estate of Mr. T. D. Plaice has been placed before the Commissioners, who have directed an inspection to be made, and the case of two evicted tenants who have applied for reinstatement will at the same time be inquired into.

  Evicted Tenants in County Tipperary from 1840 to 1869.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return of the number, names, and residences of the tenants who were evicted in Tipperary county in the forties, fifties, and sixties, with the rent, valuation, and arrears in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No official records giving the information asked for are available.

  West Indian Mail Service.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for the continuation of the mail service with the West Indies, seeing that the contract

  439
  with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company expires on June 30th next, and whether the tenders lodged by that company on October 1st, 1904, were made public by a Colonial Governor, and have recently been declined; and whether fresh tenders have since been requested on exactly the same terms and conditions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The question of the mail service with the West Indies is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any announcement on the subject at present.

  Irish Militia Regiments—Enlistment Bounty.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of Stats for War if his attention has been called to the effect on the numbers in the Irish Militia regiments of the non-payment of a bounty on enlistment; and if he is prepared to sanction such a division of the present annual payments that each recruit shall receive £1, or such less sum as may be determined upon, on enlistment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Army Council is not in possession of any information to show that the non-payment of a bounty on enlistment has any effect on recruiting for the Irish Militia, nor have any representations to this effect been made to the Council. There would not, therefore, appear to be any good reason for carrying out the alteration suggested in the last part of the Question.

  Honorary Rank of Major-General for Retired Army Colonels.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the system under which colonels retired for age in the Royal Marine Light Infantry are granted the honorary rank of major-general; and whether he will consider the advisability of applying this rule to substantive Army colonels retired for age as well as to offices who have lost rank and pension owing to the warrant of January 1st, 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The decision to abolish the honorary rank of major-general on re-
  440
  tirement was the result of a very careful and prolonged consideration of the various issues involved. This decision was subsequently reconsidered, and ultimately maintained by my predecessors, and I am not prepared to depart from the conclusions at which they arrived.

  Payments for Stout Supplied to Army in South Africa.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the payment of £200 in July, 1903, for stout supplied in June, 1901, to the British Army in South Africa and the payment of £200 in January, 1904, for the same quantity of stout constitute one transaction, or are they two different transactions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) These are two different transactions. The £200 paid in July, 1903, was for stout supplied in June, 1901. The £200 paid in January, 1904, was for stout supplied in December, 1901.

  Voting Disqualification (Poor Law) Removal Bill.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give facility for the passing of the Voting Disqualification (Poor Law) Removal Bill; and, if not, will he include it in any Bill for the betterment of the condition of the unemployed he may have in contemplation for submission to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Government do not propose to introduce any provisions dealing with the Poor Law in the course of the present session.

  Militia Bill.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say whether the proposes to proceed with the Government Militia Bill early after Easter or later in the session.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I fear it will hardly be possible to make progress with the Bill in the near future; but due notice will be given before the Second Reading is taken.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    His Majesty's Navy—Prize Firing Results.
    EARL OF DALKEITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the results of the prize firing in His Majesty's Fleet during the last year will be published; and if he can state if the official reports show that the practice was satisfactory, and in which squadron the best results were obtained.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,): This Return is now being printed and will be issued very shortly. It will contain the information asked for in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.

    Volunteer Brigade Majors.
    GENERAL LAURIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to abolish Volunteer brigade majors; and, if so, what officer is to make the necessary arrangements previous to and for brigade camps, and also what financial allowance will be made to such officer.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There is no present intention of abolishing Volunteer brigade majors.
    GENERAL LAURIE: What will happen when the brigade majors have retired? Will the vacancies be filled?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask for notice of that.

    Promotion in the Royal Army Medical Corps.
    DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the discontent existing amongst the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps at the delegation to the Advisory Board of the duty of recommending to the Secretary of State officers for promotion; and if, seeing that many of the members of the Board are
    442
    civil medical practitioners, have no personal knowledge of the qualifications of many of the officers recently passed over, and are obliged to take their opinion of these officers from others junior to themselves, and that the continuation of the existing system throws the responsibility of promotions from the Secretary of State and the Director-General on the Advisory Board, he will arrange that in future officers passed over with excellent official records will be informed of the reason for their supercession.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member raised last session the points now brought forward again, and definite replies were given to each. I have nothing to add to the Answers which I then gave him, and I am not aware of the dissatisfaction to which he alludes.

    Recruiting Statistics.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the ages of the recruits enrolled since the nine years enlistment for colour service came into operation; and whether these ages are only taken by statement of the recruit or by report of the medical officer.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The ages of the recruits mentioned were as follows for those taken up to 31st March, 1905:—

    Under 18

    59

    18 to 19

    6,185

    19 to 20

    2,070

    20 to 21

    1,044

    21 to 22

    636

    22 to 23

    430

    23 to 24

    345

    24 to 25

    296

    Over 25

    44.

    The ages of recruits are those given by them on the attestation papers. If the medical officer thinks the age manifestly incorrect, it is for the approving officer to elicit the correct age.
    GENERAL LAURIE: Does that include the ages of recruits enlisted in the garrison battalions?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There have been none enlisted.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: How many recruits were under seventeen years of age?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot say, but they are included with those, under eighteen.

    Extensions of Army Service.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many soldiers enlisted for three years colour service have extended their service during the past year; and whether, since the new rule of enlisting for nine years colour service has been introduced, any increase of men so enrolled as short colour-service men have extended their colour service.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The number of three years men who extended their colour service to complete eight years during the year from the 1st April, 1904, to 31st March, 1905, was 12,297, making an average of 1,025 a month. Since the introduction of enlistment for nine years with the colours the number of three years men extending has averaged 900 a month.

    Young Army Recruits.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State foe War whether he can state the ages of the recruits enrolled during the time the three years colour service was in operation; and whether it has been found that in a larger percentage of cases the young soldiers under twenty years of age become more-effective in the Mediterranean and other colonial garrisons than in stations in the United Kingdom.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: With regard to the first part of the Question my hon. and gallant friend will find the statistics he requires on page 60 of the General Annual Report for 1905. With regard to the second part of the Question "the variation of statistics renders comparison difficult, but there is no reason to suppose that the young soldiers become more effective in stations abroad than in the United Kingdom.

    Transvaal Constitution.
    MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary
    444
    of State for the Colonies if the terms of the Transvaal Constitution will be promulgated in London and Pretoria simultaneously?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): Yes, Sir.

    Railways in Northern Nigeria
    MR. SKEWES COX: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if surveys for suggested railways in Northern Nigeria have been made; and from what points it is proposed to build railways.
    MR. LYTTELTON: A survey for a railway from the Niger to Zaria was completed last year, but no decision to construct such a railway has yet been taken.

    Administration of Indian Railways.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State on Mr. Robertson's Report on the Administration of the Indian Railways: and whether he will state why the Government of India in the Legislative Council refused to publish this correspondence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have been in correspondence with the Government of India on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and do not think it desirable to publish the correspondence at present. The substance of the decision arrived at as to the constitution and powers of the new Railway Board has been published in the Resolution of the Government of India included in the Gazette of India of 18th February last. The other questions dealt with in Mr. Robertson's Report are for the most part still under consideration.

    Japanese Seizures of British Vessels.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state the total number of British vessels carrying alleged contraband, the seizure of

    445
    which has been upheld by the Japanese Prize Courts.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The latest information received from His Majesty's Minister at Tokio is that the appeal for the release of "M.S. Dollar" has been rejected and that the Prize Court of first instance has condemned the "Roseley," "Lettrington, "and" Oakley,"with their cargoes. No other judgments, we understand, have yet been rendered.

    Silver Coinage in Circulation.
    MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to complaints as to the insufficient number of shillings and sixpences now in circulation as compared with the number of florins and half-crowns; and whether steps will betaken to increase the number of shillings and sixpences for circulation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir, I have received no complaints on this subject. There is a large supply of shillings and sixpences at the Bank of England and an ample reserve of both denominations at the Royal Mint.

    Stripped Tobacco.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pounds of imported stripped tobacco are now, or were at the date of the last Return, in bond, subject to the duty of 3s. 3d. per lb.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The estimated weight of imported stripped tobacco subject to the duty of 3s. 3d. per lb., in Customs and Excise Bonded Warehouses on the 31st March last, was 15,860,000 lbs.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I presume that does not include the stripped tobacco liable to a duty of 3s. 1d.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, the Question contains nothing about that.

    Stripped Tobacco—Memorial from Liverpool Chamber of Commerce.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a memorial from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, stating that the stripped tobacco imported since the differential duty was imposed was either contracted for prior to the imposition of said duty or has been imported for manufacture in bond, and that practically no strips are now being put up in the United States for shipment to the United Kingdom; and whether he can estimate the amount of revenue which will be derived from imports of stripped tobacco during the ensuing year.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, in their memorial dated the 28th February, 1905, made the statement that 10,503 casks of strips had been imported into London, Liverpool, and Glasgow between 1st June, 1904, and 1st February, 1905, but that these casks had been either in transit or contracted for before the imposition of the extra duty—or had been imported for manufacturing in bond or for export. I take no responsibility for these statements, which I have means of checking. I have no information about what is now being done in the United States of America, but I do not suppose that any appreciable quantity of strips will be put up there for export to this country until the existing stock of strips in bond, which under the Finance Act of last year was accorded preferential treatment, has been worked off. In answer to the second part of the Question, I may say that the consumption of strips in 1904–5 was 53,810,000 lbs.—and if a similar amount were to be cleared during 1905–6 from stocks bonded before 20th April, 1904, the resulting revenue would be £336,000. If any strips imported since that date were cleared for home consumption, the revenue would be proportionately increased.

    Industrial Alcohol Committee.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Minutes of the evidence taken before the Industrial Alcohol Committee will be circulated

    447
    among Members in view of the early introduction of the Budget and Finance Bill.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Minutes of Evidence were laid on the Table on Thursday last (13th instant) and I am informed that they will be circulated to-morrow morning. I do not propose to deal with this subject in the Finance Bill, but I shall make it part of a separate Bill which I shall have to introduce to deal with this and kindred subjects.

    Stamped Receipt Forms for Civil Servants.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Paymaster-General if he can arrange to issue stamped receipt forms to Civil servants, instead of the unstamped forma now in use.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): Although there may be some objections to the proposal of my hon. friend, I shall be glad to give it consideration.

    Civil Service Superannuation.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he intends carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission which sat in reference to the present Civil Service Superannuation Act; and, if so, when.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to receive after Easter a small deputation of Civil servants on the subject of the recommendations of the Royal Commission referred to, and I accordingly think it would be premature to make any statement thereon.
    MR. SLOAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will receive the deputation?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, the date has not been fixed, but it will be soon after Easter.

    Telephone Agreement.
    SIR WALTER THORBURN: I beg to ask the Post-
    448
    master-General if he can state when the Motion to appoint the Select Committee on Telephone Purchase will come up for effective discussion.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am anxious that the Motion to appoint a Select Committee to consider the Agreement between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company should be agreed to by the House as soon as possible. I had hoped that this matter would be treated as non-controversial, and I still hope that this may be the case. Certain objections as to the constitution of the Committee having been made I at once met the views of those who made the representations and they have expressed themselves as completely satisfied. While there is no necessity to have this Committee at all, still I think it would be found to be for the convenience of the House that they should have the Report of such a Committee before them before they proceed to consider the Agreement in the whole House.
    MR. LOUGH: Did the noble Lord not definitely promise the House that the Agreement should be submitted to the Committee before it was sanctioned by the Government?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. I said I thought the best way would be for a Committee to consider it before it came up in the House. All I pledged myself to was that the House should have an opportunity of considering the Agreement before it became effective.
    MR. LOUGH: Will the noble Lord bring on the discussion on the appointment of this Committee in Government time so that we may have an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Committee?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. I have met hon. Members who objected to the constitution of the Committee and they have expressed themselves satisfied. If hon. Members do not like it they will not have it.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the noble Lord consider

    449
    the advisability of putting a Labour Member on the Committee so that the interests of the telephone operators will be properly safeguarded?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. I did what was wished by the oldest Labour Member of the House, with whom I conferred with regard to the constitution of the Committee. I do not think I am called upon to do anything further.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Did the hon. Member in question come to you as a representative of the County Council or as a representative of the Labour group in the House?
    LORD STANLEY: He came as a Labour Member of the House.

    Committee on the Fruit Industry.
    MR. ARTHUR MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can name an approximate date when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Fruit Industry will be presented.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES,): I believe about the middle of May.

    London Rates.
    Ms. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the amount in the pound of rates levied by an equal pound rate over the whole county of London for the purposes of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and the Equalisation Fund, and applied to meet expenditure incurred locally by the guardians and the metropolitan borough councils.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GEEALD BALFOUR,): Taking the last year in respect of which the claims of the boards of guardians on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund have been dealt with, the expenditure of the guardians and the Corporation of the City of London and the borough councils which, by the operation of that fund and the Equalisation Fund, was borne equally by
    450
    the whole of the administrative county of London, represents the produce of a rate of Is. 3·2d. in the £ on the assessable value of the county.

    Smallpox Outbreak on the R M. S. "Nile."
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the R.M.S. "Nile" was visited and inspected by the port sanitary authority before she entered the port of Southampton; whether any offer was made to isolate persons who had been in contact with the case of smallpox on board; what steps were taken to advise the local authorities of each place to which the passengers and crew departed of the necessity of supervision and isolation; and how many cases of smallpox have up to the present occurred in connection with the case on board the R.M.S. "Nile."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have made inquiry on this subject and I understand that the "Nile" was visited off Netley by the medical officer of health and by a sanitary inspector of the Southampton Port Sanitary Authority, that no offer was made to isolate persons who had been in contact with the case of smallpox on board, but that the only person who was stated to have been in contact with him was disinfected, and kept under observation by the port sanitary authority. I also understand that the names and addresses of the passengers and crew were obtained, and that the local authorities of each place to which these persons stated they were proceeding were informed by post the same night. Up to the present time I have heard of nineteen cases of smallpox in England and Wales as having occurred in connection with the case on board the "Nile." Fifteen of these occurred in Southampton, eleven of which were infected on board the vessel, whilst the others occurred amongst persons who had been in contact with them.

    French Sugar Duties.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether a reduction of the French sugar duty is allowed when beetroot sugar is carried

    451
    in French ships from the northern to the southern districts of France, which is called the detaxe de distance; if so, will he state the amount of this reduction, and whether such allowance amounts to an indirect bounty upon sugar.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): A reduction in the sugar duty known as the detaxe de distance is allowed on the French sugar sent from the northern ports or Paris to French ports on the Atlantic or Mediterranean to be refined for export. The continuance of an allowance of this kind, not exceeding two francs per 100 kilogs, was expressly recognised by the Conference at which the Sugar Convention was signed. An allowance permitted by the contracting States could not be treated as a bounty for the purposes of the Convention.

    Austrian Sugar Freights to India.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether any, and if so, what, reduction has been made by the Austrian Government in its subsidised steamship lines on the freight upon sugar carried to India to recoup the Austrian sugar producers from a part of the losses entailed on them by the abolition of the sugar bounties; and whether such reduced freight amounts to an indirect Austrian export bounty upon sugar, such as would justify us from excluding Austrian sugar from entering the United Kingdom.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I understand that the Austrian Lloyd Steam Navigation Company have agreed to reduce the freight for sugar from Trieste and Fiume to Indian ports from 14s. to 10s. per ton from September 1st next, on condition that the sugar shall be carried exclusively by vessels of their line. The reduction is ascribed to the competition of Italian and other lines of steamers from Trieste and Fiume. Austria being a party to the Sugar Convention there could be no question of excluding Austrian sugar from the United Kingdom.

    London Port and Docks.
    MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether
    452
    it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce any measure this session dealing with the management of the docks and port of London.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Answer is in the negative.

    North Wales Quarries.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state the number of workmen dismissed during the last three months from the North Wales Quarries, Limited.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Board of Trade have not the information desired.
    MR. LONSDALE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?
    MR. BONAR LAW: We have no means of getting the information which are not open equally to the hon. Gentleman.

    Education Codes.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education when the Education Code, 1905–6, for day schools will be laid; when the Evening Schools Code, 1905–6, will be laid; and whether, having regard to the findings of the Physical Deterioration Committee, the latter of these documents will make provision for a specific grant to be given on account of physical training.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I hope that the Day School Code will be laid upon the Table of the House by the end of May, and that the Regulations for Evening Schools will be published by about the same time. The question of the provision of a specific grant for physical training is under consideration.

    St. George's, East Bristol, and Wright's Hill, Rowley Regis, Higher Grade Council Schools.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is intended to enforce a £3 per annum fee from parents in the case

    453
    of the pupils attending the St. George's, East Bristol, higher grade council school and of the pupils attending the Wright's Hill higher grade council school, Rowley Regis, Staffordshire; and whether, in these cases, the Board of Education will leave the local education authorities a wide discretion as to the number of free places to be sanctioned in these schools, and not insist upon a maximum of 25 per cent, of free places.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board have not required the charging of a £3 fee at the St. George's, East Bristol, secondary school, but have sanctioned the continuance of the existing fee of five-pence per week. There is no application before the Board for the recognition of the Wright's Hill higher grade council school, Rowley Regis, as a secondary school. The application is for its recognition as a higher elementary school. The question as to the number of free places has not arisen.

    Bishop of Manchester's Circular to the North of England Education Authorities.
    MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he is aware that the Bishop of Manchester has recently sent to a number of education authorities in the North of England a schedule of inquiries in which he asks to be supplied in tabular form with the information as to the number of pupil teachers taken from Church of England schools; denominational privileges granted to pupil teachers in schools or in pupil teachers' centres; undenominational teaching given to pupil teachers; denominational pupil teachers' centres in the area; by whom religious teaching was given; and by whom it was paid for; whether such inquiries have received the sanction of the Board of Education; and whether local education authorities are under any obligation to answer such inquiries.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am not aware of the action of the Bishop of Manchester referred to in the Question. It is obviously for each local authority to decide for themselves how far they will supply the information asked for.

    Carisbrooke Church.
    MR. ARTHUR MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if further restoration of Carisbrooke Church will be postponed in view of the local opposition to the proposal.
    LORD BALCARRES: My hon. friend refers, I presume to the Carisbrooke Parish Church. This is a matter which is in no way under the jurisdiction of the Office of Works.

    Motor Speed Regulations for the Parks.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can now announce the date upon which the High Court will consider the legality of the Park rules under which the speed of motor-cars has been restricted to ten miles an hour.
    LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner is unable to give this information, but hopes that the case will come on early in next sittings.

    Alleged Illegal Treating at Weymouth.
    MR. LYELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to a free entertainment given on February 24th last, in the Jubilee Hall, Weymouth, by Mr. T. J. Templeman, the Mayor of Weymouth, President of the South Branch of the Melcombe Regis Conservative Association, and Trustee of the Weymouth Conservative Club, at which entertainment political speeches were delivered by the Mayor, the Member of Parliament for South Dorset, and his election agent, and at which persons, other than Conservatives, were present; and to the fact that previous to the commencement of the entertainment tickets were distributed to those present which entitled the bearer to receive four pennyworth of refreshments during the evening at any licensed house in Weymouth, each ticket being signed by T. J. Templeman, with a note to the effect that it would be honoured if presented at his offices in Mitchell Street by February 27th, 1905; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Corrupt and Illegal

    455
    Practices Prevention Acts, he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The 45th Section of the Corrupt Practices Act makes it the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take the appropriate proceedings where information is given to him that corrupt or illegal practices have prevailed in reference to any election. It does not appear that any election was pending in the constituency at the time of the entertainment referred to in the Question, and I do not think that it would be proper for the Director of Public Prosecutions to appear to anticipate by any action on his part the effect which it might have on any subsequent election. I may add that while anything in the nature of treating in view of a future election is highly to be deprecated, the question whether proceedings should be taken must depend on the circumstances of each particular case.
    MR. LOUGH: How long before an election takes place may it be described as pending?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: An election is pending when it is going on. It may be imminent before it is pending.

    Scottish Church Dispute—Evictions of Ministers and Congregations.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he has any information as to the number of cases in which ministers and congregations of the United Free Church of Scotland have been actually evicted from manses and churches at the instance of the Free Church, and as to the number of cases in which proceedings of this nature are pending.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I am informed that actual possession has been taken of forty-two churches as to which interdict was obtained. I am also informed that the Free Church have obtained possession of between twenty and thirty other churches without legal
    456
    proceedings. I am unable to say in how many cases the Free Church have taken possession of manses which were occupied by ministers of the United Free Church, but I believe the number is small. I am unable to state the number of cases presently pending. I am endeavouring to obtain further information, and, if I receive it, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Sneem Traders and Carriage of Goods.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the average amount of goods conveyed by road per week from Ken-mare to Sneem; and whether, seeing that goods were so carried to meet the temporary requirements of the Sneem traders when the steamer service was delayed through bad weather, or consisted of goods from Dublin and inland counties which could not avail of the Clyde Shipping Company's service, he will endeavour, in the circumstances, to procure more favourable rates from the railway company.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The Board have no definite information on which to reply to the first inquiry. They made the best terms possible with the railway company, and cannot now reopen the matter.
    MR. BOLAND: I shall take an early opportunity to draw attention to this matter.

    Sittings of the Land Commission Appeal Court in Galway.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Land Commission Appeal Court last sat in Galway; and, if, in view of the number of cases listed for hearing, he can say when the Court will sit again.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The last sitting was held in May and June, 1904. A further sitting will be arranged for as early a date as possible, having regard to the claims of other districts.

    Mr. Arthur O'Connor's Roscommon Estate.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the terms of the sale of the estate of Mr. Arthur O'Connor, near Strokestown, county Roscommon, have been approved by the Estates Commissioners, and the partition of the turbary decided on; and, if not, when will the Estates Commissioners be in a position to come to a decision on the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; the Commissioners have decided to sanction advances for the sale of a portion of this property, which, however, does not include the bog-land. The tenants, who agreed to purchase without the bog-land, have informed the Commissioners that they are willing to stand by their agreements.

    Council of the Empire.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is contemplated by the Government that, at the projected Colonial Conference, the delegates should be invited to consider the establishment of a Council of the Empire, in which the Motherland and the Colonies should be suitably represented, as a method of cementing the Empire alternative to the adoption of any scheme of unity founded on the taxation of wheat and flour in this country.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In the opinion of the Government, the Colonial Conference is in itself what the hon. Gentleman describes, a Council of the Empire, and I think that that description of it is a very good one. So much for the first part of his Question. As regards the second part, I have to point out that the establishment of machinery for making recommendations to different pares of the Empire can hardly be regarded as an alternative to some special scheme which the Council itself might propose.

    Scottish Church Dispute.
    SIR ANDREW AGNEW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the
    458
    Treasury if special instructions can be given to expedite the printing of the Report of the Royal Commission on the ecclesiastical dispute in Scotland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have before answered this, but I may add from information I have been able to gather that the Report of the Elgin Commission will be in the hands of Members on Thursday morning.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask whether Sir John Cheyne, as Royal Commissioner on questions of interim possession arising between the United Free Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland, has reported; and, if not, whether he will be asked to make an interim Report which will be considered along with the Report of the Elgin Commission.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. Sir John Cheyne has made no Report; but I see no objection to requesting him to give some account of the proceedings which he has, at the request of the Government, undertaken.

NEW BILLS.
  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT (LONDON) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To authorise the London County Council to provide receiving houses for the reception of persons mentally afflicted or alleged to be of unsound mind, and to authorise the detention of such persons in such houses, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir John Take; supported by Mr. John Burns and Mr. Benn; to he read a second time upon Monday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]
  SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
  "To further facilitate the provision of Small Holdings," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Price, Mr. Bright, Mr. Lyell, Dr. Hutchinson, Mr. George White, and Mr. Slack; to be read a second time upon Tuesday; May 2nd, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The origin of the Bill which I have the honour of introducing is to be found in the scheme for dealing with the unemployed in the Metropolis which was started by the right hon. Member for South Bristol who preceded me in my present office. It proposes to establish local bodies in each of the Metropolitan boroughs, and a central body for the whole area, corresponding to the joint committees set up under the scheme of my right hon. friend which, I think, has, by common consent, done its work well. The duty of the local bodies, corresponding to the joint committees of the existing scheme, will be to inquire into cases of applicants for employment, and to divide these applicants into two classes—first, the class honestly desirous of obtaining work but temporarily unable to do so, owing to exceptional causes over which they have no control; and, secondly, applicants who should be regarded as proper subjects for ordinary Poor Law relief. For applicants of the former class it will be the duty of the local bodies to endeavour to obtain employment. The central body will be charged with the general supervision over the local bodies, and also with the establishment of labour exchanges and employment registers. The Bill makes an important distinction between obtaining employment for applicants and providing work for them. The local bodies will have it as one of their functions to endeavour to obtain employment for applicants, but they will not be empowered to provide work for them. They will not be entitled to become themselves employers of labour or to arrange for applicants being employed by other persons in return for contributions to the cost. The provision of work for applicants will be reserved entirely for the central body, and even in the case of the central body it will be entirely discretionary. The central body, of course, will examine into any case referred to them by the local bodies, but it will be within their own discretion to deal with those cases or not. It will be entirely within their own discretion whether they are to provide work for those cases or not; still
  460
  less, of course, will there be anything in the nature of a claim on the part of applicants themselves to have work provided for them.
  I have to note two important differences between this and the scheme at present in operation. The joint committees and the central committee, under the scheme of my right hon. friend the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, were voluntary bodies, and the central fund depended, as a matter of fact, entirely upon voluntary subscriptions. The local bodies and central bodies it is proposed to establish in the Bill will be statutory and permanent bodies, and the central body will be, to a limited extent, and for certain clearly defined objects, entitled to draw upon the rates for its support. The question of whether money of the ratepayers should be used for the purposes contemplated in this Bill is, of course, a very important one. and one which, at a later stage, will, no doubt, receive the full consideration it deserves from the House. I will content myself at this stage with making two remarks upon the question. In the first place, it seems to me it would be impossible to set up statutory bodies, permanent bodies for statutory duties, and leave them entirely dependent upon voluntary subscriptions for their maintenance; and, in the second place, the Government do not disguise from themselves the importance of the new departure they are making. The matter has been carefully considered, and we think, within the limits; laid down and subject to the conditions imposed in connection with provisional labour, that the experiment is one which, can be made without any undue risk. These limits affect not merely the total amount on which the rates can be drawn upon, but also the objects to which contributions from the rates may be devoted. With regard to the amount, that will be an equalised rate, each Metropolitan borough contributing according to its rateable value, and it will be limited to ½d. in the £, or it may be extended to Id. in the £ with the special leave of the Local Government Board. No money drawn from the rates may be spent in providing relief works other than those on a farm colony. Speaking broadly, the arrangement comes to this:

  461
  the rates may be drawn upon to provide and maintain the regular organisation which the Bill sets up, but the rates may not be drawn upon to provide work otherwise than on a farm colony established by the central body.
  There are other provisions of the Bill on which I should like to have said a word had I sufficient time at my disposal. The chief of these is the organisation which is provided outside London, and which differs in certain important particulars from that provided in the Metropolis itself. The organisation outside will be on a much more optional footing. It will not be compulsory either for borough or city councils to set up the organisation which is being provided for London. I cannot go now into the conditions under which work may be provided by the central body and the power of the Local Government Board to make general regulations both for this and other purposes, but when hon. Members get the Bill in their hands T think the provisions that we have made will appear intelligible. In conclusion, I can only express my regret that it is not the lot of the right hon. Member for South Bristol to introduce this measure, of which he is the real parent. If it finds favour with the House, and has the good fortune to pass into law, and if it proves successful in dealing with great evils, then any credit that attaches to that success will be associated with my right hon. friend's name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish organisation with a view to the provision of employment or assistance for Unemployed Workmen in proper cases."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought he was expressing the general feeling of the House in saying they regretted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not himself been able to introduce the Bill, because they knew that last autumn and since he had taken a great personal interest in this important question. It was a little difficult in the very short speech of the right hon. Gentleman to follow exactly what were the proposals of the Bill. But he should like to say,
  462
  on his own behalf at all events, that he hoped and desired that this question should, as far as possible, not be in any sense a Party question, though, of course, some of them might hold views which went considerably further than those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. He confessed he had listened with some disappointment to his speech. It appeared to him that the Bill, instead of extending the position and powers of the central body, and of the Local Government Board, as foreshadowed in the scheme of the late President of the Local Government Board, placed limitations and restrictions upon the powers of the central body with regard to the provision of employment and the receipt of funds.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think so. Perhaps I may make it clear. We propose that the central fund should be provided to some extent by voluntary subscriptions, and with regard to those subscriptions that the central body should be able to do everything which the central committee under the scheme of my right hon. friend was enabled to do.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that under the existing voluntary scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the central committee not only had the voluntary subscriptions, but it was clearly the intention of the right hon. Gentleman last August to ask the various borough councils to contribute from the rates to the central fund, in order to provide work. Unfortunately, some borough councils declined to do that, and, therefore, that part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme fell to the ground, and to that extent the benefits derived from it were very largely handicapped last autumn. He confessed that he hoped that under the Bill not only would the borough councils be able to apply the rates for the provision of work in bona fide cases, but that the aid from the rates in that respect would not be confined entirely to employing men on farm colonies.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: And organisation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: And organisation. That was to say that the only work which was to be provided out of the public fund was work on the farm colonies. To that extent he agreed with the Bill, but he should like to see it go further, and to the extent the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary proposed last autumn, viz., that these public funds should not be confined entirely to one simple object, but that the Central Authority should have full discretion as to the mode and method of providing work for bona fide unemployed. It appeared to him that the Bill, in these respects, fell short of what he had hoped from it. It was, however, after all, an important fact that a Government, and a Conservative Government, should introduce a Bill of this sort. To his mind this was a great step in advance and a real departure in regard to social legislation. What had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman went to show that, as regarded London, at all events, there was now a definite recognition that there was an obligation on the local authorities, and on some central authority, he would not say to provide work where it was demanded, but to exercise discretion in providing work for those who were suffering from want of employment from no fault of their own. There was the further recognition—an important one—involved in the imposition of a uniform rate, that the poor of London were to be a common charge upon the whole of London. They were to have an equality of burdens as far as they could for this object. This was only what ought to have been done years ago. London was the only great city in the country in which the poor were not a common charge upon the whole town. It was only in London that the burden was heaviest where it ought to be lightest.
  On one very important point he could not agree with the Bill. He considered that the system which it was proposed to set up in London should be set up everywhere under equally advantageous circumstances. Nothing we aid be more fatal than to set up a compulsory system in London and not an equally compulsory system throughout the rest of the country. He was afraid if this were done, that last state of London would be
  464
  worse than the first. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's mind would be open to suggestions which, as far as he was concerned, would be made in no hostile spirit to the general principle and object of the Bill, suggestions such as those for making it compulsory in the outside districts as well as in London; and to improve the Bill in other respects. He was somewhat disappointed with what appeared to him to be the limitations contained in the Bill. Many of them on that side of the House, indeed all of them, were favourable to some proposal of this sort; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen to meet them in regard to reasonable Amendments in a friendly-spirit in order that this might be made a practicable and working measure, capable of achieving the purpose which he was sure the whole House desired.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the relief will be considered as Poor Law relief?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Walter Long, and Mr. Grant Lawson

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  "To establish organisation with a view to the provision of employment or assistance for Unemployed Workmen in proper cases," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

ALIENS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I do not think that I need offer any apology for bringing forward a Bill dealing with the regulations respecting the admission of aliens into this country. What has taken place since last year has more than proved that the provision of regulations with regard to the admission of undesirable aliens is an extremely pressing

465
question, and during that time the problem has certainly become more acute. I am afraid I must trouble the House with one or two statistics, but they will be very few. During the year 1904 as many as 195,000 aliens were returned as having come to this country. Of these, 99,000 odd were described as transmigrants, and 12,000 as sailors. Though the destination of the remaining 82,000 was not definitely known, some of them were known to have gone to America, but the greater proportion probably settled in this country. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I do not want, on this occasion, to treat this matter as controversial, but I have read the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite in which they have been able to prove to their own satisfaction that a minus quantity remained on these shores. Certainly that is not the information which reaches me through the Government Departments from sources open to all Members of the House. [Renewed cries of "Oh, oh!"] If hon. Members do not desire to have the figures I will not give them, but I can prove perfectly well at a later stage that the number of undesirable aliens coming to this country has increased, and that it has not only increased during the past year, but the statistics of the last three months show a very large increase over the statistics of the three corresponding months in 1904. The evils which these aliens bring in their train—overcrowding, living in insanitary conditions, the lowering of the general standard of life and morality, and crime—have also, unfortunately, increased. There is no doubt about these facts. The criminal statistics show that alien crime has steadily increased in this country, both absolutely and relatively to the total prison population. In 1900 3,130 alien prisoners were received in our prisons, and in 1904 the number was 4,774. I have received complaints not only from recorders, not only from the London stipendiary magistrates, who have very largely to deal with cases of aliens, but also from Judges of the High Courts, as to the large amount of work, and, I think, unnecessary work, cast upon them by the presence of this class of criminal. Last year I am aware certain Members of the Opposition made an offer on the Grand Committee that
466
they would accept that portion of the Bill which dealt with criminal aliens, but that offer was not unanimous. [Cries of "Yes."] It was distinctly said by some that they would oppose the Bill, and even that portion of it.
MR. TREVELYAN): It was not opposed in the House by a single Member.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I have the report here of what took place. I gathered from the speeches of the right hon. Member for East Fife and the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs, the Leader of the Opposition, that they were prepared to accept a Bill of this sort, providing that it was limited in this respect. I could not accept last year that proposition, neither can I accept it this year, as it would only deal with one aspect of the question. We are determined to deal with this organised traffic in undesirable aliens, and we cannot limit it to an expulsion from this country of those who come within the scope of the Courts of law in this country. If hon. Members will look at the statistical table issued by the Board of Trade, they will see that the great bulk of this traffic comes from eight ports in the country. There are twenty-nine ports from which the returns are taken, but something like 97 per cent, of the aliens came to eight ports, extending from Leith to Southampton. It is this wholesale immigration at these ports which we intend to control, and at these ports our machinery will be set up, and at these ports only immigrant ships will be allowed to land aliens. We do not propose in any way to hamper the bona fide transmigrant; he is especially exempted from the restrictions imposed upon other alien immigrants.
As regards the actual provisions of the Bill, it deals with the landing of undesirable aliens. It provides that no immigrant shall be landed from an immigrant ship except at ports where there is an immigrant officer appointed under the Act, and without the leave of that immigrant officer, given after he has made art inspection in company with a medical inspector. In cases where leave to land has been refused the immigrant or the

467
master of the ship may appeal to a board appointed at each port; and this board is to consist of three persons, of whom one shall be a magistrate, the others having experience of Poor Law and administrative matters. We hope thus to obtain the co-operation of the Jewish Board of Guardians, in order that the interests of that at community—especially in London, where it is very large—may be properly respected. And we provide in this Bill that an immigrant shall be considered undesirable, and, as such, may be refused permission to land in this country if he cannot show that he has, or is in a position to obtain, the means of supporting himself in decent sanitary conditions; if he is a lunatic or an idiot; if, owing to disease or infirmity, he is likely to become a charge upon the rates or otherwise detrimental to the public; if he has been sentenced abroad for an extraditable crime, not being of a political character; or if he has been previously expelled under this Act. The landing of an alien shall not be refused, however, if he proves that he is seeking admission solely to avoid prosecution for an offence of a political character.
The second part of the Bill deals with the expulsion of undesirable aliens already in our midst. To secure this the Secretary of State may make an expulsion order requiring an alien to leave the United Kingdom within a time he fixes, and thereafter to remain out of it; but the Secretary of State can only act on the certificate of a Court of law, including a Court of summary jurisdiction, if he is satisfied that the alien has been convicted for an offence for which he can be imprisoned without the option of a fine, and that the Court recommends the expulsion either in addition to or in lieu of the sentence which he receives. Then, again, the all en may be sent out of the country if a certificate is given to the Secretary of State by a Court of summary jurisdiction within twelve months after the last entrance to this country of the alien, showing that the alien has, within. three months, been in receipt of parochial relief of such a character as would disqualify him for the Parliamentary franchise, which is a condition very well known, or within three months has been
468
wandering without means of subsistence, or has been living under insanitary conditions due to overcrowding, or that he has been convicted of an extradition crime abroad. The Secretary of State, further, has the power to meet the expenses of the deportation of the alien, but such expenses he can recover from the master of the ship who brought the alien if the expulsion order is made on a certificate within six months of his landing. Further, this principle will not only extend to the shipowner or the master of the ship, but to that particular line of ship. Then, the obligations which fall on the master of any ship at the present time to make a return will be continued, but those returns will have to be made in a more exhaustive and accurate manner than now.
This, very shortly, is the Bill I ask leave to introduce. I cannot say, of course, how it will be received by this House, but I trust that the same opposition which was given to the Bill last year may not be extended to it this year. I venture to think that the feeling in favour of some legislation, not only to expel criminal aliens, but to restrict the immigration into this country of undesirable aliens, has very considerably increased since last year. If that is the case, I trust that that feeling will be reflected in this House, and that a desire will be shown to deal comprehensively with this question, and prevent this country being made a receptacle for destitute, diseased, and criminal aliens.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with regard to Aliens."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Home Secretary had given the House the statistics, roughly speaking, upon which his case for the Bill was based. The House might, remember that last year he gave the House statistics of a similar character which had to be entirely altered, cut clown to a tenth in consequence of his attention being called to the Report of the Board of Trade.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I gave the

469
whole figures, and I admitted afterwards that I had not taken off figures for sailors. This year they have been taken off.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: No, Sir, the figures have not been so corrected as to meet the objection of last year. Proceeding, he said he would challenge the Secretary of State to produce to the House before the Second Reading the annual Return, in the same form as produced after the Second Reading of the Bill last year, of Emigration and Immigration. They were never told last year, even in the reduced figures the Home Office appeared to take a different view from the Board of Trade—what the Report was; but it was laid upon the Table and circulated after the debates. It was pointed out that whilst they were told by the Home Office that there was an increasing number of aliens settling in this country, the Board of Trade reported in April, 1904, that the total admissions in 1903 were decidedly less than in 1902. The figures decreased last year so enormously that the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman had made, that some opponents of the Bill had arrived at a minus quantity, was not made by any Member of the House; it was made by the Board of Trade. If the House would look at the last Return they would find that the figures of the Board of Trade, after the deduction for seamen, reduced the total number settling in this country down to a few hundreds. He saw that the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney laughed, but he was not giving figures on his own authority, but on the authority of the Board of Trade. He was referring to documents circulated to Members as the highest authority on this subject, and as an annual Return corresponding with the Census Returns and which were unanimously adopted by the Royal Commission of which the hon. and gallant Member was a member.
MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I wish to say at this point that the calculations just mentioned are perfectly familiar to me, and that the deductions the right hon. Baronet draws
470
from them are entirely and utterly erroneous.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the deductions were drawn by the Royal Commission. The census figures and the Board of Trade Returns agreed, both were approved by the Royal Commission, and they entirely over-rode the figures given by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, after dealing with these figures—and he, the right hon. Baronet, disputed them in toto on the authority of the Returns of the Board of Trade—turned to the offer which was then made to deal with crime. He stated that the offer concerned, as he understood him, only a single point, that they were to limit the Bill to those who came within the scope of the criminal Courts of this country. This was not the offer. There was a double offer as regarded crime, and that offer was distinctly renewed by the Member for East Fife in his speech at Reading. Two offers were made, and the Home Secretary had only alluded to one. He said it was not a unanimous offer; but a Bill was brought into this House by some Members who had actively opposed the Government Bill, and it was only blocked by Members opposite. Then the Home Secretary came to the changes which had been made in the new Bill. The Bill was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. It was the principal Bill of the year; it was first in the list named in the King's Speech; and it was entirely different from the Bill of last year, being stronger in some points and weaker in others. It was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule without the possibility of discussion in the House, whereas the Party opposite insisted upon a two days debate in 1894 on the introduction of the Welsh Church Bill, and two days debate on the same Bill in 1895, although this Bill was quite as novel a departure from the principles of the legislation of the country as the Welsh Church Bill could be said to be after the disestablishment of the Irish Church. The Bill of last year broke down hopelessly on the police evidence before the Royal Commission; it killed the Bill, and the proof of this was that there was no attempt now to be made to interfere with the excursion traffic for French workmen to Folkestone, and

471
Dover, The Home Secretary proposed to confine the operation of the Bill to certain immigrant ports, and to force the immigrant to come into those ports. This was entirely contrary to the character of the Bill of last year. The Home Secretary had been mild in his language today as to what was going to happen in the discussion on the Bill, but the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney had not been so mild, and he would like the House to notice what the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney, the chief friend and supporter of the Bill, had said as to the manner in which the Bill was to be passed through the House. He said on Wednesday night last that he had it from the Prime Minister that the Bill would be introduced to-day, that there would be no reference to Grand Committee this year; the Prime Minister would put into operation the closure and all the weapons the Government possessed. He was quoting from the Morning Post.
MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I cannot admit the accuracy of that report.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am glad, because it would have been in the nature of a threat to the House.
MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I prefaced that remark by saying that I hoped that all the machinery at the disposal of the Government would be used to pass the Bill. I adhere to that hope. I did not commit the Prime Minister at all.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was glad the report was contradict d, because in the Bill of last year all the important parts came last, and, if there were to be any attempt to closure such a Bill, it might easily occur that principles wholly new to English law and impossible in working operation would be passed through the House without any discussion, and that would be a monstrous wrong. The Home Secretary had to-day avoided altogether one of the mistakes into which the Government fell last year. Last year there was an absolute violation of the recent principles of our law by the quarantine proposals of the Bill. He
472
had said nothing with regard to the admission of sick and diseased people this year. Last year the Bill was entirely opposed to the Act of 1896 and to the-Orders of the Local Government Board, and he assumed the quarantine portion of the Bill had now been dropped, and that all the proposals likely to interfere with the cross-Channel traffic had been withdrawn. The Home Secretary made no reply, but it was a matter on which they ought to have early information. As far as he could see, it would be necessary for them to oppose the Bill, to take again the course they took last year in dividing against it on the Second Reading; and he proposed, if no one else did so, to oppose the Second Reading upon two grounds. On the ground that the Bill would interfere with the principle of asylum in this country without any proved necessity for taking any such step. The-right of asylum was never more needed than it was at the present time, in the-state of affairs in East Europe known to every man in the House. There was, in 1903, the last year for which they had the Board of Trade Return, no increase of alien population in this country, and the alien population was trifling as compared with the alien population of every other country in the world. At this moment France had just extended to the Italian workmen, who were more numerous by far in France than all workmen of all foreign countries were in England, the whole £ the old-age pensions provisions, the whole of the insurance provisions of their law, and this by treaty. It would be a retrograde step, unworthy of this country, to adopt these means of restriction and exclusion in face of an evil, which, except in a district here and there, was trifling. And if they took this view with regard to. victims of persecution, and with regard to the right of asylum here, they took it with regard to the other portions of the offer made by them with regard to sweating in certain trades. The view of those trades was that the evils complained of should be dealt with by anti-sweating legislation; and it was by this means they would seek to combat the evil against which this Bill professed to be directed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas, Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Cochrane, and Mr. Bonar Law.

ALIENS BILL.
"To amend the Law with regard to Aliens," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, May 2nd, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES).
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [April 13th], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee on Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates)."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Question again proposed.
MR. CHANNINGsaid that in order to make it clear what issues he wished to raise and what demands he wished to make upon the Board of Trade, although he was not able to ask that a Motion should be read from the Chair, he would give the terms of the Motion he would have moved had he been in a position to do so. It would have called the attention of the House to the Acts for the prevention of accidents on railways and to the working hours of railway servants; and it would have expressed the opinion of the House that the powers vested in the Board of Trade should be more effectively exercised; that experiments should be forthwith carried out as to automatic and non-automatic couplings; and that the Board of Trade should take action under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, to check excessive hours of labour, whether information was derived from representations, Returns, or otherwise.
He said he would remind the House of the determination of successive Parliaments that the question of the safety of men working on railways should be dealt with by the Board of Trade. A Bill identical in principle with the Bill passed in 1900 passed its Second Reading as long ago as 1886.
474
The Return issued by the Board of Trade with regard to fatal and nonfatal accidents in relation to shunting: operations, including coupling and uncoupling during the last ten years, showed that during the ten years covered by the Return the fatal and nonfatal accidents occurring to the 19,000 or 20,000 servants employed by the railways for this work practically equalled the number of servants employed during; that time. That was a most tremendous fact. So far as he could see, there had been no substantial and sweeping reduction in the number of these accidents in shunting and coupling and uncoupling. For the year 1903 the Returnshowed—deaths, twenty-three, and other accidents, 506; while for the year 1900 the figures were, deaths, twenty-five, and other accidents, 505. So that the figures now were practically the same as when Parliament sanctioned the extension of these powers to the Board of Trade. He did not wish to take a partisan or extreme view of the action of the Board of Trade. He was glad to recognise that the appointment of sub-inspectors had led to an increase in the-number of inquiries and that, in inquiries made by some of their inspectors,, there had been a tendency to look more minutely into the minor causes of accidents, but he pressed upon the Secretary to the Board of Trade and the House the necessity of making the intentions of Parliament, which in this case went back nineteen years, operative, and of preventing many of the deaths and non-fatal accidents on our railways.
With regard to the question of railway hours the point he wished to raise was a very simple one, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman would say it was a clear one. So far as this Act was concerned, the Board of Trade relied wholly and entirely on the complaints made by railway servants as to the number of hours which they had worked. So far as he was concerned, he had taken a very great interest in this matter, and he had not heard of any action taken by them on their own initiative. So far as he knew, the whole pivot of this Act was the representations made by the men whose hours of labour were excessive. Now when one looked at the

475
competition for railway employment, and to the fact that a man having once entered that service naturally wanted to rise, it was not to be expected that many men would complain and make these representations where there was a serious risk—if they were known to complain of the system under which they worked—of their incurring disability and loss of promotion, if they did not incur dismissal. The Act of Parliament expressly contemplated action by the Board of Trade on other grounds, and he ventured to say that action ought to be taken with regard to the excessive hours of work.
He had taken the trouble to analyse the results of the last Return, and he would at once admit that since he made a Motion in 1891 on this subject there had been a considerable reduction in the number of instances of excessive hours worked. But he asked the House to consider the figures which resulted from this analysis, and ask themselves whether this was the result which Parliament contemplated as the outcome of the Hours' Act of 1893. The Return was not based on the recommendations of the right hon. Member for West Bristol, who presided over the Committee to inquire into the excess of hours worked on railways. This and similar Returns had been based on a twelve hours day, so that if a ten hours day basis was taken, as was laid down by the right hon. Member for West Bristol on that occasion, there would be a far greater amount of overwork shown. But what did they now find. They found that the number of goods guards, brakesmen, engine-drivers and firemen (and it was they who worked these long hours) who worked over twelve hours a day on the chief railways of the country during this time was close on 28,000; the number of instances upon which these 28,000 men were compelled to work between twelve and fifteen hours, continuously was 52,799; and the number of instances they had to work fifteen hours at a stretch was 5,273. In these days one would have thought it impossible that men should work more than eighteen hours but he found there were no less than 258 such cases. So far as he could see there had been no improvement
476
whatsoever since 1901. One particular point to which he desired to draw attention was the extraordinarily good figures of the North Western Company in this regard. When he drew attention to this question two years ago, he found from the figures that while the other railways showed percentages of overwork ranging from 80 to 97 per cent., the North Western showed only 13 per cent, of goods guards and 22·46 per cent, of drivers and firemen. In the last Return the figures of all the other railway companies but the North Western were practically as bad as they were two years ago. But the North Western had further improved their figures and actually showed now only ·79 of overwork among their goods guards and 2·42 of drivers, more than ten times better than two years before. They were faced with this extraordinary fact, that there was this great Department of State especially authorised by Parliament to deal with this evil, and yet it was neither ameliorated nor redressed by any of the railway companies, and that when the Department had this object lesson of one of the lines carrying out the necessary reforms. It was a great evil, and he called on the hon. Gentleman to consider whether with such information as was available he could not do something to remedy it. How was it that the Board of Trade did nothing to bring about a better state of things? This last Return disclosed the identical state of things which existed previously. He apologised to the House for having detained it at such length, but as he had given a great deal of attention to this question, and as he had taken part in Parliament in obtaining for the Board of Trade these powers, he thought it only right that they should be put into force.
MR. BELLsaid the subject now under discussion in connection with the Acts of 1893 and 1900 was of such great importance to the railway men of the country that it was worthy of much greater consideration than it usually received. Hon. Members opposite had endeavoured to demonstrate by the enthusiasm with which they welcomed the Aliens Bill that they were particularly interested in the working classes, and desired to protect their interests. If

477
that enthusiasm was real, he suggested they should show it in a practical manner in connection with the section of working men whom he represented, for if any class of workers required and deserved protection they did. The Act of 1893, giving power to the Board of Trade to regulate the hours of railway men, was enacted after a Royal Commission had sat for two years, and one or two strikes had taken place. The evidence they received was such that their recommendations were of a strong and important character. The Act based on those recommendations gave the Board of Trade power to call for Returns, and, on receipt of those Returns, if necessary to order a revision of the hours. Railway companies were very keen on having their requests and desires promptly attended to, but, when they were called upon by the Board of Trade to render Returns, Parliament had generally to wait practically a year before the information was received. Railway directors in the House would probably find it difficult to believe some of the statements he was about to make, but he had never yet made a statement in Parliament without being able to verify it, and directors could not and were not expected to be able to go into every detail connected with the management of a great concern such as a railway. That duty was rightly entrusted to subordinate officials.
The Secretary to the Board of Trade would probably say that the Department were always ready to act upon information or complaints received. That was true, but they were generally a long time concluding their inquiries. Moreover, too many railway men had just cause to fear making complaints. Communications might be made through him to the Board of Trade, and the Department would not know from whom the complaints came, but most of the men were known to their local officials, and he would give the House examples of what happened to men who were even suspected of having made complaints. It was difficult for the officials to know definitely that a man had lodged a complaint with the Department, but they were keenly observant. If a man showed discontent with his hours, perhaps lodging a complaint
478
with his superior, and then subsequently the Board of Trade made inquiries as to the hours of that particular depot, the officials at once concluded that that man was the cause of the Board's action, and he would probably suffer for it. Owing to the great development in the size and power of locomotives and the increased length of goods and mineral trains, the responsibilities of these men had enormously increased, and the companies ought therefore to recognise the absolute necessity of curtailing the hours during which they had to work. He knew cases where, during the hot weather, firemen were so exhausted at the close of a twelve hours day, having to fire from five to seven tons of coal in addition to the ordinary duties of a stoker, that they were unable to walk home, and sometimes had had to be sent home in a cab. Such a state of things was not in the interests either of the men or of the public. If men, through insufficient rest, declined to resume duty when called upon, they were penalised by being compelled to stand off for two or three days, and to lose the corresponding pay, while if they resumed duty, they were directly-requested by the officials to falsify their "bookings on" in order that the Board of Trade might be deceived. In one case a man was on duty, with a short interval, from 6.30 a.m., until midnight. He was asked to make out two separate time sheets, so that he would not be entered on the Return as having been eighteen hours on duty.
MR. GALLOWAY: "What railway was that?
MR. BELLsaid he would have preferred not mentioning the railways, but if hon. Members desired the names he would give them. The case he had just mentioned was on the Great Central. Another case occurred on the Great Western, where a man was called on duty after only eight hours ten minutes rest. He complained of the insufficiency of the period of rest, but, pressed by the foreman, he went on duty. He was then requested to sign on as having had the full nine hours rest, and naturally, when such requests were made by a foreman, they were more often acceded to than not; because if the men refused

479
they would doubtless be duly rewarded. Then in connection with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway he received a report that during January and February, goods guards were on duty for thirty-nine hours at a stretch.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: This year?
MR. BELL: Yes. Another practice was to put cleaners of from sixteen to nineteen years of age on engines to do tiring duty after they had done their day's work in the cleaning sheds. In one case a cleaner was on duty twenty-one consecutive hours, twelve in the shed being followed by nine on an engine. Another was on duty twenty-four hours, twelve in the shed and twelve on the toad. In other cases fourteen and a-half hours (entirely on locomotives), and seventeen and a-half hours were put in. He had given to him the name of one cleaner who, with wages of 3s. a day, drew at the end of a week eleven And a quarter days wages, showing that he had almost worked the week round so far as hours were concerned. He was sure that no Member of the House would desire to defend such practices. The reason why the Return which the hon. Member asked for did not contain this information was because the cleaner was not reported as having worked twenty-one hours on duty, because whilst in the shed as a cleaner there would be no report, and, therefore, twelve hours on the locomotive is what would appear in the Return. He was bound to say that he felt very strongly upon this matter, and he had determined to get it altered by any means whatever. The Department, as a rule, was very sympathetic with railway companies, and more so than any other Department. These irregularities on the part of railway companies were nearly always overlooked, no matter how great their sins, whereas a small employer who omitted to put a small fence around the fly wheel in his engine room would be summoned before the local Courts and fined.
He knew of two cases of railway companies who had deliberately deceived the Board of Trade. One was the case of an Irish railway company where the permanent way of one of their lines was in
480
such a bad state that an accident occurred to a goods train and the brake van went off the fine and rolled down the embankment and disabled the guard. That railway company never reported the case at all to the Board of Trade, and nine months after the accident he put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade, and it was ultimately admitted that the accident had happened and that it was an oversight on the part of the company in not reporting it. He could not accept that as an excuse. The very same railway company in connection with the working hours of signalmen had adopted a practice for nearly twelve months of working eight hours signalmen for twelve hours regular shift. When the Board of Trade asked for a schedule this company told them that these were twelve hour boxes, but this was not so, for they were eight hour shift men who had been systematically worked twelve hours. This was important, because a railway company would never put signalmen on an eight hour shift if they were convinced that the Board of Trade would not interfere. Having made the admission that eight hours in a particular cabin or yard was sufficient it was evident that a man should not be called upon to work 50 per cent. longer upon his day's work. The final result was that after nearly twelve or fifteen months negotiation between the Department, the railway company, and himself, the railway company had appointed a third man in order to avoid working twelve hours in the future.
There had been an inquest at a place near Shrewsbury in the case of an accident to a man who was some kind of an overseer, and it appeared that this man was in the habit of working something like fifteen hours or fifteen and a half hours each day, although his ordinary duties scheduled were from 6.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., but he had to remain on duty until the whole work was completed, and he was habitually on duty until 9 or 9.30 at night. At the time of the accident he was working his fourth day, and it was true that he had not been at work those long hours on the day when he met with his accident. At the inquest his widow stated

481
in evidence that the night b fore the accident deceased complained to her of being almost too tired to go to bed, having been on duty fifteen and a half hours or upwards. On the day of the accident the man who took his place had also been on duty fifteen and a half hours. He feared that these facts were not reported as they should be, and this was one of those items which it was difficult for him to prove to the contrary, although he knew many instances of the kind he had enumerated, and which he was perfectly satisfied were not incl ded in the Return. Consequently he felt that the Return was not a correct one of the number of hours worked by the railway men of this country.
To prove that the men dare nt complain with any certainty that they would not be interfered with he would mention the instance of a guard employed on the North British Railway. In this instance a guard having worked over twelve hours was asked to pick up traffic at a particular siding and he declined to do so because he had been on duty so many hours. The result was that he was suspended for two days for refusing to pick up this traffic. The North British Railway Company had actually dismissed a signalman for insubordination, which consisted of a statement that he was not going to continue to work those long hours without making a bit of a fuss. This man did make a fuss and the Board of Trade compelled the North British Railway to appoint another man in this particular cabin, and after this had been done the man who made the fuss was dismissed for insubordination. Instances of this kind were very numerous, and lie could quote them by yards.
What he desired was that the powers conferred by the Board of Trade should be used to the fullest extent, and this would make it unnecessary for any men to have to lodge a complaint. He had had to fight very hard to get the first Return in 1901, and that Return showed a startling lot of figures, although the President of the Board of Trade denied that such long hours were worked on the railways. Even the Report published about August each year of the number of complaints made under the Act of 1893
482
showed but a very few cases, although the Return for 1901 showed 397,000 instances of men having worked over thirteen hours duty during the month of December in that year. No less than 96,000 of these worked over fourteen hours, 56,000 over fifteen hours, 29,000 over sixteen hours, 14,000 over seventeen hours, and 21,000 over eighteen hours. This took place in the running of goods and mineral trains in this country. For the year 1902 the Return showed a considerable decrease, and perhaps the House would remember that he protested against the President of the Board of Trade giving the companies three months warning that he was going to call for a Return for December next. With regard to the special effort alleged to have been put forward by the railway companies to the effect that under no circumstances would the men be allowed to work over twelve hours, he had brought many of the orders and instructions forward and discussed them, and he had forwarded them also to the President of the Board of Trade. During the month of December, 1903, these hours were reduced to 75,389. That was how the railway companies desired to make it appear for that particular month for which the Return was going to be called for, and their idea was to show that the hours were not very excessive. Some of the railway companies thought they were going to make this Return an annual thing for December, and an effort was made in November last year to reduce the hours for December. He, however, thought that he would like a change, and so he asked for a Return for October, 1903. This Return showed a considerable increase, and during December letters of explanation were forthcoming from the general managers of the various railway companies showing that the excess was due to the heavy Xmas traffic, fogs, and bad weather. For the month of October the hours above thirteen worked by the men engaged in running trains increased from 75,000 in December, 1902, to 99,000 for October, 1903. In this case there was not the excuse either of Xmas traffic or of the fog. October was at the end of the summer, when the summer traffic was off, and before the winter traffic was

483
taken up; and, therefore, the question of bad weather, fogs, and snowstorms did not come in. But even in face of these facts the excessive hours had increased from 75,000 to 99,000.
The Secretary to the Board of Trade conceded to him the other day a Return that he had asked for March this year. Having asked for that Return for March he hoped they would have it in less time than eleven months hence. Surely the railway companies could not be classed as people who kept no records, and it could not be said that they could not give this information. All these figures were at their disposal, and they could give the information quickly enough if they chose, and if they wanted it for their own purposes they could give the figures within a month; but when they were wanted for the purposes of that House the companies hesitated about giving the information. What he would suggest was that if the President of the Board of Trade did not get these Returns within a reasonable time—which he should put down as not more than two months—that the House should be furnished with a list of those companies who had not supplied Returns. He could not see anything wrong in that course, and it could be quite easily done. He hoped the Board of Trade would obtain a Return with regard to hours and act upon it. Why wait for individual complaints from the men or from him, when there were 99,000 cases admitted by the railway companies themselves? Why not act upon that? If the hon. Gentleman would only appreciate how keenly the men felt these excessive hours, and how injurious they were to the interests of the travelling public, it would not require much pressure from the House to get the Department to do its duty in that connection.
He was not going to say anything on the subject of automatic couplings, as that had been fully dealt with by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. But he was not going to allow the question of accidents to railway servants to escape attention in this House. He had collected from the Board of Trade Returns for last year the figures with reference to four grades in which accidents were
484
heaviest—engine-drivers, firemen, goods guards, and shunters. There were employed in these four grades altogether 76,188 men. During the course of last year there were 101 of them killed, or one in 754. There were 2,093 injured, or one in thirty-six of the men employed in these grades. This was a scandal, and the House ought not to tolerate it. He had complained, and he would continue to complain, until an end was put to this condition of matters. There were thousands of these accidents preventable, and only proper administration was required by the Board of Trade—action similar to that with which the Home Office administered the Acts for the protection of workers in workshops and mines. He was positive that with proper administration thousands of accidents would be avoided. The factories and workshops of railway companies were subject to the supervision of the Home Office inspectors In these workshops and factories there were 81,440 employed—5,000, in round figures, more than were employed in the four grades he had mentioned. While 101 were killed in the four grades, only eighteen were killed in the factories and workshops of the great railways. In the same factories and workshops there were forty-three injured, while 2,093 were injured in the four grades embracing what were called "railway men." Why was it that the railway companies should object to have their shunting yards inspected any more than their workshops and factories? He had always urged that the Board of Trade should exercise their powers. It was not enough simply to inquire into the cause of an accident after a man had lost his leg or his head. They should see that the orders and instructions issued for the protection and safety of life and limb were properly fulfilled. He knew the hon. Gentleman would say that it was quite unnecessary to have this kind of inspection, and that the railway companies were sufficiently interested in the safety of their men. He did not charge the railway companies with being more inhuman than any other employers, but did this differential treatment not signify that railway directors were the only people who had any regard for their workmen, and that the State must not interfere and say that they

485
had to take proper precautions to protect the lives of their workmen?
In 1902 the Department issued a series of rules to railway companies to which the men attached very great importance, and they would be very much appreciated if properly carried out. But they had been simply lying as it were on the the table of the President of the Board of Trade and in the offices of the railway companies. No one seemed to trouble about them. For instance, one of the rules said—
"After the expiration of twelve months from the coming into operation of these rules, the movement of vehicles by means of a prop or pole, being the operation commonly known as 'propping' shall not take place, except in cases where no other reasonably practical means can be provided for dealing with the traffic."
There was another section of the rules dealing with tow-roping in the same way. Immediately these rules were issued to railway companies he sent half a dozen or more lists of sidings and other places on different railways where tow-roping or "propping" must not take place, unless authorised by the general managers. What did the general managers do? They authorised every siding on the railway, and in the case of one company a siding where tow-roping and propping had been abandoned for six years was included as one of the authorised places. He supposed that what the railway companies had done was satisfactory to the Board of Trade. Another order was in the following terms—
"All engines and tenders must, within two years from the coming into operation of these rules, be fitted with sufficient power brakes, in addition to hand brakes."
What did the Board know as to whether the rule had been carried out? He presumed that the Secretary of the Board of Trade could not tell him whether or not the whole of the locomotives on the railways of this country were provided with power brakes in accordance with this particular section. The hon. Gentleman had been good enough to promise him a Return with regard to this matter. He would not go into the whole of the rules, but he would paint out that they required that certain specific things should be done within two years, twelve months, or three years. What he desired to know from the hon. Gentleman was how he was to satisfy himself that these rules
486
had been complied with, if he had no one to go and see that they were carried out. Section 10 of the rules said—
"In any case where it is shown to the Board of Trade that for any sufficient cause the time within which any of the above rules or regulations have to be carried into effect should be extended, the Board of Trade may from time to time grant such extension upon such terms and conditions as they may think fit."
That meant that the railway companies who were unable to comply with these rules should apply to the Board of Trade for an extension of time. He felt satisfied that many of the trunk lines could not fulfil the obligations placed upon them in the time allowed by these rules, even if they were pretty active about them. The great trunk lines could hardly find it possible to put power brakes on all their locomotives within two years. He recently asked the hon. Gentleman how many companies had made application for an extension of time with reference to these rules. The hon. Gentleman, replying to his Question, said—
"It is not possible to state in detail what has been the action of railway companies in carrying out the statutory rules. The Board are ready to make inquiry into cases where it is alleged that the rules are not observed. Three companies have applied for extension under Rule 10—the Metropolitan District, and Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford in respect to Rule 5, and the Brecon and Merthyr in respect to Rule 3."
He had an idea that the reason of the Metropolitan District Railway Company was that they were introducing electricity in place of steam. He did not know whether the same reason applied to the Dublin and Wicklow Railway and the Brecon and Merthyr Railway. He was not going to quibble as to whether the reasons given were satisfactory or not. What he wanted to know was whether the Board of Trade were satisfied that all the other railway companies had complied with the whole of the sections in these rules, and if not why had time been allowed to slip by without their applying in terms of Section 10 for an extension of time? It appeared to him that there was nothing more transparent than the fact that these rules had practically all the force of an Act of Parliament. What did the hon. Gentleman and his Department propose to do in order that the instructions might be observed in a more

487
satisfactory way than they seemed to have been of late?
In conclusion, he desired to say that it did seem to him that the Department was not as active as it ought to be. It did seem strange that if a complaint were lodged with the Home Office, a very few weeks, and in some instances, a few days, sufficed to have the whole job done, and the grievance removed, while if they made a complaint to the Board of Trade it had to hang on in some instances for years. He made a complaint to the chief factory inspector for one of the districts on March 29th this year, and a reply was received, dated April 5th, that the place had been inspected and that the owners of the siding had agreed to remove the cause of complaint. Nothing could have been more expeditious than that. He wrote to the Board of Trade in connection with a complaint as to tow-roping on October 13th, 1903, and on various occasions the Department had been reminded of it afterwards. On the 11th of this month the Board stated that they still had the matter under negotiation with the railway company. Now from October, 1903, to April, 1905, was, in his opinion, far too long a time to take to settle a matter of this kind. If the Board of Trade exercised their powers and made an example in one or two instances, he ventured to think that greater attention would be given to these complaints. The hon. Member might say that he was always ready to act on complaints which were forwarded to the Board of Trade, but the men got sick and tired of making complaints which resulted in nothing being done. They said, "What is the use of bothering the Board of Trade; they do not do anything when we do lodge complaints. What we want is that these rules should be carried out. If we are to have the benefit of these protective laws, then we should have them carried out, just as under the Aliens Bill." Somebody would have to be appointed to see that the rules prescribed under it were carried out." This was a very important matter, and he could not apologise for bringing it forward when he knew that hundreds of men were killed and thousands injured by neglect of the rules. Whatever
488
compensation the railway companies might pay in money, that was no true compensation to widows and children for the loss or maiming for life of husband and father. To him, life and limb appeared to be a greater importance than they were to the Board of Trade; and he insisted that the figures he had quoted were sufficient justification for his demanding greater activity in the future from the Board of Trade.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,)said he was sure the Board of Trade had no reason to complain of the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on this subject. Both hon. Gentlemen had brought forward their complaints in a very moderate way, and in answering them he should endeavour to be as brief as he could. There was, however, one general remark made by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire to which he wished to take exception. The hon. Gentleman stated that the railway administration of the Board of Trade had been much more lax since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had ceased to be President of the Board of Trade. He could not understand why the hon. Gentleman should have made that statement. If he had carried the House back to 1894 he might have understood him; but why should he select one Unionist Member rather than another.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he had always paid the highest honour to the right hon. Gentleman; but he had not observed that the Board of Trade had done anything since he left it.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that the right hon. Member for Croydon was no longer a member of the Government, and he very much doubted whether the hon. Gentleman would have mentioned his name if that right hon Gentleman had still been a member of the Government. Whatever the reason which animated the hon. Gentleman, he asserted, most emphatically, that there was not a shadow of foundation for his statement. What were the grounds for it? There

489
was no proof of it; and the hon. Gentleman had made the statement quite unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Derby knew well that during the present Parliament the Board of Trade had been more successful in regard to the question of accidents and hours of labour than on any previous occasion. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire confined himself to the question of couplings, and blamed the Board of Trade for not having done anything to introduce automatic couplings, and in confirmation of that statement he gave the House a comparison of what had happened on American railways. But that comparison was absolutely useless in regard to British and American railways.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he had compared the figures of accidents in 1893 with the figures in 1897 on the American railways. He had made no comparison between the number of accidents, and the number of men employed in America and in the United Kingdom.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he did not see why the hon. Gentleman should have referred to the American railways unless he wished to imply that the same should have happened in America as in the United Kingdom. He held that the comparison was perfectly useless, because in America the coupling was done with a pole outside the waggons, and in this country it was done inside the waggons.
MR. BELLsaid that the pole introduced a new element of danger.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that he was going to give a comparison between the number of accidents resulting from coupling in this country and in the United States. It would be unfair to the American system to suppose, however, that that comparison represented truly the two systems. The figures referred to the whole of America, including the West, where a large number of unskilled men were employed. If the comparison were made with the railways in the Eastern States, it would probably show results very much similar to those in this country. Last year the number of fatal accidents due to
490
coupling in America was 278. Now, in the schedule of the United States were included accidents which were not called coupling accidents in this country. But the number of fatalities due to shunting operations in this country in 1904 was only seventy-four. If it were taken into account that in America there were twice as many men employed in these operations as in this country, and the other considerations were allowed for, it meant that for every man killed in the United Kingdom two men were killed in the United States. He hoped that the House would not think that the Board of Trade imagined that our system was as good or better than any other. Nothing of the kind. The aim of the Board of Trade was to reduce the number of accidents from coupling to as low a minimum as possible. The hon. Member knew that no automatic system of coupling had been invented which the Board of Trade could impose on the railway companies. Their chief inspector had given it as his opinion that from the point of view of the safety of the workmen our system was safer than the American. In that case all the Board of Trade could do was to encourage invention as far as they could. And that was what they were doing. He believed that the railway companies themselves were inviting a suitable invention which would be an advantage to the workmen and a great saving of expense to them.
The next point was the question as to the number of hours which the railway men worked. The hon. Member said that the Board of Trade did not take action except in cases of complaint. It was quite true that the Act of 1893 stated that that was to be their chief motive power, but they had taken action on other grounds. In dealing with long hours, it was a fact that the railway companies did allow for the time actually spent by the men in going to and from their homes to work and paid them for that time.
MR. BELLsaid that the instances he gave were of men working for twelve hours before starting for their homes.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that it was the duty of the hon. Gentleman whenever he heard of such a thing to inform the" Board of Trade of it; and he could assure him that the moment they did hear of it the Board of Trade would take all steps within their power to examine into the matter. The hon. Member for Derby had said that the men were very much afraid to make complaints, but he could assure the hon. Member that whenever a complaint was made the Board of Trade inspectors made inquiry over a very large area so as to hide the facts from the railway company. As to the question of long hours he would point out that it was one upon which railway men were by no means united. They wanted shorter hours only if they could get the same pay, but if the change meant a smaller amount of wages at the end of the week they did not want the shorter hours. That was the difficulty they had to deal with.
MR. BELLdid not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by that, and called his attention to a very important conference which was held at Leeds, at which he was present, where 276 drivers and firemen emphatically declared in favour of an eight hours day and their intention to have it.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he was certain that the hon. Gentleman would not contradict him when he said that there was a considerable minority who liked these long hours. He could give a very curious instance of that kind. The Board of Trade had noticed in the Returns a case of long hours worked by an engine-driver and they called for an explanation. It appeared that the engine driver had asked another driver who wanted to go to a football match as a particular favour to let him do that job. Although the Board of Trade blamed the railway company, it therefore turned out that it was the action of the men themselves which brought about the circumstance of which complaint was made.
MR. BELL: It should be stopped.
MR. BONAR LAW: Yes, and, as I have said, we are doing our very best to put a stop to it.
492
Continuing, the hon. Gentleman said that the next question he had to deal with was that which related to accidents. He could on that point only repeat what he had already said. There could be no doubt that this country compared favourably with respect to accidents with any country in the world, but still accidents were far too numerous, and it was the intention of the Board of Trade to use to the fullest extent the powers conferred upon them to try to reduce the number as far as they could, but the whole number could not be stopped by any legislation or any administrative act on their part, lie had had prepared an analysis of the total number of accidents which were reported on last year by their own inspectors and with which the railways had nothing to do. The Board of Trade inspectors made 717 inquiries and they reported that in no fewer than 483 cases the accidents were directly attributable to the carelessness of the men who suffered injury or the workmen who were working beside them, and were not due in any sense to the want of proper regulation on the part of the railway companies or want of proper inspection by the Board of Trade. As to the remainder of the accidents their inspectors reported that 166 were due to accidents which could not have been prevented. They were, it was said,, accidents pure and simple which nobody could have, prevented, and the Committee would be surprised to learn that out of this total of 717 only sixty-eight were put down by the inspectors as being of the kind which could have been prevented by adminisrative action. But still sixty-eight was a great number, and it was the intention and the duty of the Board of Trade to do what they could to prevent such a number occurring.
The last grievance brought forward by the hon. Member was a very old one, and it had reference to inspection. The hon. Member wanted the Board of Trade to adopt in regard to the railways all over the kingdom a system exactly similar to that which was pursued under the Factory and Workshop Acts. He could only tell the hon. Member what had been said over and over again by those who had held his office, that the

493
Board of Trade had carefully considered the subject and would not as at present advised agree to that change. They thought it unnecessary, and that it would lead to a great deal of expense without any adequate return. It would create an army of inspectors who could do no useful work. On this point he wished to correct a misapprehension which he had noticed to exist in previous debates. Hon. Members seemed to think that their inspectors never took action unless they got complaints, but that was not the case. They were at all times going about the railways all over the country, and whenever they had ground for suspicion that the conditions were not satisfactory and that the Board of Trade rules were not being carried out, they informed the Department and a demand was made upon the railway companies to carry out the regulations. In their opinion that was all that it was necessary for them to do. He was surprised to find the hon. Member for Derby making a comparison which he must know was misleading. The hon. Member compared the number of accidents in factories and workshops with the number of accidents upon railways where there were moving trains. Everyone knew that the men who were in factories and workshops worked with stationary engines, or about the yards where there were no moving engines, and that it was the movement of the engines which caused the greater number of accidents upon railways. The hon. Member said that if they had the same inspection of moving trains as they had in factories and workshops, the result as to accidents would be the same in both cases. The comparison was, however, unfair.
MR. BELLwas sure the hon. Gentleman did not want to misrepresent what he said. His point was this, that notwithstanding the low number of accidents in workshops and factories they were inspected, and that notwithstanding the large number of accidents on railways they were not.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid in that case he did not rightly understand the hon. Gentleman, but his speech gave one the impression that his contention was that the accidents would be reduced to the
494
same percentage if the same system was adopted on railways, prevailed in factories and workshops. It would mean an enormous expense to have inspectors going all over the kingdom and watching continuously the working of the railways and the workers engaged on them. The hon. Member seemed to be under the impression that the Government had allowed the rules which had been drawn up to become a dead letter. He was utterly mistaken. A large number of inspectors had been sent to examine into the questions raised, and they had made recommendations which in nearly every case the railway company had adopted. He thought when the Return which was expected was produced the hon. Member would recognise that there was a distinct improvement in the hours of railway servants. He would do his best to get the Return out as soon as possible.
MR. BELLsaid he wished the hon. Gentleman to reply to the Question as to the rules issued and the application of the railways for an extension of time.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that steps were being taken for the carrying out of the rules, but it would probably take a little time before they could fully satisfy themselves that they were being carried out. He believed, however, that the railway companies recognised that they had got to be carried out and would assist the Board in seeing them brought into effect.
MR. SCHWANNexpressed disappointment at the declaration which the hon. Gentleman had made with regard to automatic couplings. The hon. Member had stated that the inspectors had not been able to find an automatic coupling suitable to the railways of this country. There were, however, 550 patents registered in the Patent Office of this country for automatic couplings, and he believed there were 1,000 similar specifications registered in the American Patent Office, and he did not believe that the inspectors had examined all these. He thought it had been proved that the reduced number of accidents in the United States largely arose from the use of automatic couplings. Some years ago 60 or 70 per

495
cent. of the carriages on American railways were fitted with these brakes, and he believed if the system were introduced in this country the saving of life would be equally great. The Canadian lines were also adopting the same system. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give them an assurance that he did not propose that the same cold-water treatment should be applied to this question for ever. Many of them were interested in this question, not from any personal view, but because they were anxious to see a diminution in the loss of life on railways. Anybody who lived in a district where there were many railway employees was bound to see scenes which would make him do anything in his power to reduce the suffering which he witnessed. The deaths were so sudden. A man left his home full of health and life in the morning, and he was brought back dead by his friends in the evening, and his wife and family lost his support. Statements made by the manager of the Grand Trunk line of Canada and others, clearly proved that automatic couplings attached to the trains in this country would not only tend to very largely diminish the number of accidents, but also to facilitate the carriage of goods from one part to another. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not allow the impression he had given that he was going to relax his exertions, to remain in the House, but that, on the contrary, he intended to bring the power he possessed to bear upon the railway companies.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. All he said was that in the opinion of the chief inspector, from the point of view of saving life, none of the systems spoken of were better than the system now in use in this country.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he did not know what evidence there was for such an opinion as that expressed by the chief inspector. In America he had had an opportunity of seeing these automatic couplings at work, and they seemed very satisfactory. He thought they should have something more than the opinion; they should
496
have the reasons which led this gentleman to arrive at that opinion.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid the question of automatic couplings was not a novel one, and he was not surprised at what the Secretary to the Board of Trade had said. It was suggested that the Board of Trade should insist upon automatic couplings being fixed on all railways. All that they wanted was to see a reduction in the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, but he hoped the House would bear in mind when it was suggested that the introduction of automatic couplings into this country would enormously reduce the number of accidents, that in the first place there was a very great doubt as to whether the railway system of this country was much suited for it, and that, secondly, wherever automatic couplings existed certain accidents were caused in consequence of the use of them, one result of which had been that automatic uncoupling took place. It was that which gave rise to the state of things which existed in America. So far as the hours of labour were concerned, many of them who were directors of railway companies hoped that the Board of Trade would not forget that it was impossible to establish an absolutely uniform system of working hours for those engaged on the railway systems of this country. In the first place they had to study the convenience of those employed, who were sometimes working at a distance from the place to which they had to return. In the previous year when the hon. Member for Derby was speaking upon this matter the figures given by him were so striking that he (Sir Charles Renshaw) caused inquiries to be made with regard to the company in which he was interested. He then found that in many cases the men desired not to be booked off far away from home, but that they should be allowed to continue their work in the direction in which their home lay. He hoped when the hon. Gentleman shortened the hours he would do it in such a way as not to endanger the best interests, of the men.
MR. MARKHAMexpressed the opinion that the majority of accidents did not arise out of coupling or uncoupling the waggons, but were caused by the bad system in vogue at many of the companies' sidings, where large numbers of waggons were dealt with at night time. There were many cases of this kind where the men had no lights at all except the flares lit by the men themselves. It must be perfectly obvious that unless men had a good light to do their work by there were bound to be accidents. Another fruitful cause of accident, in his opinion, was the fact that the rods and levers for moving the points were not placed below the level of the line, and that when the men were running along the line beside a train of moving waggons for the purposes of uncoupling them they tripped over the rods and in that way many accidents were caused. He believed the coupling at present in use was just as efficient as the American coupling, for the reason that no train in America could be made up without the man going between the waggons. He had to go between every waggon to couple up, whereas in England, if the coupling pole were used, no man need go between the waggons at all. The fault was that many companies did not at these sidings make the use of the pole compulsory. He believed it was not so much automatic couplings to which they should look for safety in this matter. The statement of the Board of Trade, made on the authority of one gentleman, could not be accepted. The question must be gone into fully, and if it was shown that automatic couplings were safer it would be the duty of Parliament to enforce their use.
Another cause of loss of life was the omission to have brakes on both sides of waggons. He believed more lives were lost through men having to crawl under waggons to release brakes than through the coupling or uncoupling of waggons. Six or eight years ago the Great Central Company put brakes on both sides of some of their waggons, but when he submitted specifications to other companies for the purpose of putting brakes on both sides of his own waggons the reply he received was that they did not allow them. There
498
was one other point the Board of Trade should not lose sight of. During the last eighteen months there had been a far-reaching change in the large type of waggon in this country. If those large waggons were to be generally introduced it would be impossible to continue the use of the ordinary link-coupling. With these large waggons the couplings were so heavy that a man could not lift them, and it would be absolutely necessary to have some form of automatic coupling. He was not prepared to say how it should be done, but he could assure the Board of Trade that the matter of shunting and the attendant loss of life was no Party question, and that both sides were anxious that it should be dealt with. If he might add one word, he would urge the Board of Trade to put pressure on the companies with regard to the question of flagging. When a platelayer was killed through lack of proper flagging it was nothing short of criminal on the part of the railway company, and he hoped the Department would give the matter their attention.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid there were two matters mentioned in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in regard to which a little practical sympathy would be very acceptable, viz., the appointment of inspectors and automatic couplings. It was true that a railway was not a workshop or a factory, but neither was a mine, but the inspection of railways was quite as feasible as the inspection of mines and would, he believed, be productive of as much good. He hoped, therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary would keep an open mind on the subject, as the experiment was certainly worth trying with a view to seeing whether the painful toll of life paid by railway men could not be materially lessened. As to automatic couplings, he did not quite gather what was the point of the objection. It was said there was at present no automatic coupling the adoption of which the Board of Trade could make compulsory. Why not? Were the Board waiting for a perfect coupling? If so, they were not likely to find it. But there were many automatic couplings now on the market which were admittedly

499
workable, and the adoption of which would probably lessen the number of accidents. It was only by the working of any invention that its defects could be discovered and remedied, and while it might be the case that there was no particular coupling which the Department could make compulsory, the time had surely come, when, after the experience of America, the use of some kind of automatic coupling should be enforced.
The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire had referred to the difficulty of laying down a hard-and-fast system of hours under which the men would be able to return home in the evening. The fact that a man was required to be on duty for twelve hours on one day was no argument why his working week should not be brought within reasonable limits. If a man worked twelve hours one day and six the next that would, to a large extent, probably meet the grievance.
Another matter he desired to refer to was the appointment of the Committee dealing with workmen's trains. The nominations for that Committee were before the House, but he had opposed the Motion's going through, not because he objected to the Committee, but because he desired that there should be a representative of the Labour interest upon it. It was a workmen's question, and surely in such a matter the Committee should include a workmen's representative. He hoped the Board of Trade were really desirous that something should be done in this matter, but certainly their action in regard to this Committee was not Very encouraging. Last session the Committee was not appointed until after Whitsuntide, and only eleven meetings were held, and this year, although the Motion was down earlier, the Department refused to grant this perfectly reasonable claim—a claim all the more reasonable since one member who served last year was quite prepared to withdraw in order to make room for a Labour nominee. While he had no desire to delay the appointment of the Committee, he would refuse to withdraw his opposition unless the concession for which he asked was made.
500
In 1893 or 1894 the late Mr. Mundella introduced a Bill in connection with the hours of labour of railway men, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University moved an Amendment specifying that anything over eight hours a day in certain departments of work and ten in others should be reckoned as over-time. It was extremely desirable that the Board of Trade should now reintroduce some proviso of that kind. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that if his Department would face the hours difficulty in some such practical way as that the proposal would be received in no factious spirit by the Labour Members, but with a desire to secure its passage into law without delay.
MR. BENNdrew attention to what he thought might be described as a crisis in London education. There had to-day been presented to the London County Council in reference to the condition of the non-provided schools an important report the volume of which might be judged from the fact that the agenda for to-day's meeting consisted of 384 pages. The action of the London County Council in loyally assisting the Government to carry out their education scheme in London had been criticised and objected to by many members of the Opposition, but he reminded the hon. Baronet of the fact, as a plea for special consideration, of the circumstances which had transpired since the duty was undertaken. The County Council were recommended to postpone the "appointed day," and to follow the example of another part of the Kingdom in putting every impediment in the way of the operation of an Act which they regarded as objectionable. They took the line that it was their duty in view of the need of education in London with regard to the children to sacrifice their principles for the moment in order that the children of London should not suffer. Consequently they promptly put the Act into operation and they had done all that could be done to give effect to that measure. What was the position in which they found themselves to-day? First of all they noticed with some astonishment that the organs generally identified

501
with the Government and its policy were raising the cry of the rising rates and declaring that the London County Council was ruining London in consequence of increased rates. The actual figures showed that the increase in the rates of the London County Council was modest as compared with the increase in the rates of those borough councils in the Metropolis which were the creation of the Government. He did not, however, propose to deal with that question, because they knew this increase was owing to all sorts of duties and responsibilities which had been placed upon them by the Government while it had done nothing to relieve the burden of the London ratepayers. Some time ago Lord Goschen drew attention to this constantly increasing responsibility, and he told the House that something must be done to assist London to meet these increasing burdens. The House would probably remember the Van and Wheel Tax, but that was defeated, and the only thing the Government had done was to place fresh duties upon the London County Council without finding ways and means to pay for them.
He wished to call attention to the seriousness of this report in regard to the non-provided schools. This report had staggered London, and the electors of the Metropolis had no idea that the non-provided schools were in the distressed condition which this report revealed. In the survey which he would give to the House the London County Council had secured the services of those officers who in the past had been associated with the London School Board, and they had employed an architect of great experience. That architect, having surveyed the 438 non-provided schools, was only able to report satisfactorily with regard to sixty-four of those schools. Twenty-five per cent, of those schools, he considered, were altogether unsuitable, and he said it had been found impossible to make suggestions for improving them so as to meet the Council's requirements. They were also told that ninety-two of those schools must be closed at once, and twenty-six departments of other schools were unsuitable and should not be allowed to continue in use. The total number of departments which, in the opinion of their officers, were
502
unsuitable for the purposes of elementary education, was 229. He did not propose to trouble the House with the details of this report, but perhaps he would be allowed to take one item which he was quite sure would appeal to the sympathy of the House of Commons. He referred to the drains of the schools. They had been talking a great deal about the physical deterioration of the children, and some hon. Members were deeply concerned that something should be done to assist the children of this country on the physical side. All this work would count for very little if the drains of the schools were unsatisfactory. This report told them that 78 per cent, of the school drains had been tested quite outside the County Council officers, and had been declared to be unsatisfactory. No wonder they had physical deterioration of the children. What did this mean? This Education Act was dumped down at the doorstep of the London County Council, because they never asked for those duties, but they carried them out and had done the best they could with the measure. This report showed clearly that if those children were to be protected with regard to their bodies and minds, they would have to find 70,000 new school places for the children of London. That was a formidable total, and it meant an additional expenditure of £224,000 a year. But that was not the whole of the story.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These are matters which come under the administration of the London County Council, and to be in order the hon. Member must connect them with the Civil Service Estimates which are now before the House.
MR. BENNsaid if he had transgressed he was sure he would have the indulgence of the House. The line he was taking was that they were entitled to discuss anything under the Estimates for the Education Department with regard to the administration of that Department, and he submitted that in placing this matter before the Secretary to the Board of Education he might perhaps be in order. He wished to explain that he was speaking as a representative of the London County Council,

503
and he was asking the advice and the assistance of the Secretary to the Board of Education. He wanted to know what they were to do. They were carrying out the Act under his care and supervision, and this was a most urgent matter. This state of things had arisen owing to the negligence of the Department which was so ably represented by the hon. Gentleman opposite. What had the Education Department been doing all these years? It seemed to him that being in possession of all the information in regard to the condition of these schools in London he ought to certainly have known that this measure would throw a heavy burden upon the already overburdened ratepayers of London. The London County Council had innocently taken this work up, and now they found themselves face to face with a crisis of very great magnitude.
He proposed to conclude by drawing attention to the summary of this most important report. It said—
"Further, it appears that the total cost to the Council of the transfer to it of the duty of providing for the elementary education of children now accommodated in non-provided schools will amount to £523,000 a year."
That was £500,000 a year on the backs of the ratepayers of London. He claimed that the London County Council took up this work with every desire to administer the Act in a law-abiding spirit, and he thought it was the duty of the Government to come to the help of London in this matter. This cry of rising rates had been taken up by those who were friendly to the Progressive policy of the London County Council. He should like to have seen some of the lion. Members who professed to represent London in their places. Outside they cried out about the rise in the rates, but they did not seem to care about being in their places to protect the ratepayers. He regarded this as one of the most important matters which had occurred in the history of London, and unless the Government came to the assistance of the ratepayers of London it would be making but a poor return to the representatives of the London County Council who had done their best to carry out the wishes of the Government in regard to education.
MR. LOUGHsaid he hoped they were strictly in order in very briefly calling the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to this very grave crisis. Their point was that this was a branch of work in regard to education for which the London County Council was not responsible. They desired to bring a charge against the Education Department and they wished to know what that Department had got to say in view of the very serious state of matters which had now been brought to light. He thought this report, containing 384 pages, was without parallel in municipal history, and it showed a most grave and serious state of things, and he thought they were entitled to ask what the Government were going to do. If the Government did not do something the whole burden would be flung on London without the ratepayers getting any assistance whatever in respect of the schools over which the ratepayers had no control. In every one of those schools the ratepayers had only two representatives out of six managers, and they were in a minority, and consequently they were without any right of control and could not guard against a recurrence of these evils. And yet the people of London had to find the money. The Secretary to the Board of Education was not entirely ignorant of the evils of which they had to complain. He felt sure that the fullest information about what had been going on had been brought to the notice of the Board of Education by its inspectors. He thought they ought to have a full statement with regard to the position of the Government in this matter. The ratepayers of London were threatened, with an extra 4d. in the £, because they had been deceived in regard to the position of the schools which the Government insisted in throwing on their backs without giving control over them. Would the Board of Education not have something to say about the grave matter which had been brought to light? He thought his hon. friend was well entitled to ask the Question he had put to the Board of Education, and he hoped some Answer would be given which would show that the emergency was not so grave as it appeared to be at the present moment. They sometimes heard criticism with

505
regard to expenditure on the part of municipalities, the raising of rates, and the difficulty of borrowing money. It was no use for the Government and their supporters to harp on questions like these when they themselves were imposing new duties and placing fresh burdens on the backs of the ratepayers. He hoped some information would be given with regard to this matter of the schools on behalf of the Government.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said he understood Mr. Deputy-Speaker had ruled that this was more or less a matter of London County Council administration, and he would endeavour, therefore, to confine what he had to say to the subject properly under discussion.
MR. LOUGH, on a point of order, wished to know whether it was not competent to ask for full information, seeing that the non-provided schools, to which the discussion had been entirely confined, were under the Board of Education, and only to a slight extent under the ratepayers.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsubmitted, as a point of order. that the ultimate power rested with the Board of Education; they were not discussing the action of the local education authorities, but the action of the Board of Education in reference to them.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is perfectly clear that the action of the education authorities, their reports and so forth, cannot be considered; the only thing the House has now to consider is the action of the Government Department. The hon. Member proposes to confine his remarks to the action of the Government Department, and therefore he is in order.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought he might appeal to the House on the grounds that he had had no notice until a few minutes ago that this question was to be raised, and that this report was only now in the hands of the London County Council, and had not been in his
506
hands. He had only seen what had appeared in the Press. When, therefore, the hon. Member asked that the advice of the Board on this matter should be given immediately, he thought the request was more than he could reasonably be expected to comply with. He fully recognised the public spirit with which the London County Council had taken up the administration of education under the Education Act; but he could not possibly be expected to offer an opinion on matters of the gravest municipal concern on the spur of the moment, and without having had before him the report in question. He understood that the report of the education committee of the London County Council had been very largely condemnatory of the voluntary schools. That, no doubt, did raise serious questions for the London County Council as a matter of administration and as a matter of municipal expenditure. It was alleged that this would not have arisen if the Board of Education had in the past been more stringent in its requirements as regarded the condition of these schools, and that might be so. He could only speak within his own knowledge, and for his own action in the matter. But he must point out to the hon. Member that places would have to be provided at some time or other for these children, and that if the schools had been condemned in the past the ratepayer would have had to provide for them in the past. He did not for a moment say that there might not be borne argument in favour of their having been condemned in the past; but that it was the duty, whether of the London School Board or of the London County Council, to find places for the children for whom no other school accommodation was provided was, he thought, incontestable, and would have fallen on the London ratepayers whether the Education Act had or had not been passed.
It was hinted that the Board of Education had unduly interfered between the local authority and the managers in respect of the demands made by local education authorities for repairs, alterations, and improvements of the schools. That was a question with which he should be prepared to deal if he were

507
given fair notice of the nature of the charge made against the Board, and of the particular schools in whose case the Board was believed to have departed from its duty; but it was not fair to ask him to meet a general charge of that sort with no notice and without the information which he ought reasonably to be given. The hon. Member for Islington had said that an enormous charge was thrown on the London County Council without any possibility of guarding against its recurrence. He thought, in the first place, that the London County Council would probably inquire very carefully into the particular conditions of the schools. He had no desire to criticise the report, which he had not had an opportunity of seeing; but he had seen it stated, not by persons specially interested in the voluntary schools, that the drainage tests applied were unduly exacting, and that the failure of a drain to meet the requirements of the particular test applied did not absolutely prove that the building was insanitary. That, however, he merely threw out as a suggestion as to the possible lightening of the burden which might—which must fall on the London County Council, who would go fully and carefully into the condition of these schools and ascertain how much was to be done immediately and what might properly be postponed. As to the impossibility of guarding against the recurrence of these evils, he should say that that was a chimerical danger. These buildings, when they were required to be put by the London County Council into good condition—those of them which survived the ordeal of the report, would have to be maintained in good condition if they were to obtain the advantages which the Act afforded to all schools which complied with the reasonable demands of the local education authority. It rested, therefore, with the London County Council, having got them into an improved condition, to see that they were kept in good condition, and if they were not so kept to insist that they should be. The question of reasonableness might from time to time be a matter of dispute between the managers and the local education authority, and the somewhat invidious duty might be thrown on the
508
Board of Education of determining whether the requirements were reasonable or not. All he could say was that when the matter came before him he would endeavour to come to a conclusion as judicially as his imperfect capacities enabled him, and he hoped that in such cases as might come before him in the future he should preserve to the utmost that judicial character. But if he were asked, in what had been called a crisis in the history of London's education, to give advice, he must again remind hon. Members that the County Council had not as yet had time to consider a report which primarily concerned them. Beyond this he could only assure the House that so far as the Board could do so it would secure that schools, whether provided or non-provided, were kept in a proper condition throughout the whole area of London.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not aware that this discussion was coming on, and he had no opportunity, therefore, of giving notice to the Secretary of the Board of Education that he desired to call attention to this matter. But as it had been raised he thought it was their duty to press it a little further. This was not merely a London matter, but one for the whole country, and the Secretary to the Board of Education was primarily responsible. If the Board of Education had taken the trouble to ascertain, they would have found that a similar state of things to that in London had been going on throughout the country. The responsibility for that condition was largely on the Board of Education. From a statement which had been sent out it would be observed that the drains in the non-provided schools were generally in a very bad condition. It went on to describe the condition of the schools, stating that there were no staircases, and that if there was a panic there would be serious disaster in the event of fire. The statement dealt with matters of that sort. Whose was the responsibility? Up to the present, at any rate, the responsibility had been on the Board of Education. It was all very well for the hon. Member to remind the House that the result would be an enormous addition to the rates, and that, therefore, he could not press these reforms all at once, but

509
he forgot that if the Board of Education had done their duty these things would have been done gradually instead of coming all at once. Now the sum of £300,000 or £400,000 came on the rates. If the Board of Education had done their duty they would have investigated the condition of the drains in these schools, and also other sanitary matters, such as light and ventilation, and there would not have been this enormous addition to the burdens of London ratepayers cast upon them all at once. It was because of their neglect that this had happened. The Board had looked at one side of the problem. He remembered the debates in the House in regard to sites for the building of new schools, and the Board of Education always interfered in order to stop them. Their policy was pure dogma at the expense of putrid drains. This was the Board that was trying to enforce the law in Wales.
What was the law of the land? It was specific and clear that they had no right to maintain any of these schools unless they were in the sanitary condition required by the Board of Education. How was it that these laws had not been in force? It was simply because of their Church friends. They were implicated in it, and they brought pressure to bear on the Board. The law was only made for Dissenters. It was not intended for High Church parsons. It was for rabid little Dissenters. These were the people who had to be trampled upon. He knew it was very hard to make them responsible; but here the hon. Baronet was making the County Council responsible. The notion of law on the part of the Education Board was extraordinary. He and his friends went the other day before the Marquess of Londonderry and pleaded that, with the exception of one or two schools, all of those condemned were insanitary, were insufficiently lighted, or otherwise defective. The President of the Board of Education said, "You must maintain them whether they are sanitary or not." The legal argument was put before the Marquess of Londonderry, who knew just as much about law as he did about education; and what did his Lordship do? The moment the deputation said to him: "You have got to enforce that
510
part of the law which says that the county councils need not take over those schools until they are put into a proper state of repair," his Lordship banged his box and walked out of the room. What an insult to compel Church managers to obey the law! It was for the county councils to obey the law!
Let him remind the hon. Baronet of his own Act. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that Section 7 said that the local education authority should maintain and keep in repair all public elementary schools. The Board of Education said they were going to enforce that provision; but Section 7 did not end there. There were other twenty or thirty lines, and amongst those lines there were ten or a dozen which stated that the managers must hand them over in a good state of repair. They must not stop at the second line of the section if they were giving to administer the law impartially. After all the Government would never have carried this section through the House if that had not been made a condition. He recollected perfectly well the discussions on the section, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the Government carried it even with that condition. Hon. Members on their own side of the House who had a real and genuine interest in education were not prepared to support the clause except on the condition that the voluntary schools were to be put in a state of good repair, and kept so. But the Board of Education had forgetton that part of the bargain. All he and his friends asked for was that the law should be impartially administered in the future; in fact, that they should take a new departure both in regard to London and country schools. The Board of Education had never held an even balance between those schools which were popular schools, and the schools which were sectarian. All he asked was the general proposition that the Board of Education should, not merely in London, but all through the country, insist that these voluntary schools should be put and kept in order. It was a very serious thing to send young children to schools of this kind. Day by day they were there five and six hours, breathing foul air which destroyed their little constitutions. Much better

511
would it be that they should be outside altogether, learning nothing, than breathing bad air. It was all very well to appoint Committees to examine into the physical deterioration of the race, but at this moment the Government was not carrying out the law which enabled the Education Department to keep the children's constitutions right and proper. Let the children have pure air to begin with. He thought that it was monstrous that all this should be done in the name of religion—all those bad drains, all those badly lighted schools, all those staircases that might prove death-traps to little children, and all those conditions that would ruin their little lives. What good did they do by saying that they were keeping religion going in the land? It was all a monstrous hypocrisy and a sham.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had heard the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education with a good deal of disquietude. He need not labour the unanimity of this report, but in order to break the fall of it on the ratepayers of London, the hon. Baronet said he viewed with equanimity the presence of children in schools in which the drains were defective.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he never asserted anything of the sort. He did say that the London County Council had reported very carefully, but he never had said a word that would bear the construction that he viewed with equanimity the insanitary condition of the schools.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the statement of the hon. Baronet was that the standard test for drainage of schools to which it was proper children should go was not a proper one.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he had heard that certain drainage tests applied by the London County Council were not always to be relied upon. He did not speak of his own knowledge, but said that the London County Council might find, on further inquiry, that the
512
condition of the drains was not as bad as they believed.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education alleged that the drainage test of the London County Council was too severe, and that if the London County Council looked into the matter they might find that the drains were rot so very bad. Well, knowing something of the methods of the Board of Education, he hoped the Board would not look too tenderly at these voluntary schools and would not procrastinate in seeing that the children whom they compelled by law to go to school did not go to schools which were in an insanitary condition. There were in London 458 voluntary schools, ninety-four of them were condemned right out, and 314 of them were condemned in the matter of drainage, bad light, and ventilation. Would the Board of Education give the order to the denominational trustees to replace these schools which were condemned outright, and make good the deficiencies in the others? If they did so, money would have to be found to provide 60,000 new school places; and half a million of money to maintain them. He had warrant for saying that the Board of Education would not. He had been at them a dozen times on the matter. There was nothing new in all this. It had been all in the pigeon-holes of the Board of Education for the last dozen years. When he had gone to the Board of Education and made representations in regard to the matter what was the reply? "Certainly we shall do nothing; we shall obstruct any Provisional Order and get the Government to reject it, because if you do attempt to carry out your views, you will do injury to the voluntary schools." His hon. friend the Member for Devonport said that there would be no hurry about this matter; that a very long time would elapse before the instructions of the Act of Parliament would be put in force. That was his experience of the Board of Education for the past ten years. Let him say in this connection that the Church of England had been guilty of a breach of good faith. During the passage of the Act of 1902–3 the Bishop of London appealed for £30,000 to put the voluntary schools in London into a

513
structurally fit condition before handing them over to the London County Council. The words of the letter were—
"We desire that these schools should be handed over in a condition consistent with the principles for which they stand."
He did not know whether the report to which reference had been made was to stand as representative of the principles for which the right rev. Bishop said they stood. The voluntary schools were handed over to the London County Council without anything being done to them to put them in good and efficient repair, and that was a breach of good faith with the public of London. He could not hope, but he ventured to express the faint desire, that the lenity and procrastination of the Board of Education would not go on. The Act of 1903 set up an entirely new-state of affairs. He was rather glad of the Act, because he believed it gave to the London County Council an opportunity for overhauling these voluntary schools. And he hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would endeavour, in the new circumstances set up by the Acts of 1902 and 1903, to break away from the old policy of the Board, and not permit unnecessary delay in putting these schools into a proper condition, or in shutting them, up altogether and seeing new schools erected. If the Church of England could not raise £500,000, which he knew it could not, for that purpose, it meant that the school rate for London would be raised 4d. in the £1, while the ratepayers would have a very small measure of control over the voluntary schools—only two managers out of six. Ail these facts pointed to the necessity of some drastic amendment of the Acts of 1902–3 in the direction of giving the people who found the money control over the schools commensurate with the public expenditure upon them. In this terrible report—and he called it terrible advisedly—there was only one gleam of satisfaction. It was that notwithstanding the hapless condition of the fabric of the schools in regard to lighting, drainage, water, ventilation, etc.—the committee were compelled to pay a tribute, to the zeal and devotion of the voluntary school teachers. That was no new tribute. These teachers had had
514
to work very hard on a very small remuneration, but they had been able to do service in the cause of education which was a marvel to those who knew the condition of those schools.
MR. GODDARDwas glad that this subject had been brought forward, because the discussion had shown the difficulties with which the local education authorities were struggling in consequence of the action of the Board of Education. This was not a matter for London alone; it affected the whole country and he did not think the Secretary to the Board of Education would be able altogether to wriggle out of his responsibility for what had passed, because it was now coming to light every day. These reports in regard to the denominational schools were now coming into the Education Department every day and they were all revealing this one thing, viz., that the policy of the Board of Education had been consistently to have one law for the denominational schools and another law for the old Board schools. The class of buildings was entirely different in the two cases, and buildings had been allowed to pass as fit for denominational schools which would have been condemned out and out if they had been carried on by a school board. This was exceedingly apparent now, when they came to deal with this question of putting all these buildings in a fit and proper condition, which in the present state of things was now considered necessary for them.
He understood that the Secretary to the Board of Education said that he must not be pressed about the report on the London schools as it was too early for him to give an opinion upon it, and the report was not before him, but he wished to ask why the Board of Education did not put a little more energy into dealing with the applications which came from other parts of the United Kingdom in regard to the requirements of these schools? He spoke from personal knowledge, and certainly more than a year had elapsed since the first report went in on one of these school buildings. It was a disgraceful building, absolutely unfitted for a school—a building about which Government inspectors for years had been finding

515
fault, but about which the Board of Education had done nothing to insist upon improvements being made. The school was examined by the surveyor of the local education authority and a report was sent up as to the requirements of that authority and as to what they considered should be done to put the building in a proper state of repair. That matter had been hung up for a year. There had been correspondence and so forth, and yet no advance whatever had been made and, so far as he could see, the authorities were no nearer to having the building put into proper order after the lapse of a year than they were a year ago. The foundation managers said the requirements were not reasonable, and that the local education authority should appeal to the Board of Education to say whether it was reasonable or not. It was not, therefore, the local education authority who were putting hindrances in the way. Why did not the Education Department answer?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly supply me with the name of the school and I will see that the matter is inquired into?
MR. GODDARDdid not think the hon. Baronet would need him to supply the name, because the facts had been before him for a long time. But he would mention the case to him. In five or six cases that he knew of certain requirements had been insisted upon by the local education authority. They had been hung up and nothing had been done. It would take years before any improvement was made in the school buildings. He would urge upon the Board of Education to put a little more energy into the matter and see that the alterations were put in hand at once. The Board should not let the correspondence be interminable and prolonged between the managers and themselves.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the report was of a very serious nature and illustrated the conduct of the Board of Education and the Government which had been in office for very many years. The complaint made in the time of Mr. Acland was that he brought undue
516
pressure to bear upon the owners and the proprietors of the voluntary schools not in the interest of the schools but in order that he might shut them up. He believed that accusation was quite unfair and that considerable pressure was brought to bear by Mr. Acland merely to put these schools in a fit and proper condition. He believed that his sole object was that the children should be properly dealt with, and not that protection should be extended as it had been since to the proprietors of these schools. The report showed that the schools were structurally unsuited for their purpose and that it was necessary to close many of them at once. What ought to be the policy of the Education Department, not only in London, but all over the country? Surely it ought to be directed with one idea of doing what was best for the rising generation without reference to whether they belonged to the Established Church or were Roman Catholics or belonged to any other denomination. The Department should bring pressure to bear upon the authorities of the schools, but was that pressure being brought to bear? Section 7 of the Act of 1902 said that the education authority need not take over these schools except upon conditions, one of which was that the schools must be in good repair. If the education authorities in London did their duty they would see that that condition was enforced. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Department were proceeding on this kind of basis, viz., that they should relieve the pressure upon the ground that they were not able to withhold the monies which were voted by Parliament from these voluntary schools because for some reason or another they were estopped from doing so. If that were the case, such a doctrine of waiver or estoppel prevented the Department from using the powers which had been placed in its hands by Parliament, to withhold these monies from the schools until they were put into repair.
MR. MACVEAGHpointed out that many of the voluntary schools were built many years ago, and although there was no objection to the trustees being made to make small repairs, he

517
contended that the report went too far. It was extremely hard upon the trustees of those schools, if it was not unfair, that they should now be called upon to spend considerable sums of money to bring them up to date. There was first of all the test for drainage. How many houses which were now in existence would stand that test? He did not think many of the houses in which hon. Members lived would stand it, nor did he think the House of Commons would stand such a test. He therefore hoped the most careful investigation would be made in every case before the order of the County Council was allowed to be enforced. The report had been adopted and its adoption had placed an enormous work on the poor Catholics in London, and he thought that would establish a very strong case for a special grant from this House to the Catholic voluntary schools. He sincerely hoped that the Department would act very cautiously and make very careful inquiries before proceeding upon this report. Let them look, for instance, at the complaint with regard to the amount of playground accommodation. They were told, that certain schools would be condemned if they had not sufficient playground accommodation, which meant that in the case of many of the schools in London the trustees would have to acquire the residential or business premises adjoining and pull them down in order to make more playground accommodation, the penalty for not doing so being the closing of the school and the erection of a new one at the public cost. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would see that no injustice was done in this respect.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid complaint had been made as to the delay on the part of the Board of Education in putting into force the obligations resting on managers of voluntary schools to put their schools into a proper state of repair. There were two methods of resistance by the Board, one was active and the other passive resistance, and he regarded the Secretary to the Board of Education as the greatest passive resister in the country. It was only necessary for the Board to say "We will inquire into this matter," in order to enable them to keep the
518
authority waiting so long as the authority chose to let them alone. Then when the authority wrote to them they sent a formal acknowledgment and again hung the matter up. He apprehended that if a ratepayer in answer to an application for his rate answered that he was in correspondence with his banker upon that subject the rate collector would have a very short and sharp reply to it, but the Board of Education could allow schools to be ill-drained, ill-ventilated, ill-lighted, and ill-heated, and provided the persons interested in that school were sufficiently influential with the Board that sort of thing could go on for years. Were not the schools at large to be put into a proper sanitary condition. He asked the hon. Gentleman in this matter to search his own conscience and say whether, in fact, in the spirit, if not in the letter, he had not been one of the greatest law-breakers in the country. There was not a district from which these complaints did not come, and instances could be multiplied by the thousand where this question had been approached in a partisan and sectarian spirit by those who pretended to be the judges. What they complained of was the great influence behind the hon. Gentleman, the influence of that Great Palace on the South side of the Thames, the result of which was to prevent the children of this country from being housed as they ought to be housed. The school was the home of the children during a considerable portion of their working hours, and it ought to be kept in a decent state of repair. So far as the Welsh county councils were concerned they had not taken any drastic or severe action; they had given the schools at least twelve months notice, and they had no desire to be harsh in any way. But the hon. Baronet was going to enforce some portions of the Act very rigidly. He ought really to ask himself whether he was doing his duty by the country generally, and by the children of the country, in allowing the delay to continue against which the Welsh representatives had again and again protested, and they now asked whether if a fair statement of the case as to the necessities of these schools were laid before him he would act upon the report forthwith, or was

519
there to be merely an acknowledgment and a promise to consider the matter?
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had listened with great regret to the speech of the hon. Baronet with regard to the London education question. Though he opposed the Education Act with regard to its main provisions, he believed that good was coming out of evil, in that exposures were now being made as to the inefficient state of the voluntary schools which never would have been made but for that Act. The report of the London County Council, which had come with a considerable shock to all interested in education, whether they were friends of voluntary schools or not, was really an exposure, first, of the way in which a large number of managers of voluntary schools had neglected the health and education of the children, and secondly of the neglect and inefficiency of the Education Department itself. Personally he was inclined to blame the Education Department more severely than the voluntary managers, and for this reason. It had always been contended that the country did not get full value for the enormous expenditure on education, and it was the duty of the Board of Education, as far as possible, to see that full value was obtained for the money spent, but this report showed that for years past the Education Department had practically neglected its duties and had been in the hands of those who represented the voluntary schools. The hon. Baronet appeared to minimise this report of the London County Council.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONdissented.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that so far as he understood him the hon. Baronet said that he had not had an opportunity of considering the report, but that when he did consider it he might find that in some cases the condition of the schools had been somewhat exaggerated.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I did not say anything of the sort. I expressed a hope that the County Council, when they considered the report, which I have not yet seen, might find that in some cases the condition of the schools
520
was not so hopeless as their first impressions led them to believe.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid they all hoped that the schools were not so bad as they had been painted, but even assuming that those who carried out the inquiry had exaggerated the condition of some schools, there was ample evidence to show that in a vast number of cases the schools were not only absolutely inefficient educationally, but harmful to the health and physical growth of the children. The fact that over ninety schools, accommodating 50,000 children, had been absolutely condemned was in itself enough to condemn the managers of the schools, and he would not say the hon. Baronet, but his predecessors at the Education Department. Over and over again the late London School Board, when it desired to substitute efficient schools for the inefficient voluntary schools, encountered the greatest possible opposition from the Education Department, and had to delay or abandon altogether the building of such schools because of the influence that was brought to bear in favour of the existence of the voluntary schools. What they asked the hon. Baronet to undertake was that all the schools that were properly condemned, which could not under any circumstances be made into efficient schools, should be replaced by really efficient schools. As regarded the others, they also would have to come under the purview of the hon. Baronet, and they desired that he should put the greatest possible pressure on the managers to put those schools into an efficient state. It was true that it would cost a considerable sum to put the schools in the state which the County Council thought proper. But that simply meant that the managers had not kept them efficient from year to year, otherwise only a small sum would now be necessary. There was one point which had arisen in Wales and would arise in London upon which an immediate answer was desired. The grant was given by the Education Department on behalf of particular schools, and he understood that in Wales the Department were insisting that the county councils should hand over to the particular schools their proportion of the grant, whether those

521
schools were, or were not, in their opinion, in "a good state of repair." As the question would soon arise in London, he asked the hon. Baronet whether, in the case of a school condemned by the County Council as not being in a good state of repair, he would insist on the County Council keeping that school in existence and giving it the Government grant. Speaking on the matter generally, he was glad the question had been raised, as it had afforded an opportunity for discussion, and for directing public attention to a report which had come upon many people as a considerable surprise and shock.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was very glad that this question had been raised, although he did not hope to get much satisfaction from the Board of Education in regard to it. This was a question which affected not only London and Wales, but every part of the country. He wished to remind the hon. Baronet of a Question which was put to him upon this subject before the Act came into operation. He was asked whether the local education authority would be justified in refusing to take over certain schools until certain alterations had been made, and the reply given by the Department was that they must take them over as they were, and then take their chance of being able to bring pressure to get the repairs done and the alterations made. Let the House remember what took place last year when the Defaulting Authorities Act was passed. The one Amendment they moved was that there should be a public inquiry before the Act was put into force, at which the managers and the public authorities should be allowed to state their case. As one of the very few Members who were allowed to speak upon that measure before it was guillotined, he ventured to say that the very object of that Act was to prevent a public inquiry, and to allow a backstairs' influence to be the prevailing influence in these matters. The whole case had now been proved to be what was predicted at that time. According to the Act of 1902 the Board of Education would be compelled to agree with the local education authority, if it refused to maintain a school which was not in
522
a proper sanitary condition. They had been told that the Board of Education had been advised by the law officers of the Crown, but not one of them was present to answer that Question. Where were they? Not long ago he asked a Question about the salaries and fees received by the law officers of the Crown which appeared on the Estimates, and now when they really wanted their advice upon a question of the highest importance they did not put in an apearance. He should like to know if the hon. Baronet would send for the law officers in order that the House might be told before the debate closed what was their opinion as to the proper interpretation of this clause. It was a matter of health, and, indeed, a matter of life and death to some of the children, and when the law officers were drawing salaries and fees amounting to £19,000 a year, he thought they ought to be in their places ready to answer a Question of this kind. The Board of Education said that they had been advised that the local authority had no right to insist upon sanitary conditions as a condition—
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am not aware that any such statement has been made.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked whether the action of the Merionethshire County Council with regard to such schools was not based upon the fact that they waived their right under this clause to call upon the proprietors of voluntary schools to put them into a state of good repair?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No.
MR. WHITLEY: That is a very faint "no."
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am prepared to make it as emphatic as the hon. Member pleases.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that reply made it all the more important that they should have the opinion of the law officers upon it. He thought the local authorities were entitled to know exactly what their position was in this matter. Were they or were they not bound to maintain the schools when a reply which was

523
tantamount to a refusal was given to them? They had been accustomed to doles of this kind on the part of the Board of Education, but they should not forget that it was put before them as one of the chief reasons in favour of this Act that all that sort of thing would be done away with in the future. Even the hon. Member for Camberwell had stated that in his opinion, after the passing of this Act, the bolstering up of undesirable schools because certain doctrines would be taught in them would be done away with, but they had found that that was not by any means the case, and things were just as bad in that respect as they were before. The Board of Education was not willing to allow these things to be settled by a public inquiry, but by some device which was now apparently denied by the head of the Department, or some influence which they had no means of investigating, these things were decided against the local education authorities, and so the administration was as bad as ever, and they had all the other evils which had arisen to put up with at the same time.
MR. YOXALLsaid he hoped that the Board of Education, when they considered this report, would have due regard to the economy of the rates, and would not press too strongly for the immediate closing of these schools. He did not base his request that they should have consideration of that kind upon the same grounds as those put forward by his hon. friend. The Board of Education were bound to see that the bargain at the bottom of the Act was properly carried out. That bargain was that the burden of maintaining the teaching, etc., should be on the public, but that the managers of the voluntary schools should present for the free use of the public a sanitary and suitably constructed school building. There were some ninety cases in London now revealed to the full light of day where sanitary and properly constructed schools did not exist. The Board of Education would be called upon to decide between the managers and the London County Council, which was in the right and which was in the wrong. I They all wanted reasonable arrangements to prevail. They did not want
524
undue haste. They did not want a system to be put into operation all at once that would make it impossible for these schools to go on and throw into the streets a number of children for whom school places could not be provided. But so far he was not satisfied that the Board of Education would look at this question from a new point of view, a point of view justified by the Education Act of 1902, and which was not possible before the Act was passed.
Before the Act the Education Department had to consider that there was not everywhere a local authority charged with the duty of providing and maintaining these schools. They had to consider that if a school were closed by their action on account of being insanitary and improperly furnished there might be a difficulty in providing another school in its place, and they perhaps wisely proceeded with a certain amount of delay and caution where it was necessary to close or bring to an end an insanitary school. That day had now passed. The excuse before the Act for showing leniency towards schools of certain churches in the country had been taken from them. What he wanted to be sure of was that in London and elsewhere the attitude of the Secretary to the Board of Education would be impartial and not biassed by a preference for the schools of any particular church, but that the Board of Education would call upon the local managers who did not perform their part of the bargain to carry it out. Poverty had been pleaded as an excuse for not keeping the schools in proper repair by an hon. Member who represented Roman Catholics, but he did not recognise that as a valid argument. The cost was not excessive, and the pleading of poverty by people who spoke of deep conscientious motives, and something they would never surrender, was rather an anticlimax. It was certainly inconsistent. When he remembered that the hon. Member's co-religionists in France spent on their schools £2,500,000, he listened with a certain amount of impatience to those who said that poverty prevented persons of a particular faith from spending a few hundred pounds to put a school in a decent sanitary condition. He was

525
glad that the revelation had come. For many years past he had said that the great bulk of the voluntary schools were unfitted for the purpose of education. They were bad in respect of furniture, air, lighting, and space. He thought they might ask the Board of Education, while exercising certain reasonable caution, to act towards managers of these schools with firmness. If the Board did so it would be found that they would put their hands in their pockets and provide the money necessary for the improvement of these schools. If the managers did not do that he hoped the Board of Education would step between the managers and the local authority and have the schools closed.
MR. ROBSONsaid one Question had arisen in the course of the debate to which it seemed to him the hon. Baronet should give a definite and specific Answer. He had given as a reason for not dealing with the report now, that he had not had an opportunity of considering it, and he had stated that he would approach it in due time in a judicial spirit. He did not wish to commit himself now with regard to the conclusions at which he might ultimately arrive in regard to the report. But the debate had disclosed another doubt and difficulty in the minds of hon. Members on this subject. Was or was not the hon. Baronet going to regard the pleading of poverty as a valid excuse for non-compliance with the Act when managers were called upon to put schools in good order? Was the pleading of poverty a reason for delaying the putting of schools in order, or for leaving the obligations alone altogether? That was not a matter in which the hon. Baronet should be in any doubt. He listened to the hon. Member for South Down with considerable sympathy. The hon. Member stated that the difficulty of his co-religionists was that they were without financial means. He himself did not know whether the hon. Baronet considered that he was entitled to take that into consideration at all. If he did conceive himself entitled to consider the question of poverty on the part of those responsible for the condition of these schools, then he ought to inform the country. That would give rise to a
526
most important question of principle—a question of principle which the House ought to be put in possession of, not, indeed, to-night, but at some later stage. He was quite sure the hon. Baronet would do his best to give an Answer to the Question whether or not he thought it right to take into consideration the poverty of school managers or school subscribers as a reason why they should be permitted to avoid the obligations, I cast upon them by the Act.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid the House was entitled to an Answer after the revelations as to the condition of schools in London and throughout the country. Was the hon. Gentleman going to bring pressure upon the educational authorities or upon those managers who, in the name of religion, neglected those schools?
MR. MACVEAGHsaid he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to represent him. He did not plead the poverty of Roman Catholics as a reason why they should not place their schools in good condition. What he said was that out of their poverty the Irish Catholics in this country had built their schools and made great sacrifices.
MR. CROOKSsaid he wished to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether there was any likelihood of any action being taken, even in the remote future, in the Metropolitan area to make some arrangement both with respect to the treatment of children and the equalisation of the Poor Law administration. In the Local Government Act of 1888 a clause was inserted enabling the county council to contribute 4d. per day on the average number of persons in the workhouses previous to the year 1818. Since that time there had been a very large increase in the number of persons in the workhouses, and that had formed a very heavy burden indeed on the poorer districts of the Metropolitan area. The Government had been asked to introduce a Bill if necessary to bring the average up to date, and the Poor Law Unions Association suggested that the average number of persons in workhouses should be calculated from year to year. In his

527
district they would be willing to accept an average of two years. Another hardship from which they suffered in Poplar was that where there was no accommodation for children in the workhouse schools they were penalised to the extent of 5d. per day, while the children were not taught.
During the last winter they had been obliged to deal with an abnormal number of people in granting them outdoor relief. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then at the head of the Local Government Board, very properly asked the board of guardians in providing relief in time of distress to have regard first to the man who was usually in ordinary employment, and not to the chronic "out-of-work." The Poplar Council did provide work for 1,000 men, and in this way they preserved their manhood; but as there were 3,000 applications for help 2,000 men had to go on the poor rate. They in Poplar did their duty, but it was at a very considerable expense. The rates in Poplar were up to 12s. in the £. There was an enormous aggregation of casual labourers in the South-East of London, and the boards of guardians were obliged to deal with them in times of emergency at great expense; but it was because Poplar had done its duty in this respect that it had been held up before the world as being the heaviest rated borough in the kingdom. He maintained that there should be a central board, and one Metropolitan rate for the Poor Law. It might be said, did they expect a West End parish to contribute to an East End parish without having any control? His reply to that was that they in the East End were prepared to give any control asked for. If Marylebone had to raise a rate on the Poplar assessment that borough would have to levy 19s. 0¾. in the £, instead of 7s. as at present. There should be a better equalisation of rates all over the Metropolitan area.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That seems to require legislation. The present discussion must be confined to administrative matters only.
MR. CROOKSsaid he thought that the late President of the Local Government Board had stated that many of
528
these matters might be adjusted by administrative arrangements. Since the Education Department had taken the responsibility of examining the children in the Poor Law schools, why should they not go a little further and put these children under the education authority and not under the Poor Law, why not take away the children from the Poor Law taint altogether? The children now under the Metropolitan Asylums Board ought also to be placed under the Education Department, which now dealt with every kind of children, including cripples.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he could only speak by the indulgence of the House, but would, if permitted, answer I certain Questions addressed to him. He had been asked whether poverty was an excuse for the imperfect maintenance of I the fabric of a school. He had never heard such an excuse made. The school must be maintained in a suitable condition whether those who maintained it were poor or not. If they were too poor to maintain the school they must give up the maintenance of it. He was also asked whether decent repair would be insisted upon by the Board of Education as a condition of the maintenance of a school. That was so. The Act required that the managers should keep the school in good repair, that the local authority was not bound to maintain the school unless it was in good repair, and that every question of repair must be dealt with as it arose and the reasonableness of the demands of the local authority had to be dealt with by the Board of Education. He would answer the Question of the hon. Member for Glamorgan in this way. A local authority, not having given any notice of requirements as to repairs to the managers of voluntary schools, and having received the Parliamentary grants for a whole year in respect of those schools, but not having adequately maintained them, could not at the end of the year set up an alleged disrepair as a ground for refusal to maintain them in a proper condition. He was not aware that there had been delay on the part of the Board of Education in dealing with these matters.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid it was for the owners

529
of a school to see that it 'was in good repair and no notice was required on the part of the county authorities. When the latter inspected a school and found it was not in proper repair then they were to stop the maintenance at once without notice. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education had assumed that there was a provision which required them to give notice, but that assumption was not warranted. The Act only authorised the local authorities to maintain the schools so long as they were in repair. If the local education authority had expressed the opinion that a particular school was not in repair and then proceeded to maintain that school it would be the duty of the auditors to surcharge. Take the case of the London County Council. Say it was convinced that a number of schools were not in repair, if, notwithstanding that, it proceeded to maintain them the auditor should surcharge the County Council of London and refuse to sanction the payments they had made in respect of those schools which they had themselves pronounced inefficient. He thought they might ask the President of the Local Government Board to tell them the direction which would be given to Poor Law auditors in that respect.
Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS I.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,700, 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, 1906, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that so far as the matters which caused the postponement of this Bill were concerned, they had now been considered by the portion of his constituency affected, and he did not consider it necessary further to oppose the Second Reading.
  MASTER OF ELIBANKsaid his original intention was to oppose the Bill, but having mentioned privately to the noble Lord opposite the points of his objection, he hoped that when the time came for the North British Railway Company to consider the question of the Highland Society visiting Peebles-shire they would consider the very considerable grievance of the county in the matter.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

GREAT NORTHERN (IRELAND) AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS BILL [BY ORDER].
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12th April], "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill to omit Clause 33 of the Bill."
Question again proposed.
MR. WOLFFsaid that since this matter was last before the House the difference which existed between the promoters of the Bill and the Urban Council of Portadown had been settled. It had been arranged to omit Sub-sections 2 and 3 of Clause 33, and he moved to amend the proposed Instruction accordingly.
Amendment proposed—
"After the word 'omit,' to insert the words 'Sub-sections (2) and (3) of.'"—(Mr. Wolf.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LONSDALEsaid that as the Amendment of his hon. friend practically conceded all that those whom he represented in the matter required, he had no objection to the proposal.
Question put, and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Ordered, that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill to omit Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 33 of the Bill.

PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
MR. SLACK, in moving, "That, in the opinion of this House, local education authorities should be empowered (as unanimously recommended by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, 1904) to make provision, under such regulations and conditions as they may decide, for ensuring that all the children at any public elementary school in their area shall receive proper nourishment before being subjected to mental or physical instruction, and for recovering the cost, where expedient, from the parents or guardians," expressed his sense of obligation to the hon. Members for Hoxton and Barnard Castle for withdrawing their Bills dealing with this subject in order to make way for the present Resolution, which, he considered, dealt with an issue which was absolutely vital to the well-being of the country. Both sides would agree that though it was Tuesday night this was not an academic question, though it was a school question; and that it was not a Party question, though he wished it to be a Parliamentary question.
The Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee was so important a document that no apology was necessary for devoting one evening to a discussion of its contents. That Committee was appointed by the Duke of Devonshire on September 2nd, 1903, in con-
532
sequence of the serious allegations concerning physical deterioration of certain classes of population as shown by the large percentage of rejections for physical causes of Army recruits. The recruiters or recruiting sergeants were trained to reject "rubbish" as the would-be recruit who failed to pass the medical examination was significantly termed, but, notwithstanding this preliminary investigation and sifting, in 1901 no fewer than 29 per cent. of those submitted by the recruiting sergeant for examination by the medical officer were rejected, and in 1902 the percentage had gone up to 32. This was one cause of the appointment of the Committee; another was the significant Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland, in which it was stated—
"We think that an obligation for the proper supervision of the feeding of those who come for instruction should be regarded as one of the duties of school authorities, and that teachers should be instructed to take note of all children apparently ill-fed. Unless children receive sufficient nourishment they cannot, be expected to profit by the mental or physical training provided for them."
Therefore the Physical Deterioration Committee was appointed to ascertain the facts, to indicate the causes, and to suggest means for effectually checking the physical deterioration complained of. That Committee examined no fewer than sixty-eight witnesses of the highest official and scientific experience, seven of whom were specially nominated to give evidence by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the British Dental Association; and the Report was absolutely unassailable in its scientific accuracy, exhaustive in its evidence, and convincing in its conclusions. No fewer than fifty-three separate recommendations were made, dealing with such causes of deterioration (amongst others) as the feeding of elementary school children, alcoholism, over-crowding, milk supply, juvenile smoking, and the housing of the working classes, to each of which a Tuesday evening might well be devoted. In his judgment there was an obligation thrown upon the House by this important Report to crystallise the recommendations so as to arrest this declared evil.
The one subject to which the present discussion would be limited, was not

533
new, as the hon. Member for Hoxton brought it before the House on April 20th, 1902, and it had already been discussed incidentally upon the Estimates in the present session. But since last April the Report of this Committee had been issued and public interest in the question thereby stimulated. Underfed children were, so to speak, "in the air." He had received from Mr. Prichard, a guardian of Lambeth, a list of the resolutions passed at the 20th Annual Conference of the School Attendance Officers' Association, and amongst those resolutions he found the following—
"That, in the opinion of this conference, the time has arrived when every care should be taken to note all children under or improperly fed attending schools under the compulsory Education Act, and that where cases are discovered meals should be provided by the State at the school."
and further—
"That, in the opinion of this conference, the State maintenance of children is imperative in the public weal and should be chargeable to the National Exchequer."
Those were resolutions submitted to a body of men who had the best possible means of judging upon this subject, whose experience far transcended that of any other body of men in the country, whose duty it was to visit the children in their homes. But since the matter was discussed last year the position had changed; the facts were now before the country. The Resolution of last year was compulsory in form; it sought to lay an obligation on the Board of Education to require arrangements to be made for the feeding of improperly nourished school children; whereas the present Resolution was purely permissive, and sought only to empower local authorities to act if they thought fit.
The recommendations of the Physical Deterioration Committee might be summarised in one sentence, viz., that definite provision should be made by the various local authorities for dealing with the question of underfed children, and that safeguards should be provided against economic abuse. In dealing with this subject two facts had to be recognised: first, that for thirty-five years education in this country had been com-
534
pulsory for all; and, secondly, that while this education had been a success for the many it had been a failure for the few. The hon. Member for North Camber-well, whose evidence before the Committee was invaluable, estimated that 80 per cent. of the working-class children of this country were better off to-day than they ever were, but that the condition of the other 20 per cent. was very unsatisfactory indeed. Dr. Eichholz, one of the expert witnesses before the Committee, was of opinion that 122,000 of the elementary school population of London or about 16 per cent, were underfed, and, speaking of the Johanna Street Board School in Lambeth, he declared that 90 per cent, of the children there were unable by reason of their physical condition to attend to their work. It was with the few who were unfit for their work as scholars that this Resolution asked the House to deal. All would agree—in the word of the Committee—that it was the height of cruelty to attempt to teach half-starved children. It was not only a cruel practice, but a wasteful and short-sighted policy. Education could not be grafted on to starvation. The attempt to teach underfed children was spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. It involved enormous financial loss to waste efforts upon children who could not profit by the costly education provided for the mind whilst the body was left to starve. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University' in his interesting evidence quoted the wife of the Rector of Tending, in Essex, who provided meals for the children in their school by cooking them in her own kitchen, as saying—
"This is not charity, but far-sighted self-interest, because our children get far better grants if they are fed than if they are underfed, and we feed them for the purpose of getting more money out of the Government."
If this view were universal and universally acted upon there would be no need for the present discussion. All would agree that the intellectual and physical progress of underfed children must be inadequate and disappointing. The Report stated that no purely voluntary association could cope with the full extent of the evil. Dr. Robert Hutchison, perhaps the greatest living authority on nutrition,

535
who was nominated by the Royal College of Physicians to give evidence, said—
"It is essential economically to secure that every child under instruction should be more or less adequately nourished.
"Looking at it purely scientifically, it would be an extremely important thing to ensure to every child at school a sufficient and proper sort of meal.
"I feel certain that the provision of meals would do a great deal to improve the health and growth and development of the children of the poorer classes."
Dr. Hutchison regarded from ten to fifteen years of age as the critical period, and said that the provision of meals would check the waste of human material, and that arrest of development at that critical period could never be made good. That there was such an arrest of development was proved by the experiments conducted some years ago by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Those experiments consisted in weighing and measuring boys between the ages of eleven and twelve years over a period of five years, and it was found that in the public schools, the boys of the so-called upper classes averaged in height 54·98 inches, while boys of the same age in industrial schools, the class with which this Resolution was concerned, averaged only just over fifty inches. He did not wish to weary the House with quotations from the evidence in the Report, but he wished to make one from Mr. W. H. Libby, who for thirty years had been a master in London schools. On p. 299 of the Report was to be found this remarkable testimony—
"It always struck me that many children in the schools suffered from underfeeding, as evidenced by the difficulty they had in doing their mental work. About six months before I started this fund (the East Lambeth Teachers Free Meal Fund) there were two or three boys in the school who seemed to be in great difficulties, and I said to them: 'Why cannot you get on with your work?' They said: 'Well, sir, we have had nothing to eat.' I said: 'What do you mean?' They said: 'We have had nothing since yesterday morning.' In order to prove the case, I sent down to a baker's shop, and asked the baker to oblige me with some of the driest crusts he had on the premises. He did so, and I gave them to the boys. I did not apparently watch them, but I kept my eye on them, and I can assure you that they ate ravenously, and in a very few minutes the whole of the dry bread was gone. t came to the conclusion then that they were positively hungry."
536
There was a touch of something akin to a dumb heroism about those hungry lads; they looked up with their pale and sunken faces, and, in the words of Mrs. Browning—
"They looked up with their pale and sunken faces, And their looks were sad to see."
It was heart-breaking to the teacher to attempt to teach such children, and it would be heart-breaking to the British nation when it realised the facts. Then Miss Deverell, an inspectress under the Board of Education, said—
"I know one school where the master says that they get most of their meals by meeting workmen's trains and begging scraps from the men."
Other quotations might be given, but he would save the time of the House. The Report stated that in some cases voluntary organisations acting with the support and oversight of the local authority would be sufficient. It proved conclusively, however, that we dared no longer depend on fragmentary private philanthropy to deal with this national danger, but that organisation was in fact necessary to complete and co-ordinate sectional effort. Some such organisation as that suggested by the Resolution was necessary, in order to prevent overlapping of agencies, to promote economical and efficient administration of funds, and to direct the discovery of cases of real need. At present in centres where the bump of philanthropy was largely developed and funds were forthcoming the children were cared for, but in other centres, where the local sense of responsibility was dormant or funds were lacking, the children went unfed and education was a failure. The Resolution proposed to equalise this, though without discouraging private charity and voluntary effort. But no mere system, however good, would meet the case. It must be a system which could command the necessary funds.
Excellent systems existed in Vienna and Berlin, but they lacked funds and failed before they started. It was necessary that such an organisation should have official source and power, such as the local education authority, which should be empowered to supplement individual benevolence. Our neighbours across the Channel had courage in matters of education. In

537
France they had adopted the principle that every child receiving instruction at a State school should also be adequately nourished, at the public expense, if necessary. There were school societies in every arrondissement of Paris, and during the last year those societies provided 8,000,000 meals, at a cost of £70,000, of which £5,000 was charged on the rates, £20,000 was contributed by the parents in the purchase of coupons for meals, and £15,000 was contributed from voluntary subscriptions. In Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium the balance of cost was supplied by voluntary subscriptions, but the dinners were organised and sanctioned by the State school authorities. But here in Great Britain there was no common principle of action; there were only isolated and sporadic instances of dealing with the question, and all sorts of different organisations.
The Resolution suggested that local authorities should be empowered by law to make regulations for providing for the nourishment of under-fed children in school, and to make an alteration in the law to enable the local authorities, or possibly the guardians, to recover the cost from the parents who could afford to pay. The information supplied by the school attendance officers, coupled with that already in the possession of the managers and teachers, had been found in Lambeth to guarantee an almost absolute check against indiscriminate charity and economic abuse. It had been proved that a good breakfast could be supplied for a ½d., and a dinner for 1½d. Coupons should be issued for each meal; all coupons should be alike. Many parents would purchase the coupons, but they should be given to those whom the school attendance officers reported as being absolutely unable to pay for them. Many parents now gave their children 1½d. or 2d. to provide their own dinner, but the money was often very badly spent, and under such a system as he proposed these children would spend the money at the central hall where the meals were supplied. Many parents whose children now had their meals at home would be only too glad to buy the coupons in order to secure a better meal at a lower price
538
than it cost at home. There was no desire to absolve parents from the first and natural duty of providing food for their own children. The new system would bring home parental responsibility in a way the present system did not. All the parents who were willing and able to pay would gladly buy the coupons; those who were able but unwilling would be made to pay, and a call of the school attendance officer, especially if he were in uniform, would generally produce good results, while, in the words of the Report—
"A few prosecutions of neglectful parents would have a most salutary and stimulating effect."
In Lambeth the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had rendered good service in bringing to book neglectful and criminal parents who had failed to do their duty in the way of supplying food to their children when able to do so. It bad been proved that safeguards could be applied to such a system. It was necessary and, at the same time, possible, firstly, to protect the public purse and not discourage private philanthropy, next, to do nothing to weaken the sense of parental responsibility and self-reliance among the people, and lastly, but by no means least, sacredly to preserve the self-respect of the children themselves.
The funds necessary for this scheme might come from three and possibly four sources, first, from the parents themselves; secondly, from voluntary contributions; thirdly, from the poor rate, and possibly, at some future time, it might be necessary to ask for grants from the Exchequer. But a very small levy to remedy this evil would amply repay the commonwealth who would thus secure value for their money, because the better health of the children would be secured, and better health meant increased intelligence, brighter homes, a more contented people and more efficient workers, while at the same time a more regular attendance at school would be secured if meals were provided. It had been proved over and over again that where meals were provided in connection with the school, children attended much more regularly. Nothing disheartened a teacher so much as the frequent absence of

539
his scholars; the child forgot what it had already learned, and the teacher had to begin again, which was disheartening to the teacher and unfair to the rest of the class. Working-class parents did make sacrifices for their children in this country, but where, through misfortune, illness, or accident, they were prevented or hampered in providing for their children, then they should be assisted without incurring the taint of pauperism. If parents were able to provide their children with food, but would not do so owing to their indulgence in drink, or in gambling, or through general thriftless-ness or indifference, their duty should be brought home to them as it ought to be. Let them not allow the children to go hungry and start life handicapped for fear of the fetish of parental responsibility where it really did not exist.
He had seen it stated in newspapers that there were other remedies for this evil, such as reforms in the incidence of taxation, of the land laws, and in other ways, but he would point out that while those reforms were pending the children were suffering, money was being wasted, and the nation was deteriorating. What was wanted was a remedial organisation which should be co-extensive with the evil. They could not graft education on to starvation. There was nothing revolutionary in his proposals. The law already restricted the control exercised by parents over their children, and compelled the attendance of the children at school. The ages, hours, and places of children's employment were all limited by law. It was not sham Socialism but it was real patriotism and general Imperial-is It was the shortage of men fit to serve in the Army that first drew attention to this deterioration and so to the indifferent physical condition of the children in the schools owing to the shortage of food. The future of the Empire, the triumph in social progress, and freedom of the British race depended not so much upon the strengthening of the Army as upon fortifying the children of the State for the battle of life. They came back to the experience of the Ancients that the mens sana depended largely upon the corpus sanum, that a well-nourished body was the essential con-
540
dition of efficient education. He appealed to the House, not only on the ground of ceonomy and efficiency in education, but he urged that they should not turn a deaf ear to the cry of these hungry little ones whom they had driven into the schools, but the tragedy of whose warped and hungry lives they were so slow to understand. He begged to
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the House had listened to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down with the deepest interest. Few questions which had engaged the attention of the House had passed so rapidly from the domain of academic discussion to that of practical politics. According to one of the Poor Law inspectors, what happened new was that people who were thoroughly able to provide food for their children preferred to spend their money on gin and horse-racing. What the House wanted to know was had those parents been prosecuted, and if they had not whether the children had been fed. He believed neither the one nor the other had been done, which showed that there was an evil which under the existing law should be immediately redressed. The blame for this state of things attached not only to the Government of the day, but to that Party which sought to supplant it. The Government of the day, although armed with an immense amount of evidence, with all the testimony which practical and scientific opinion could give upon the subject, said that nothing could be done except to issue a circular to the various local authorities of the kingdom, because further inquiry was; necessary. The demand for further inquiry was based upon the fact that a child attending school in a hungry condition was only one reason why the education of the poorer classes was ineffective. Slum dwellings, long hours, low wages, no wages, rural depopulation and alien immigration, had made "Home" in most of the poorer parts of London and of the great towns, a misnomer; but if that was so the school feeding of the children had become more imperative than ever it was. It was no answer to say that by the gradual general improvement in the country the ill-fed

541
child would disappear. What they had to do now and here was to deal with the underfed child and adopt as the ultimate remedy those more gradual reforms which the Government seemed to rely on. Immediate steps should be taken to feed the children, because those gradual reforms to which he had alluded would take something like a generation to effect, and if the children were left as they were now, regarding it as a cold-blooded commercial speculation, the money spent upon their education would be wasted, the result being great dissatisfaction on the part of the ratepayers, while the children would grow to incompetent citizens.
What hope could be gathered from either of the Front Benches? From the Front Bench opposite not a syllable of sympathy had come, not a breath of suggestion had emanated from that quarter notwithstanding the famous statement that 13,000,000 of our people lived upon the verge of starvation. The Leaders of the Opposition showed their interest in the children of this country by their conspicuous absence. It was to the back benches of the Opposition that they had to go to find community of feeling and unity of ideas with those on the Ministerial side of the House who believed that this social reform was absolutely necessary if the people in this country were to be prosperous and healthy in the future. The authorities who had the administration of the existing law could not be regarded either as the best friends of legislative improvement in this matter. The education committee of the London County Council had just presented a report to the Council in which they did not even deal with the hon. Member for Camberwell in a kindly spirit, but described him and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cambridge University as "dangerous persons and outsiders exercising a demoralising effect among the scholars of the London County Council school in Johanna Street." He might say that that report was adopted in spite of the strong protest of the hon. Member for Battersea. The London County Council was the local authority responsible for more poor children than any authority in the world. They failed, however, to recognise that
542
the huge sums they were spending on education would, in the case of many thousands of children, be utterly wasted. As to the fear of destroying parental responsibility, that responsibility could not be exercised when the parent was unable to pay, and as matters now stood the neglectful parent was at liberty to starve his child. He hoped the Government would pass a measure this session conferring on local authorities power to deal with the matter.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, local education authorities should be empowered (as unanimously recommended by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, 1904) to make provision, under such regulations and conditions as they may decide, for ensuring that all the children at any public elementary school in their area shall receive proper nourishment before being subjected to mental or physical instruction, and for recovering the cost, where expedient, from the parents or guardians."—(Mr. Slack.)
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYdeprecated any suggestion that this question was a Party matter, and said it seemed to him that it was essentially a question which should be discussed simply on its merits. They were all agreed as to the existence of the evil, the only difference was as to the best mode of treating it. He desired to move, as an Amendment, that local education authorities should be empowered to make provision for recovering the cost "from the parents, and that when the parents are unable to defray the cost the relief be supplied by the Poor Law." It seemed to him obvious that the introduction into our schools of a system of feeding some of the children would in a short time result in the whole of the children being fed. Would this really be beneficial to the country or to the poor themselves? He admitted that hungry children must be fed, but the existing law provided that, if they were not fed by their parents, that they should be fed at the public cost, at the same time imposing disqualifications for certain purposes on the parents. That was the law at present.

543
If the parent of every child who received this relief was to be regarded as a pauper, then it should be understood distinctly that this was the case. He understood, however, that that was not the intention.
Let them look into the facts of the case. Who were, after all, responsible for these children in the first instance? Surely they must acknowledge that the parents were responsible. It was all very well to talk in a somewhat loose way of parental authority, but were they going to recognise that the first duty of a parent to his children was not to be enforced, and were they going to relieve parents from this responsibility? By the acceptance of this Motion they would be undermining the very basis of the structure of society and sowing the seed for the absolute destruction of the whole social fabric. The parents were without doubt responsible for the feeding of their children. His hon. friend had referred to a case in which an inspector stated that parents could carry out this responsibility if it were not for gin and horse-racing. Surely it was an extraordinary thing for them to pass a Resolution of this kind expressing pity and sympathy with these cases, whilst at the same time they acknowledged that the parents could feed their own children and yet did not feed them because gin and horse-racing prevented them. It was an extraordinary thing that the public should be asked to pay the expense of feeding these children while such a state of affairs existed. [Cries of "No, no!"] In his opinion that was the whole point, for they were asking by this Resolution that the children should be fed literally at the public expense. If they could, only get rid of a certain amount of cant could anyone say, looking at London, where at almost every corner even in the poor districts a public-house was flourishing and where nearly £20 was spent by every family per annum in alcohol, that drink was not the cause of much of this. It had been said that the rich ran up this amount spent on alcohol, but that was not so to such an extent as to invalidate this argument. It was not right that they should say smooth and pleasant things and ignore facts. They should
544
I not ignore the fact that in the city of London, with all its poverty, if they could only do away with excessive drinking and betting there would be no need for any such proposal as was now being considered. Was it reasonable that they should pass legislation which tended to increase this evil? He said emphatically that what they wanted in order to make the people better was to increase their self-reliance and self-restraint. He did not; think it could be said that a measure such as this tended in that direction.
Years ago when free education was given it was said that doing away with school fees would make things very much easier, and would enable parents to spend more money upon better food. Had free education had that effect? There might be many reasons why it was desirable to give free education, but had it really had the effect of enabling the poor people to make their children more comfortable and to supply them with more food. He emphatically said that it was not so, and, as a matter of fact, at the present time there was no doubt that the feeding of school children was not as well carried out as it was when they paid a small fee. Was it not a startling thing that those who had gone into this matter so closely acknowledged that in spite of free education children were not so well fed. At the same time was it not a fact that the people were earning at the present time more money than they were earning when free education was introduced. If the people were now earning more wages, living better, spending more on drink, and paying no fees for education, it did seem to him a very serious matter that it should now be proposed to take from parents the burden and responsibility of feeding their children. He did not himself wish to delay this discussion, and he only wished to make this formal protest. This was a subject in which he had taken an immense interest, and he had spent a good many years of his life endeavouring to make people thrifty and trying to promote self-reliance amongst them. In his opinion the essential condition of progress was self-reliance. This was the essential of our Christianity and of our very existence, and unless they could in

545
some way or other induce the people to think of the future, to consider their wants, and generally to act in a way which would tend to relieve them from the necessity of living from hand to mouth; unless they could induce them to put by something for a rainy day, their position would become gradually more serious.
A proposal like the one before the House seemed to him to strike at the root of any real progress of the people. He agreed that where children could not be fed and where parents were so poor that they could not possibly feed them the State should come in. But the State did that already. No doubt the failure of anybody to provide for his own was a sad thing, but it was a sadder thing for the nation itself so to degenerate as to regard this as almost a matter of course and not even to involve any consequences on the parents. The whole basis of this discussion was that they would be doing what was proposed without any taint of pauperism. Was it possible to relieve people at other people's expense without the taint of pauperism? Were they not simply trying to delude themselves by such an argument. If they relieved a person by providing the cost of feeding his children they might call it what they liked, but that person would be receiving parish aid, and they could not avoid it. His view was that this was a proposal fraught with enormous danger and his Amendment would make it less objectionable. If it were made clear, as his Amendment made it clear, that all relief was to be obtained from the parent, and that only those parents who were absolutely unable to pay should be relieved, then the evil would be minimised, and it was for that reason that he moved his Amendment.
They had been talking a great deal about the physical deterioration of the people. No one regretted that more than he did, but what was infinitely worse was the mental and moral and social deterioration of the people. This was a very serious question indeed, and although they were anxious in every way to do everything which was kind and right, he was sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would not think he had been induced to speak
546
in this way other than by kindly feelings towards the poor. In his opinion it was not kind to the people to make them rely upon other people. On the contrary he thought it was the greatest unkindness they could do them, because it tended to demoralise them, and the true kindness was to make the poor know and feel their responsibility and impress upon them the necessity of looking to the future before they married and had families. They ought to know that they would not be allowed to foist their responsibilities upon the public without the usual consequences. Nothing demoralised a nation more and nothing led to more unhappiness among people than to diminish their self-reliance, and he desired to enter his protest against a scheme which must sap the very foundations of national and social well-being. He did this in the interests of the people and mainly in the interests of the very poor. He protested against this scheme, because it seemed to him to be fraught with enormous danger unless it was accompanied by such an Amendment as he had the honour to move.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY, in seconding the Amendment, said that the speech which they had just listened to was one well worthy of every consideration. It was very easy to get up in the House and dilate upon feelings, which they all felt, of sympathy with the poor children who were underfed. To him, however, it seemed much harder to get up and point out the evils which might arise from false philanthropy. Surely it was not true philanthropy to say to a young man that he might go and marry at eighteen years of age some girl of sixteen years of age; that he might have ten or twelve children and take no trouble to work for them, and then that somebody else who was married himself, and had done his best to provide his own children, should be called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of the children of other people. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He really did not see what there was to cheer in that remark.
MR. CROOKSsaid that when the hon. Baronet stated that a man would provide his own children

547
he hoped he would allow him to cheer that remark.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that supposing, for the sake of argument, the Amendment of his hon. friend was not carried and the Resolution of the hon. Member opposite was adopted, what would be the result? The hon. Member opposite had guarded his proposal by saying that if it was expedient then the cost of feeding children should be recovered from the parents or guardians. What steps were being taken to ensure that it would be expedient? Pressure would be brought upon the guardians not to enforce this clause. Was it not human nature that if they could get something for nothing they would try to obtain it? That was human nature. If people discovered that their children were being fed, they would naturally ask why they should pay themselves when their children could get a good breakfast or a dinner for nothing. It had been argued that this should be done because it would improve the physical condition of the children. In his opinion good clothing was quite as necessary for the physical development of children as good food. Was it going to be held that they were not only to educate and feed but also to clothe the children? And when all that had been done he supposed it would be necessary to see that they had proper shelter, for that was a very important element in their physical condition. He had as much sympathy with poor people as any hon. Gentleman opposite, but he had spoken as he had because he believed in all sincerity that the very worst thing they could do in that House was to destroy the habit of self-reliance.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'where expedient from the parent or guardians,' in order to add the words 'from the parents, and that when the parents are unable to defray the cost the relief be supplied by the Poor Law,'"—(Sir George Bariley,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would endeavour to seek for
548
points of agreement on this subject. He thought they would all agree that there were many children who did go to school day by day suffering from lack of food, and that their unhappy condition called for prompt and earnest consideration on the part of the House. They were all agreed, he thought, that bread was more important to them than even the three R's. It must be agreed that it was torture to endeavour to teach the children when they were hungry, and that much of our educational expenditure from rates and taxes was necessarily wasted because of the physically unfit condition of the, children. They did agree, most honestly and sincerely, that they must do nothing to undermine parental responsibility.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Then why not accept my Amendment?
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would point out where he thought the hon. Baronet's Amendment was objectionable. The hon. Baronet's Amendment would throw the cost, where it was inexpedient to recover it from the parents, upon each parish. If it was left to the education authority, then they made it a county charge. For that, and for no other, reason he preferred the Resolution to the Amendment. There was no question of principle involved. He would pursue the parent with the utmost rigour of the law if he brought children into the world for his own pleasure and then neglected to provide for them.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Would you agree to make the parent a pauper?
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that, in the case of the parent who could make provision for his children but through thrift-lessness or drunkenness or immoral living failed to do so, he would scarify him. The question of cost was a serious one, and a contribution from the Exchequer would be a necessity; but that a private Member could not propose; it would, he hoped, some day be a Government proposal. The one outstanding point of difference seemed to be whether this matter should be dealt with by private charity or become a public obligation. He began consideration of the subject

549
twenty years ago, feeling confident that it should be dealt with by charity; but by hard facts he had been driven to the opinion that it should be a matter of public obligation, with every effort to obtain payment from a parent where payment was possible. For the charity that had provided funds for school meals every educationalist was most grateful; but charity broke down in time of great stress, and, moreover, it was the very method for emasculating the sense of parental responsibility to which so much importance was attached. Correspondents well acquainted with the facts had written to him insisting that there should be searching examination into the circumstances of a parent or guardian, because it had been the habit of careless parents not to provide their children with food knowing they would get meals from the fund. This was a demoralising system, and it was inadequate, for the contributions fell off as the winter passed, though the fact was that many of the poorer classes suffered severely from absence of work in the holiday season.
With regard to the Johanna Street School, Sir Charles Elliott had written a testimonial saying how well the fund at that school had been organised, how carefully the charity was distributed in such a way as not to cause demoralisation; a report of one of the relieving officers of the Lambeth Guardians upon the feeding of the children at this school stated that some of the parents visited stated that they did not give their children food before going to school because they knew that if they did not do so they would receive it at the school. There was the whole case at once. This wonderful system of charity was just the very scheme which influenced parents to send their children to school hungry in order to get free meals, because they knew that the hand of charity would deal with them there. He had received two interesting letters upon this subject. The first he would read was from Father Brown, who knew the poor of South London as well as any man living and who was a member of the London School Board for many years. He wrote—
"On the 16th November, 1897, I moved the following resolution at the London School Board:—'That it is expedient that the Board shall have power to supplement voluntary
550
effort for the purpose of preventing the underfeeding of children who are compelled to attend public elementary schools in cases where it may be necessary.' This was rejected by twenty-eight votes to fifteen, the main reasons brought forward by its opponents being the alleged sufficiency of existing voluntary effort, and the undesirableness of an education authority dealing with matters which should be within the scope of a Poor Law administration. My views have not changed since 1897, and I should be prepared to support a similar motion were I still a member of the London Education Authority. As the Progressive Party on the Council decline to have. me on that authority I am unable now to advocate the cause, but I may say that I have always felt that any system of providing meals for children in the schools would have to be safeguarded by searching examination into the circumstances and means of the parents or guardians, and by vigorous methods of compulsion towards those who were proved to be careless or neglectful of their parental duties. It is true that voluntary effort in some districts fully meets the needs of the case, but it is also true that the efficiency of any voluntary organisation depends very largely upon the varying earnestness and capability of those to whom the work of investigation and distribution is entrusted. I see that your Motion provides for the cost of the feeding being recovered from parents or guardians who are able to pay for it. I hope that if any practical proposal is brought forward by you or your friends, that it will be made clear that this condition will be unflinchingly insisted upon, and that parents who fail in their duty will incur the disabilities now attached to Poor Law relief. One of the weakest spots in the existing voluntary system of providing meals for underfed children is that no steps can be taken to prevent thriftless and dissolute parents from throwing the burden of supporting their children on to charitable agencies without incurring any penalty or disability for their gross neglect."
He entirely and emphatically associated himself with Father Brown's view. That was the present system and they desired to modify it. He had received another letter that morning equally interesting. His hon. friend who moved this Resolution referred to Mr. W. H. Libby, the secretary of the East Lambeth Teachers Association Scholars Free Meal Fund, who had worked so industriously in this cause. Upon this question he had written him a letter in which he said—
"I have very much pleasure in giving you my opinion as regards charitable agencies, In the first place they are inadequate because they only profess to meet the needs during the winter months. There are, however, many employments, such as gas workers, poor widows engaged in laundry work and charing, who find when the summer months approach work gets slacker. During July, August, and September,

551
when the wealthier and middle classes are holiday-making, these poor folk find their work gone; consequently these months are looked forward to with positive dread. It seems strange to us—I am speaking of those who do not think of how the poor live, and I was one of them until I knew—but a holiday which is looked forward to with longing and pleasure by certain classes is to thousands of the poor a period of intense anxiety and suffering. It is then that their bit of work is gone and arrears of rent run up. We often think more of our favourite cat's welfare during a holiday than the charwoman's boy or girl. There is no charitable agency which is capable of properly meeting the needs of underfed children during the whole year round. These agencies are only popular as long as the weather is such as to stimulate charity."
The letter went on to show how this system was inefficient and demoralising.
He cordially endorsed his hon. friend's view in regard to the Parisian scheme. What he would suggest was that they should schedule the poor areas of each town and link about half-a-dozen schools together for this purpose. They could give each area a central dining hall and supply the parents with coupons which should be given to the children before they came to the school. The system in vogue in Paris resulted in 8,000,000 meals being supplied at a cost of £70,000, £45,000 of which came out of the rates and the rest from voluntary contributions.
At the time of Waterloo there was a popular doggerel which ran—
"Two skinny Frenchmen,
And one Portuguee;
One brawny Englishman
Was a match for all three."
But he feared that if the present condition of things was allowed to continue the skinniness would become the mark of the Englishman and the brawn the possession of the foreigner.
The point he and his friends wanted to make clear was that they were entirely against the undermining of parental responsibility. Their scheme would develop parental responsibility. He believed that conscience could be developed by legislation in these cases. The Education Act of 1870 made it compulsory for parents to send their children to school, and under the law of compulsion they did it. The result was that a class were coming to school to-day who would never have come except under compulsion. If the compulsory clause were abolished to-morrow—he did not
552
say it should be—a large number of parents would send their children to school because the law had developed the sense of moral obligation. In the same way his hon. friend the Member for Peckham would find in this matter that if parents were made to do their duty under compulsion, the habit brought about by compulsion would become a moral obligation. The Motion before the House was a very simple one, and he hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to say on behalf of the Government that they were going to accept it. In 1807 Mr. Whitbread moved a Motion in the House of Commons that it was the duty of the House to take into consideration the intellectual development of the people. The hon. Gentleman was described as a pestilential fellow, and his Motion was rejected by a large majority. It was considered then that it was right enough to teach the people to read, but to teach them to write and to do arithmetic meant the undermining of the foundations of society. Yet to-day the nation was spending £20,000,000 a year upon the intellectual development of the people. To-night, again, the phrase "undermining the foundations of society" was heard in the House of Commons. But he asked the Government who had appointed Royal Commissions to inquire into disease among grouse and for the improvement of horse-breeding to give some consideration to the children of the nation.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid he did not wish to vote on this Motion without giving his reasons. He had had the honour for some years to represent a constituency which ran into the Metropolitan area. It represented a quarter of the area of the Metropolis, and, interested as he was in the subject of education, it would be impossible for him to look with indifference on this great and growing evil. He had always felt very anxious concerning it. He had been aware for many years that a great mass of sickly and stunted children were hurried into the primary schools who were unfit, both in regard to body and brains, to receive any education whatever. He had read the Report very carefully, and, although he was aware that the evil was in existence, the Report startled

553
him very considerably indeed. The Report was made not by those who approached this question from the point of view of any crotchet or fad; it was the Report of a very strong Committee indeed. The members of it were not only thoroughly fit to deal with such a question but they were thoroughly able to sift the evidence on both sides, and to come to a determination in a careful and judicial manner. The Report teemed with evidence showing that this question demanded early settlement, and, knowing what he did concerning these matters, he found himself absolutely unable to say "No" to the Resolution before the House. The evil was there, and in seeking a remedy the first thing they ought to ask was—What does it all lead to? He had been told that if they were going to feed children they must also clothe them. He did not think that need be necessary if proper precautions were taken. In the first place a vast amount of voluntary effort had been going on for many years concerning this evil. One thing certain was that so far as the Metropolis was concerned voluntary effort could only touch a very small percentage of the evil, and he was not sure, as had been hinted in the debate, that in such a population as that of the Metropolis voluntary effort might not be somewhat dangerous. In other towns with more restricted areas it could be carried out with complete success. The State compelled children to attend school and that made the case distinct from any other.
Everything, to his mind, depended upon the machinery which they could apply to this case. It must be a sine qua non that such a machinery should provide a thorough and complete test of the position and responsibilities of the parent; and he thought the wording of the Resolution should be extended so as to bring in the aid of inspectors of the Local Government Board. Surely, however, the House had solved more difficult problems than this, and what had been done with success in Birmingham could be done in London. In a report with regard to the work done in Birmingham he found the following—
"In considering the principles on which they would act it was decided in the first place that only those should be helped who could expect
554
practically nothing if it was not given to them' and secondly, that only such a meal should be given as would not compete in any way with the meal which could be provided even in a very poor home. It was next decided that cases for help should be selected with the greatest care. This is done by three different people—by the head teacher of the school, by the class teacher in whose class the boy or girl is, and by the visiting officer. The co-operation of these three, Dr. Airy states, has been so successful that he does not believe there has been 5 per cent. or anything like it, of abuse."
In Glasgow also a poor children's dinner table had been established with complete success. Whit could be done at Birmingham could with more careful inspection be done in all the schools of the Metropolis. As to parents who neglected their duties it could not be a bad thing for the State to put pressure on them, and if continued daily pressure were put upon them with respect to their obligations very great good might result. He would not support the Resolution if he did not believe that some machinery could be devised to carry it out.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid there was one feature of the debate which was entirely new. It was no longer said that this matter should be left to private charity. The dispute at the present moment between those who supported and opposed the Motion was as to whether the money necessary was to come from the education fund or the poor fund. That was a very important point gained. He understood the contention of the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment was that the parents whose children had to be provided for were in a condition of poverty because of their own thriftlessness and intemperate habits. He desired most emphatically to protest against that assumption. The investigations made by Mr. Booth in London, and Mr. Rowntree at York, proved conclusively that one-third of the population were in poverty not because they were intemperate or because they indulged in betting, but because the wages they received were not sufficient to provide them with the requirements of comfort and decency. Were people in that condition to be punished twice, first by denying them a living wage in exchange for their labour, and next by pauperising them? A great deal had been heard about parental responsibility. If parents

555
realised their responsibilities properly the House would not be discussing this question to-night. What the supporters of the Motion desired was to develop parental responsibility. In this connection he would quote the opinion of a man whose testimony would be accepted. Dr. Chalmers, medical officer of health for the city of Glasgow, at a recent conference on this question, used these words—
If we accused the casual and inefficient of failing in his duty to the State, might not we in turn quite reasonably ask why the State acquiesced in conditions affecting his childhood which made him inefficient and dependent upon casual labour?"
The point made by Dr. Chalmers was that if they starved people in their childhood the next effect was they grew up with weakened will and loss of self-respect. It was absurd to expect any strong sense of parental responsibility on the part of men and women who grew up under those conditions. What the Motion proposed was that so far as feeding was concerned the conditions should be supplied which would make it possible for a child to develop a healthy body without loss of self-respect. He quoted from the report of a committee which was investigating this problem in North and North-West London schools to show that in a St. Pancras school 141 children came from 116 families where the father was oat of work, and fifty-eight children belonged to forty four fatherless families. Individual cases also disclosed inability through lack of work to provide properly for the children.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he did not wish to say anything hard in regard to these cases. If they received relief from public charity, or public alms, that did not effect the fact that they were pauperised.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid there was a very real difference. Pauperism was the taint which they attached to those who were in want through their own lack of thrift. That was the sense in which every Member of this House desired to see the taint of pauperism applied. But would any Member of the House say that if a respectable and sober man and wife got into destitute circumstances through
556
no fault of their own they were to be pauperised as they bad seen lately.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: You cannot help it.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid they could help it. They were not tied down to the Poor Law relief. They had the option of giving relief from the education rate and the borough rate, and by that means they could remove from the relief given the stigma that attached to relief given in connection with the administration of the Poor Law. If the hon. Member did not want to say hard things he would withdraw his Amendment and allow a unanimous vote to be given on this question. As to the argument of parental responsibility he ventured to say that the children of hon. Members on both sides of the House were sent to boarding schools where meals and accommodation were provided for them, and the home life of the families was broken up for six or seven months of the year. The provision of school meals for which the parents would pay when able would no more interfere with parental responsibility and family ties than did the provision for hon. Members' families at boarding schools. The Education Department and the Local Government Board should be more helpful pending legislation. In the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report on Physical Deterioration there was a paragraph which stated that—
"In the carrying out of their recommendations for the rectification of acknowledged evil the Committee do not rely upon any large measure of legislative assistance; the law may with advantage be altered and elaborated in certain respects, but the pathway to improvement lies in another direction. Complacent optimism and administrative indifference must be attacked and overcome, and a large-hearted sentiment and public interest take the place of timorous counsels and sectional prejudice."
He maintained that if the two Departments were to lay that sentence to heart, and got rid of "timorous counsels and sectional prejudice," and faced the question boldly, they could do something immediately to relieve the situation. Afterwards they could have such legislation as was necessary to enable the education authorities to lay the foundation on which to build up an educated citizenship. They denied the opportunity to

557
men of earning wages, and then they penalised the children because the parent had not earned sufficient wages to maintain them in health. He hoped that the result of this debate would be that a new spirit would be infused into the Department, and that the scandal and disgrace of children starving in the midst of plenty would be ended.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that thanks to the Answer of the President of the Local Government Board there was no longer any doubt as to the rights of these hungry children. They had a right to be fed at the public expense and immediately, quite irrespective of the character of their parents, as soon as their destitute condition was known. That right had been very imperfectly satisfied; and for years these children had been defrauded of the relief to which they were legally entitled. But now the right was established it was for the Board of Education to make it a little easier for the children to get what they were entitled to. The first thing the Board could do was to establish medical inspection in all the schools. If the medical profession were once let into the schools most of what he and others contended for would follow. The Board could give notice in one Code, and enforce in the next, that no grant would be made to any school which did not provide a system of medical inspection satisfactory to the Board. That had been done in the case of the provision of cloak rooms in the schools. He only feared that the Board was now endeavouring to frame some universal system of medical inspection to be applied to all schools alike. Nothing could be a greater mistake than that. He hoped the Board of Education would confine itself to requiring medical inspection approved by them, and leave it to the particular locality, which must necessarily be much better able to do so, to construct the particular scheme most appropriate to that place. They also wanted the Board of Education to go a step further. At present the food which those children were entitled to, and which, he supposed, in a roundabout way they would now procure—because there ought not to be a single hungry child in an elementary school if the law enunciated by the
558
President of the Local Government Board were carried into execution—came from the Poor Law authorities. It would be very much mire convenient, expeditious, and free from Poor Law taint, if it was provided by the education authorities. In the case of Bradford, he believed they gave a salary to the Lord Mayor expressly for that purpose.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: They afterwards withdrew it; the Liberals would not let them have it.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he knew that in other cases there had been contributions from the rates. What was asked now was that the Board of Education should, at all events next year, give power to the local authority, if they thought fit, to spend the education rate in the provision of dinners and other meals at their schools. Unfortunately, the Committee just appointed to reconsider the recommendations of the other strong Committee was expressly debarred from recommending any kind of provision of school meals which would be a charge upon the rates. That shut them off from what everybody who had spoken in that debate wished to be done by the education authority. Extreme zeal was displayed by some people for the reformation of the thriftless parent, but in that matter he cared most for the child, believing that to be good economy and good Imperialism. It was the system of voluntary charitable relief which was really undermining parental responsibility. If the thing was done by the public authority, the provision of school meals could be prevented from in any was interfering with parental responsibility.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said he was glad to hear the mover of the Resolution say that this was not a Party question. They were all agreed that it was a question in which they had a common interest. It appealed to them on two sides—on the economical side, because the immense sums which were spent on education were not profitably spent if the children were not in a condition to receive the instruction which was

559
offered to them, and on the side of human sympathy, because they all desired that the poor children in these slum schools should get their teaching under as favourable conditions as could be provided for them without the demoralisation involved in a large system either of private benevolence or of public charity.
There were one or two features in the Report of the Departmental Committee which were of a more cheering character than some hon. Members had admitted. One of the most satisfactory features was that we were improving in physique and not going back. Another feature of the Report that had been forgotten by some hon. Members who had spoken of the hardship of driving these children into public elementary schools was that there was evidence given before the Committee to the effect that the physique of the children, whether fed or unfed, steadily improved during the time they were present in the public elementary schools.
When they were asked to carry into effect the unanimous recommendation of the Departmental Committee that local authorities should be empowered to make definite provisions "under such regulations and conditions as they might decide," he must call the attention of the House to the actual terms of the Report and of the recommendation. The unanimous recommendation of the Physical Deterioration Committee was that the local authorities should make definite provisions, not as they might decide, but in accordance with the methods indicated in paragraphs 358 to 365 of the Report. In these paragraphs the Committee stated that there was no doubt that a large number of children habitually attended school underfed, that the number varied locally with the time of year and the conditions of employment, that it was not likely to increase, and that they saw various causes at work which would lead to its diminution. In a very large number of cases voluntary organisation, with the support of local bodies, was sufficient for the purpose, and so long as this was the case they would strongly deprecate recourse being had to direct municipal assistance. Therefore, contrary to what they had heard that night, the Committee definitely recom-
560
mended that, so long as organised charity could do the work, recourse should not be had to direct municipal assistance. The Committee went on to say that circumstances did arise which called for more immediate aid, and they endorsed the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Physical Training to the effect that local authorities should be empowered to provide for the preparation and cooking of meals as a charge incident to school management, but only where it was found necessary to provide for them. They went on to say that the combination of local resources and voluntary effort might be usefully employed in certain cases. The Committer also contemplated a state of things in which these arrangements might still be inadequate, and in these cases, they said, it might be expedient to promote the application of the municipal aid on a. larger scale, not "as the local authority might decide," but subject to the consent of the Board of Education and with the concurrence of the Poor Law authorities. There was another paragraph which dealt with a large group of cases to which insufficient attention had been given—the cases of children placed in the category of "retarded." The Committee thought they might be dealt with by means of special schools; but whether such schools should be established, or the children should be merely treated as underfed, must be left to the local education authority, acting with the concurrence of the Poor Law authorities. The Committee wound up by saying that by this means protection was given against the dangerous doctrine that free meals were a necessary concomitant of education. These recommendations indicated limitations to the application of municipal support and a number of safeguards that were absent from the Resolution before the House.
He dealt first with the cases of children who came to school underfed or were alleged to be underfed. It was exceedingly difficult to be on sure ground in ascertaining the number of these cases. As was said by a lady of great experience in these matters in a letter published in the Manchester Guardian on April 8th, it was only those who spent much time with

561
the children and their parents, and were able to go behind the scenes and did not judge by appearances of poverty, who were able to get at the actual facts. Charitable people were often misled by appearances, and something of the kind seemed to have occurred in regard to the distinguished party visiting the Johanna Street School. Ninety-six children were reported.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that was not so. A list was given to the Lambeth Board of Guardians and certified by Dr. Hutchinson, but these were not the cases reported by his party.
DR. MACNAMARAasked what the hon. Baronet was quoting from.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was quoting from the report of the relieving officer who followed in the track of the deputation. These were cases of alleged underfed children attending Johanna Street School belonging to fifty-six families. In twenty-five of these cases there was evidence that the children were fed; in eleven cases there was no direct evidence that they were fed, but there was evidence implying it, and showing that the parents had means to feed them; in ten cases the parents were very poor, and he would not deny that the whole report presented an aspect of distressing poverty; in these ten cases some of the parents were receiving Poor Law relief, and in ten cases the relieving officer could ascertain nothing. He called attention to some of the cases. One case was that of a man in full work, earning 5s. a day. He had five children. There had been no necessity to apply for relief, and there was no desire to do so. In another case a woman who certainly was poor, with one child, stated that her boy always had a good breakfast and dinner before going to school. The boy had informed the relieving officer that he had no food that morning. There was a case in which the father, a farrier, earned 25s. a week, and when in full work 35s. The children had gone to school without food when they knew that food would be given them. In another case a plasterer earning £1 a week did not see why his children should
562
not be fed at school as well as the children of other people. There was a case in which the earnings of the family amounted to 73s. a week, and yet the children were allowed to receive food at the school. He thought that report showed that apparent destitution at the school was no real test of the condition of the home. He did not deny distress; he did not deny necessity, even urgent necessity, for relief in certain cases. But he did maintain that there was great risk of exaggeration where visitors judged from the mere aspect of the school and had not the time or leisure to go to the home and ascertain the actual circumstances and what the parents did for the children.
What was wanted as the result of the consideration of this question, was that if the parents neglected to provide meals for the children the Poor Law should intervene, but, if there was accidental distress, one would wish to see that remedied by voluntary effort organised by the local authority. They did not want a duplication or triplication of effort among the local authority, the Poor Law, and organised charity. His right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board was about to issue to the guardians of Poor Law unions throughout the country an order to this effect, that upon application, either through managers or teachers empowered by managers or through an officer empowered by the local education authority, the guardians might relieve children who were not supplied with adequate food. This might be given by way of loan to the father recoverable as such relief was recoverable, and the relief would be given after notice to the father if the case was not urgent; if the casa was urgent, relief would be given at once and notice would be served on the father afterwards.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will that relief entail disenfranchisement of the parent?
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid, clearly. If a man did not feed his children, or was unable to feed them, and left that duty to be undertaken by the Poor Law authorities, he fell under the disability of the Poor Law.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: In the case of a loan?
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that was one form of relief, and the circular letter accompanying this order issued by the Local Government Board would call the attention of the guardians to the propriety of prosecuting parents for neglect, if, after the first period of relief had expired—a month—the children were still left without adequate nourishment. That was what the Local Government Board had undertaken to do, but the Board of Education would circulate the order, and the circular letter of the Local Government Board accompanying it, among the local education authorities, and at the same time, they should send a covering letter explaining the purport of the order and the circular, and they should invite the local authorities to distinguish between cases of permanent destitution, which were objects for the Poor Law in its ordinary course; cases of neglect which would be subject to the special order now issued by the Local Government Board; and cases of temporary or accidental loss of income arising from illness or want of employment, which should be properly dealt with by the charity, which was always available if properly organised by the local education authorities. They were further inviting local education authorities to organise inquiry by managers and teachers into the condition of the children at the schools and of the homes from which the children came, so that the relief, where necessary, should be given properly and where it was due.
He did not think that these measures brought them to the end of the difficulty. They did meet the case of children who came to school hungry. The hungry children would be fed either by organised charity or by the guardians if the parent neglected them; but there was a much larger class of cases not so easy to enumerate, and which he would endeavour to describe by reference to two documents—one the report of a sub-committee of the education committee of the London County Council after a visit to the Johanna Street Schools. They said that if any weight were to be attached to such summary investigations as those of Dr. Hutchinson, the natural conclusion would
564
be that the supply of meals at school was not alone sufficient to build up a sound bodily frame for children poorly clothed, ill-nurtured, and badly housed, and, to come again to Miss Dendy's letter to the Manchester guardians, she said that nine-tenths of the irretrievable harm done to children was done by improper food before they were three years old. This state of things, she said, could not be cured by any wholesale methods of giving food by charity or by the State. How then were they to ascertain the nature and the extent of the evil which prevailed throughout the schools? It was not the result of the child's coming hungry to school day after day; it was not the result of the present lack of means; it was the result of bad clothing, bad housing, bad feeding from the time that the child was an infant. He hoped the Board of Education would shortly, as the result of a larger scheme for the employment of women inspectors, be able to publish a series of interesting reports by women inspectors who had inquired into the condition of infant schools.
But the root of the matter seemed to lie in medical inspection; and what they must first ask was, What were the existing powers of local authorities as to medical inspection and what was being done by them. The Departmental Committee was inquiring as to what was now being done, and with what result, by those local authorities which had undertaken medical inspection. Some hon. Members were, perhaps, not aware that local authorities might now appoint nurses and medical officers to inspect the children attending their schools. Every administrative county might appoint a medical officer, and every rural and urban sanitary district must have a medical officer; and it was worth considering how far the existing machinery could be utilised for this purpose before they introduced any such measure as to require local authorities to establish medical officers of their own in every school. Many hon. Members were made constantly and painfully aware of the heavy incidence of the rate for education under the Act of 1902, and the cost of medical inspection, which would be very heavy, was not at all easy to ascertain. In order to ascertain it inquiry must first

565
be made as to what had happened among those local authorities—London, Bradford, and others—who employed medical officers. He thought they should have some notion of the liabilities that would be imposed by such a requirement, and he for one, should hesitate before he became responsible for the introduction of such an article in the Code as compulsory medical inspection, glad as he would be to see medical inspection carried out. As at present advised, the Board of Education was not likely to lay down any scheme of medical inspection of its own. He was sure it would be better for local authorities to devise their own scheme, knowing as they did that the character of it must differ very widely in different parts of the country.
As regarded the treatment of children, not merely hungry to-day, but ill-nurtured from infancy, the Inter-Departmental Committee would endeavour to ascertain whether voluntary effort organised by the local authorities could not work out a scheme without casting any special burden on the rates. There was no reason why local authorities who were so inclined should not devote certain of their schools to the education of children who were incapable of doing the ordinary work in a public elementary school, who required to spend less time at their books, and more in the work of their hands, who required more regularity in feeding, and to whom it would be a hardship to put them in competition with other children whose early days had been more happily and prosperously spent. The evidence, so far as he could gather, was that in London there must be something like 60,000 such children; but figures were very difficult to obtain. He hoped further information might be obtained from the Report of the Committee as to the possibility of meeting their needs without laying any special burden on the rates.
As to the future, the Board were endeavouring to organise teaching in regard to the ordinary habits of life which might induce the parent of the future to deal more sensibly with his children than the parents of the past had done. They were endeavouring to adapt the teaching of cookery to the circumstances of those who were taught.
566
As regarded the teaching of the ordinary rules of health, the Board had had the assistance of the hon. Members for Rye and the University of London on the other side of the House, who had supplied them with a suitable scheme of teaching on these four topics—food and drink, cleanliness and fresh air. The scheme was a practical one, and he hoped that by inculcating proper knowledge in their elementary schools they should endeavour to provide against the malnutrition of the child of the future, though it would take some time to bring about.
He had endeavoured to point out to the House what were the sort of difficulties which this subject presented in the case of the child who came hungry to school, owing to the want or neglect of the parent, and of the child who came to school not hungry but incapable of taking in the teaching of the school owing to the conditions in which he had lived. He had endeavoured to describe the steps which the Local Government Board and the Board of Education were taking to remedy this, and he hoped that by careful organisation of the local education authorities, by voluntary effort, by the use of the Poor Law, by medical inspection, and by teaching to parents and children alike the laws of health, they might get rid of at least two aspects of the evil. He would rather trust to these remedies than take the heroic measures proposed. He knew that these steps would, to many Members, seem unsatisfactory and insufficient, and that, in looking to the future, they should be regarded as looking too far ahead, but he regarded this subject as of such great importance that he should be sorry to take any step which would imperil the future of the population of the country, and he believed that they should run some risk of weakening the character of the people if they adopted without consideration some short and easy mode of supplying the present need such as was indicated in this Resolution. The Government were inquiring into the facts and taking active steps in the direction suggested by the Physical Deterioration Committee. They were not prepared to take such a step as was indicated in this Resolution, because this Resolution, as he had pointed out, did not in itself contain

567
the proposals of the Committee. He should prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Islington to the Resolution as it stood, but he frankly said that, looking to the inquiries which he considered to be necessary in this matter, and to the importance of any step that they might take in this direction, and sympathising as he did with the spirit in which it was brought forward, although he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend he should vote against the Resolution as amended. The Government could not support it nor did he personally give it his support.
MR. LOUGH: Will you make it a Party question?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No, certainly not. This is a matter in which everyone must judge for themselves, but I hope I have said enough to show the importance which the Government attach to the question, and the reason why they cannot take the steps they are asked to take by the hon. Member.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid there were some disappointing and some very gratifying results of the debate. He thought it was marred at the commencement by an unjustified attack made be the hon. Member for Hoxton upon the front Opposition Benches, from which he said no help came. It was a remarkable commentary upon that attack that every one of the suggestions which had now been made by the head of the Department were made by himself from that
very bench in the course of a speech two weeks back. The method of meeting this difficulty suggested by the Secretary to the Board of Education, as the scheme of the Government, was in the first instance brought forward by himself. They had taken the scheme without acknowledgment, and he was glad to point out that the whole of it came from that side of the House. While he congratulated the Government on having taken advice, he was sorry that they had not gone further in the direction of medical inspection, because that was, in his opinion, the basis of all progress in this matter. The temporising and timorous action of the Government ought to end, for it did little to meet a great and growing evil. Locally all authorities in an area should be brought into this work. The Education Act had retarded rather than helped the movement, for in many places medical inspection had been stopped. The central authority might not consider that the local education authority should undertake that work, but if they had cooperation and co-ordination of local authorities that duty and others could be easily performed. He could not congratulate the Government on having done anything bold in the matter. He thanked them for the little they had done, and hoped that at an early date they might receive fresh counsel and take a more vigorous and forward step.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 100; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 144.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Caldwell, James

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Causton, Richard Knight

Fuller, J. M. F.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Channing, Francis Allston

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Allen, Charles P.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Atherley-Jones, L.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cromer, William Randal

Gretton, John

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Crooks, William

Harcourt, Lewis

Bell, Richard

Cust, Henry John C.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bingham, Lord

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Higham, John Sharp

Blake, Edward

Dyke,Rt. Hon.Sir William Hart

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw's Bghs

Horniman, Frederick John

Brigg, John

Emmott, Alfred

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Broadhurst, Henry

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Hunt, Rowland

Burns, John

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Jacoby, James Alfred

Burt, Thomas

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

Joicey, Sir James

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Nolan, Joseph Louth (South)

Spear, John Ward

Kitson, Sir James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Lamont, Norman

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

O'Kelly, Conor, (Mayo, N.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Malley, William

Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Rea, Russell

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Ure, Alexander

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Ridley, S. Forde

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Levy, Maurice

Robson, William Snowdon

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lough, Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Rose, Charles Day

Wilson, Henry J (York, W. R.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Runciman, Walter

Yoxall, James Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Schwann, Charles E

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Slack and Sir John Gorst.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shackleton, David James

Malcolm, Ian

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Galloway, William Johnson

Morpeth, Viscount

Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Mount, William Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Purvis, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bond, Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Brassey, Albert

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Keswick, William

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

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

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Valentia, Viscount

Chapman, Edward

Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Davenport, William Bromley

Maconochie, A. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir George Bartley and Sir Frederick Banbury.

Dickson, Charles Scott

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward

Majendie, James A. H.

Main Question again proposed.
And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded to inter rupt the Business.
The House divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 145.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Broadhurst, Henry

Crooks, William

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burns, John

Cust, Henry John C.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Burt, Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Allen, Charles P.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Caldwell, James

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Causton, Richard Knight

Ellice, Capt E C(St Andrews B'ghs

Bell, Richard

Channing, Francis Allston

Emmott, Alfred

Blake, Edward

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Brigg, John

Cremer, William Randal

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Runciman, Walter

Fuller, J. M. F.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Levy, Maurice

Schwann, Charles E.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lough, Thomas

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

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Shackleton, David James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Macdona, John cumming

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Gretton, John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harcourt, Lewis

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Malcolm, Ian

Spear, John Ward

Higham, John Sharp

Markham, Arthur Basil

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Sullivan, Donal

Hunt, Rowland

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, J A. (Glamorgan, Gower

Joicey, Sir James

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Kelly, Conor (Mavo, N.)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Malley, William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Russell

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Kitson, Sir James

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries;

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

Lamont, Norman

Ridley, S. Forde

Yoxall, James Henry

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Robson, William Snowdon

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roe, Sir Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Slack and Mr. Claude Hay.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Rose, Charles Day

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Purvis, Robert

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Balcarres, Lord

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Keswick, William

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Bingham, Lord

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Bond, Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Brassey, Albert

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Chapman, Edward

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

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Earl of Dalkeith and Sir William Tomlinson.

Davenport, William Bromley

Maconochie, A. W.

Forster, Henry William

Majendie, James A. H.

Galloway, William Johnson

Morpeth, Viscount

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whereupon Mr. SLACK rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now nut."
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order 27, and that the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday, May 3rd.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working and administration of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, and to report whether any, and, if so, what, amendments are reasonable and necessary to improve the service of Workmen's Trains in the Metropolis and elsewhere to secure the
572
provision of the accommodation required by Workmen by all Railway Companies.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of, Mr. Bell, Colonel Bowles, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Fison, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Leverton Harris, Mr. Lough, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Nannetti, Captain Norton, Mr. James O'Connor, Mr. Peel, Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. Ure, and Sir Thomas Wrightson.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.