Sitting of 14 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Andover Lighting and Power Bill; Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
North East London Railway Bill; London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill (Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the settlement of the hereditaments and property representing the estates devised by the Will, dated the 26th day of June, 1875, of the Right Honourable George Harry, Earl of Stamford and Warrington, and in such Will referred to as 'the Cheshire Estate'; and for other purposes." [Earl of Stamford's Cheshire Estate Bill [Lords.]
Earl of Stamford's Cheshire Estate Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the County of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1901 (County of Middlesex Light Railways (Extension of Time) Order, 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the working and maintenance of the Moel Tryfan Undertaking of the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways Company as a Light Railway and other matters (North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways (Light Railway) Order, 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented, of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1858 AND 1876.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 8th July, 1905, declaring Bushire to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of The Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 12th July; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 241.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDER, BOROUGH OF DARWEN).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Darwen, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3436 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Return ordered, "(I.) of the Companies registered during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1904, which filed a prospectus and to which certificates to

  737
  commence business have been granted, stating—

  (1) the date of registration;

  (2) the date of the prospectus;

  (3) the amount of the nominal capital;

  (4) the amount of each share;

  (5) the amount issued or to be issued otherwise than for cash;

  (6) the amount offered for subscription in cash;

  (7) the amount underwritten;

  (8) the commission for underwriting;

  (9) the minimum subscription required;

  (10) the amount allotted before commencing business;

  (11) the amounts per share payable on application and allotment;

  (12) the total directors' share qualification, if any; and

  (13) the date of the certificate to commence business.

  (II.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1904 which filed a prospectus, but to which certificates to commence business have not been granted, stating the particulars specified in (I.) so far as they are applicable.
  (III.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1904 which filed a declaration that the Company "does not issue any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares."
  (IV.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1904 which have not filed a prospectus or a declaration that the Company "does not issue any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares," and stating the particulars specified in (I.) so far as they are applicable.
  (V.) Of the Companies which were dissolved or struck off the register during the year 1904.
  (VI.) Of the total number of Companies dissolved during the year 1904 (1) by order of the Court; (2) after voluntary liquidation; and (3) pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Companies Act, 1880, and Section 26 of The Companies Act, 1900.
  (VII.) Of the total number and nominal paid-up and considered as paid-up capital of the Companies registered
  738
  during the year 1904 in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin respectively, distinguishing limited Companies from unlimited, and Companies registered with a nominal capital from Companies registered without such capital.
  (VIII.) Of the total number and paid-up capital, including the amounts considered as paid on vendors and other shares, of all Companies having a share capital which were on the register on the 30th day of April, 1905, except such Companies as were in course of liquidation or removal from the register under the provisions of Section 7 of The Companies Act, 1880, and Section 26 of the Companies Act, 1900.
  (IX.) Of the total number and nominal capital of the Companies registered in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively in every year since the commencement of the Companies Act, 1862, to 1904, inclusive.
  (X.) Of the fees and capital duty paid in respect of Registered Companies during the year 1904."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Unemployed at Portsmouth.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the displacement of labour now occurring at Portsmouth Dockyard, and the congestion of unemployed with which the borough is in consequence confronted, His Majesty's Government will consider the possibility of endeavouring to render assistance by facilitating emigration or transfer of families to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No expression has as yet reached the Admiralty of any desire on the part of the workmen who are being discharged from the dockyards to emigrate. If representations are made showing that any considerable number of men desire to find work in the Colonies, and that employment is available for them on arrival, the Admiralty would be glad to consider what assistance could be given.

  International Judicial Congress—Gambling in Futures.
  Mr. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the opinion expressed by Lord Cromer, as stated in his official Report for 1904 on Gambling in Futures and Options on the Bourses of Egypt, in conjunction with the resolution passed at the International Cotton Congress at Manchester on the 9th instant, he will consider the advisability of the Government instructing His Majesty's representatives in Egypt, who are at present sitting as members of the International Judicial Congress on the question of gambling in futures in that country, to advocate repressive international legislative measures for the joint benefit of Egypt and of manufacturers, operatives, and users; and whether he will give instructions that the official proceedings of the International Cotton Congress recently held in Manchester, and also those of the International Agricultural Congress lately held in Rome, be published in Blue-book form in the same way as Lord Cromer's Report on Egypt was published.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The hon. Gentleman has, I think, misapprehended the view expressed by Lord Cromer in his official Report for 1904, as the following passage will show: "On the other hand, most authorities hold the opinion, in which I venture to express my entire concurrence, that it is practically impossible, by legislation, to put a stop to speculation without, at the same time, causing great hindrance to trade in general. If anything is done, it will probably be in the direction of preparing a 'Régiement de Bourse,'…" In view hereof and of the fact that the resolution of the International Cotton Congress merely suggested certain technical alterations of trade practice, I do not think it would be expedient to act on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. I have no right to give any instructions as to the publication of the proceedings of the Cotton International Congress, which is an unofficial body, and as to the publication of the proceedings of the recent International Agricultural Congress, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult the President of the Board of Agriculture.

  Gambling Operations in Cotton.
  Mr. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, owing to the actions of the bears in Liverpool and in America forcing down the price of cotton after the Sully collapse in 1904 from 9d. per pound to the low price of 4d., the Southern Planters Cotton Association have entered into a compact with the exchange gamblers of the latter country to reduce the acreage of cotton for 1905–6 by about 25 percent., and that speculative advances have recently been operated in options and futures on the Liverpool and the United States cotton exchanges to the detriment of the Lancashire cotton industry, and likewise to the world's cotton trade generally; whether he will, in view of such artificial conditions, appoint a special Commission to inquire into and report upon transactions injuriously affecting international trade; and whether he will confer with President Roosevelt with the object of adopting some international cooperative endeavour in order to prevent a repetition of these international gambling operations in the shape of paper sales of fictitious products through option and future contracts.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am informed that no such compact is known to the Board of Trade, and its existence seems rather improbable. The price of cotton has recently advanced in consequence, as I am told, of the unexpectedly low official estimate of the coming crop. It is not proposed to take the steps suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  Report of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give any information as to when the Report of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour,) I am informed that the Commission hope to issue a Report this year dealing with the relative merits of different methods of sewage disposal and certain other questions. I understand, however, that it cannot be stated at present when, the final Report will be issued.

  Assistant Postmen.
  Mr. MACVEAGfH (Down, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General if the conditions of employment of assistant postmen laid down in the Tweedmouth Report, and the conditions subsequently conceded as the result of the Norfolk-Hanbury Conference to auxiliary postmen doing somewhat less than five hours per day but receiving payment for five hours are still in force; and whether the men performing such duties are eligible for all the benefits, even though they have not entered the postmen's ranks through the Army, the Navy, or the telegraph messenger service.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Assistant postmen, who must be either ex-telegraph messengers or ex-soldiers and sailors, receive the benefits conceded under the Tweedmouth recommendations. The special concession given to certain auxiliary postmen performing less than five hours work a day, but receiving payment for five hours, applies to London postmen only. It was not the intention of the Duke of Norfolk and the late Mr. Hanbury to extend the concession to all auxiliaries WOT king less than five hours.

  Post Office— Annual Leave to Officers About to Retire.
  MR. MACVEAGH: TO ask the Postmaster General if the annual leave regulation which provides that annual leave is granted for the purpose of improving health, to enable an officer to render further services, applies to officers who reach the age limit during the year and who may resume duty for a short or long period after having been granted annual leave.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is no objection to the grant of annual leave to an officer whose retirement is approaching if he resumes duty for a reasonable period after the leave.

  The Board of Trade and Mr. Brown's Invention.
  ME. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the invention exhibited by Mr. John Brown at the meeting of the British Association in Belfast, whereby
  742
  economy in time and convenience could be effected in the putting down and taking up of railway and tramway passengers; and whether he will order an official report to be made on the invention with a view to its adoption in these countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The attention of the Board has not been drawn to this invention. The question of the adoption of such an appliance on railways and tramways is one for the consideration of the proprietors of those undertakings.

  Government Contracts—Messrs. Waygood and the Fair Wages Clause.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it has been represented to him that Messrs. Waygood amp; Company, liftmakers, who are now executing Government contracts at the new Sessions House, Old Bailey, and the Land Registration Office, is a non-union firm which makes it a condition of employment that none of its workers shall be members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, or any other trade union, and that the conditions under which joiners and French polishers work are in violation of those sanctioned by the trades unions; and what action he intends taking in connection with these representations.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) In the first place I have to point out to the hon. Member that the First Commissioner is not responsible for the building or equipping of the new Sessions House, Old Bailey. The United French Polishers (London) Society has made a representation to the First Commissioner regarding the non-employment by Messrs. Waygood of union men. The First Commissioner, having made careful inquiry, is satisfied that Messrs. Waygood do not discriminate in any way as regards the employment of union or non-union workmen as engineers. It appears that in the polishing shop some men have been required to state whether they were unionists or not, but this has been done without the knowledge of the directors, who have given instructions that it shall not occur again under any circumstances.

  743
  Messrs. Waygood will, of course, be required to conform, in the execution of any Government work with which they may be entrusted, to the spirit and intention of the Resolution of the House of Commons of February 13th, 1891.

  Payment of Annual Education Grant by Quarterly Instalments.
  Sir ALBERT ROLLIT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the question of the continuation of the payment of the annual education grant by quarterly instalments has now been definitely determined; and if so, in what manner.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have now arranged to continue for the current financial year, but for no longer, the same partial system of payment of annual grants by quarterly instalments as has been in force during the last two financial years.

  Public Expenditure on Capital Account.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total and the items of the estimate of the money which will be spent upon capital liabilities during 1905–6.
  (Answered by Mr, Austen Chamber lain.) The estimated expenditure on capital account in the current year is £9,000,000, The amounts included for the respective heads of service are, approximately, as follows:—

  £

  Naval Works

  4,000,000

  Military Works

  2,950,000

  Telegraphs

  850,000

  Public Buildings

  255,000

  Land Registry Buildings

  30,000

  Public Offices, Dublin

  15,000

  Cunard Agreement

  900,000

  £9,000,000

  Rental of Sold and Unsold Portion of the King-Harman Estate.
  Mr. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can ascertain from their negotiator,
  744
  who represented the vendor, the total former rent of the portion of the King-Harman Estate sold to the tenants, and for which vesting orders will be issued; and also the total rent of the portions of this estate which now remain unsold.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The rental of the portion of this estate which has been purchased or agreed to be purchased by the Estates Commissioners is £17,752. The rental of the entire estate, as appears from the schedule lodged, is £19,224. The rental of the unsold portion is therefore £1,472.

  Advances Exceeding £3,000 on the King Harman Estate.
  Mr. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can state (1) in how many cases on the King-Harman Estate have they agreed to advance to a purchaser a sum exceeding £3,000; and (2) in how many cases have they decided, or have they intimated through their inspector or negotiator, that they will not advance a sum exceeding £3,000 to the owner of grazing land or a non-residential holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) (I) In. eleven cases. (2) In no case.

  Woolwich Dockyard Building Contract—Messrs. Playfair and the Fair Wages Clause.
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Messrs. Playfair are carrying out a building contract in connection with Woolwich Dockyard; and whether, in connection with the contract the men employed are working the hours of work recognised by the Master Builders' Association and the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, namely, 6.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., or whether they have to begin work at an earlier hour at ordinary rates of wages.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.)It would appear that the men employed on this contract are working overtime at ordinary rates of wages. Inquiry will be made of the contractors as to the practice.

  South African War Honours for Army Medical Corps (Volunteers).
  Sir WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Army Council has refused honours in connection with the South African War to the Royal Army Medical Corps (Volunteers), and that war honours have been granted to numerous Volunteer corps which sent contingents to the war, he will state what was the average strength of the contingents sent; and whether, in view of the fact that the eight divisions of Royal Army Medical Corps (Volunteers) in various parts of the country contributed to medical units during the war some 650 officers and men, amounting to two-fifths of their strength, the Army Council will reconsider its decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is not the custom to award honours to any but corps of cavalry and infantry, as it is accepted as a fact that all the other branches of the Army have contributed in some measure to every honour which is recorded on colour or accoutrement. Accordingly no honours for South Africa were awarded to Artillery, Engineer, Army Service, or Medical Corps, Regular or Auxiliary.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On the Order to go into Committee on this Bill.
  Mr. BLACKsaid that when this Bill was read a second time there had been standing on the Paper for some weeks an instruction to refer the Bill to a Committee of Scotch Members with fifteen English Members to be added by the Committee of Selection. That was a very usual kind of Motion upon Scotch Bills, and the last occasion upon which a similar Motion was adopted was in the case of the Scotch Licensing Bill in 1903. Such a Motion had been made upon other occasions, and it was in accordance with a Standing Order passed in 1893. At the proper time he rose in his place to move this Motion, the present Secretary to the Local Government Board being in the Chair, but instead of calling upon him, which would have been in accordance with precedent, he allowed the Bill to go automatically to a
  746
  Committee of the Whole House. He believed it was generally recognised and admitted by the then occupant of the Chair, the clerks at the Table, and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury that it was an error, and that he ought to have been called upon to move his Motion so that he might have taken a division upon it. He, therefore, submitted that he was entitled to move now. He understood that the Government had no objection to his Motion being considered now, and, seeing that he had been prevented from moving his Motion by an error from the Chair, he wished to know if he would be in order under these circumstances in moving his instruction now.
  *ME. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the Motion is not now admissible. The hon. Member states that by an oversight he was not called upon. I understand that the Deputy-Chairman did not hear the hon. Member, and I think the hon. Member ought to have insisted upon being heard.
  Mr. BLACK: I did my best,
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is no power to interpose with a Motion of this kind now.
  Mr. BLACK: Not if the House assents?
  Mr. CALDWELLasked if it was not usual on the Second Reading for the Speaker to call upon a Member to move the Motion which stood in his name upon the Paper. In this case his hon. friend, rose, made a Motion, and insisted, and he contended that the hon. Member could not have done more than he did.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have nothing more to add. I think if the hon. Member had been a little more persistent he would have been heard.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYmoved to leave out the words "of the following educational districts" and substitute "county," and said that being an English Member he felt that some apology was due to the Committee in moving this Amendment. His only excuse was, however, that for a large part of the year he lived in Scotland, and he was a large ratepayer there. He desired that everything should be done for the benefit of education in Scotland, and his only wish was that if they were to have a good Bill to improve education in Scotland it should be worked in as cheap and efficient a manner as possible. He was strongly of opinion that the county was the proper area for education, both elementary and secondary, and he thought that opinion was shared by a large number of Scotch Members upon both sides of the House. He believed that the Lord-Advocate, in introducing this Bill, stated as his excuse for continuing the local government district for the new education authority that it was a compromise between those who wished to have the county area and those who preferred that the parish should remain the area for elementary education. Personally, he was not particularly fond of compromises, and they were often exceedingly unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had spoken strongly in favour of the county being made the area. He had stated that the county was the proper area for secondary education, and that no small area could deal efficiently with the secondary education required; and he further stated that the Government scheme was a most unsatisfactory compromise.
  He thought they might take a lesson from what had occurred I under the English Bill. During the whole time that the English Education Bill was in Committee there was a feeling prevalent amongst county Members that considerable expense would be entailed by these new proposals, and in many counties that expectation had been amply fulfilled, and the rates had gone up. However popular it might be on public platforms to talk of the merits and advantages of people
  748
  being well educated, it was not, perhaps, so popular when the people were asked to pay the bill. The English Bill only set up some fifty authorities in the counties, but this Bill was setting up no fewer than 107 authorities in a country with a population far less than England and with a much smaller valuation. This would mean that there would have to be no less than 107 different staffs and sets of officials. Salaries would have to be paid to them all, and offices would have to be erected for them, and there would also be their expenses to pay; and considering that amalgamation might take place in the future there was a great danger that these officials, having been appointed, would consider that they had fixity of tenure, and would want compensation if they were turned out of their posts. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire that in addition to the expense of paying a host of officials the travelling expenses of the members of these authorities should be paid. He thought they ought to do their best to keep these expenses down. He was afraid there was a danger of them getting very near that state of things under which two-thirds of the population paid the other third for looking after them.
  He submitted that if they were to start by making the county the area it would be easier for the counties to subdivide than for the districts to amalgamate. In these matters he had always found that it was easier to part than to come together. Shakespeare said that parting was such sweet sorrow. He thought it would be most difficult for the districts to amalgamate. The County Councils Association of Scotland had passed by thirteen votes to four a resolution in favour of the county area being selected instead of the district. The district areas had been set up simply to look after the roads, and it did not follow that that would be the best urea for education. It was almost like the parish councillor who, in order to promote economy, suggested that instead of having two pipes for gas and water both these services should be supplied through one pipe. In many of the areas it would be exceedingly inconvenient for the members to attend the meetings, and, in his opinion, it would

  749
  be far better to map out Scotland into completely new districts, taking the chief towns as the centre. There were several counties in Scotland in which it would be perfectly impossible, unless the rates were made absolutely stupendous to properly carry out the work of education. In Argyll there were seven districts with a population of 70,000 and a rateable value of £527,000. A penny rate in those districts would produce about £300, and that sum would not go far in paying salaries of officers, providing offices for them, and paying travelling expenses. In the county of Ross and Cromarty there were eight districts with a population of 76,000 and a valuation of £300,000. In this instance a penny rate would only produce about £l£150. Therefore, if they wished in some of these districts to carry on the work of education in a proper manner they would have to start at once with a shilling rate. He hoped that the Government would give this Amendment their earnest consideration. He thought that the Bill as it stood would be a very heavy charge upon poor country districts in consequence of the multiplication of these authorities and officials.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words, 'of the following education districts,' and insert the word 'county.'"—(Lord Willoughby de Eresby.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid this subject was very fully discussed in Committee last year, and there was a very considerable difference of opinion upon it. Those interested in this question were grateful to the Government for the changes they had made which would make it easier to work out the scheme of district boards as against county boards. His view was that the district area was a bad one. He appealed to the Government to allow the House to decide this question without putting pressure upon their supporters. A division upon this question would practically decide the numerous Amendments which were on the Paper upon this question. He did not think this was a question upon which any fresh light
  750
  could be thrown by continuing the discussion.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): said this question was fully discussed last year on more than one occasion. After discussion, by no means regulated by Party lines, an Amendment similar to the one now before the Committee was withdrawn in view of certain Amendments promised by his predecessor. Those Amendments took the shape of a proviso giving the Secretary for Scotland very large powers of dividing and aggregating districts. The present Bill differed from last year's Bill only in the respect that greater elasticity was given to those powers. He agreed there was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question raised by the Amendment; but, taking the whole matter into consideration, he thought no sufficient reason had been shown for departing from the view which prevailed last session. The noble Lord who introduced the Amendment did not propose to get rid of school boards. He did not propose that the county council should be the education authority. He proposed that the new school boards should have a larger area than the Bill gave. But the new school boards would require some officials, and there would be some expense whatever the area might be. He submitted that no reason had been shown for departing from the course taken last session, when it was decided that the local government district should be taken. It would adapt itself very well to all the requirements of education. and in view of the further facilities which had been given in the provision for special districts he adhered to the proposal in the Bill.
  *MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)said he would like to emphasise what had been said as to the extreme necessity of watching expenses in large and poor counties, especially in the Highlands. The proposal of the noble Lord was to make the county the alternative of the district. He thought the noble Lord was going to the wrong end of the argument. The point desired in the Highlands was to keep the parish as the foundation and the unit of the new

  751
  organisation. In the Highland counties it was essential that this should be done. The districts into which these counties were divided were in themselves large oven for local government work. In order to get persons to take an interest in education they must confine the area to the parish. Probably many hon. Members were not aware how large Highland counties were. He asked the House to consider the position of a Highland district split up into islands. He instanced the Island of Mull which was thirty or forty miles across. The district of Mull included the Island of Tiree. The Committee would see that there would be great difficulty, if it was not actually impossible, in getting members of the board to attend meetings because of the amount of travel by sea which the work would involve. He hoped the Lord-Advocate would be able to insert words in the proviso clause which would enable them to overcome this difficulty. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that if the Bill was to do good in the Highlands the parish should remain.
  Mr. BUCHANANsaid he was glad to hear that it was not the intention of the Lord-Advocate to depart from this fundamental particular in the scheme of the Bill. There were many who thought the Bill went too far already in the way of making the areas too large. If at this early stage the Government were going to adopt such a large and fundamental change in the Bill he thought it would augur unfavourably for the progress of discussion in Committee. The noble Lord had adduced two arguments in favour of his proposal. One was in regard to the question of expense, and the other was that opinion in Scotland was in favour of his proposal. The Lord-Advocate had already dealt with the question of expense, but he would add that the present system based on parish areas was much cheaper than the English system based on county areas. Of course, any change in machinery in a matter connected with education must increase expenditure, and he was perfectly certain that under this Bill one of the consequences would be to increase expense. It would be increased very much more if the suggestion of the
  752
  noble Lord were adopted. The noble Lord quoted the opinions of county councils which were in favour of his proposal, and he was supported by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire. The noble Lord spoke as a large ratepayer and proprietor in Perthshire, but he did not speak the views of the county council of Perth. He held in his hand a memorandum on this subject which had been distributed by the county council of Perth. The question submitted to county councils was: "Are county councils in favour of the proposal in the Bill, or do they desire the county area with power to sub-divide?" The answer of the county council of Perth was that they were in favour of the proposal in the Bill subject to a matter connected with the City of Perth which he need not go into. He hoped the proposed alteration would not be made at this early stage of the discussion.
  Mr. BRYCE, on a point of order, sad the Amendment before the Committee raised the issue as between the county and the district as the area for secondary and elementary education. But there was another issue of great importance, and that was the issue between the district and the parish, which was the existing area. It would be very inconvenient to Members if they had to discuss both these issues together. He asked whether it would be possible to have a discussion now on the Amendment of the noble Lord, and also an opportunity later of discussing the other proposal.
  THE CHAIRMANexpressed the opinion that there would be an opportunity on a subsequent Amendment of discussing whether the parish should be retained as the school board area.
  THE EARL OF DALKEITHdid not agree that the matter raised by the Amendment was settled last year. He understood that on that occasion further clauses were to be brought up to deal with it. He held distinctly that the county was more suitable as the area for secondary and technical education, but, with regard to elementary education, sub-division might

  753
  an some cases be necessary. If the Government adhered to the district he hoped they would make provision for the transfer in particular cases of one or two parishes from one district to another.
  Mr. BRYCEsaid he gathered that on this Amendment they must confine their remarks to the question of the county as against the district proposed. He thought everyone who had considered the subject, whether in regard to England or Scotland, had come to the conclusion that the county was the smallest area suitable for secondary education. One of the few points on which they were all agreed in discussing the English Education Bill was that the county was the smallest area that could be worked for secondary education. But if that were true of England, it was still more true of Scotland, where in most counties the population was so sparse. It would be impossible to organise secondary education in Scotland in a less area than a county, because there would neither be population nor revenue enough, nor all the other means which were necessary to work secondary education efficiently. What was wanted was a certain system of bursaries to enable clever boys to go on from the primary to the secondary schools, and from these to the University. Many of the parish schools in Scotland from of old down to our day had given a good secondary education to clever boys—especially in the North-East of Scotland. But taking that country as a whole, secondary education could only be organised in counties. They could perfectly well have an organisation in every county for secondary education which might be constituted either of a body elected for the purpose or chosen from local school boards or other local authorities. AH that was wanted was a body capable of speaking for the whole county. But he said, without hesitation, that the experiment which had been tried in England of placing elementary education on the county authorities had been a failure; and that the best educationalists in England now regretted that the county had been chosen as the area for the administration of elementary education.
  754
  The county area was far too large. He knew counties where they had tried to remedy the evil by appointing local committees. After long discussion, when the Bill was before the House, they succeeded in getting a provision introduced which enabled the county authorities to allow local committees to be appointed. But he was told that these local committees, although they had diminished the bad effects of the county area, had not done away entirely with these bad effects. They had too little power; they had not that interest in elementary education which the older school boards had. What was wanted for elementary education was to associate the people themselves with the education of their children. Till forty or fifty years ago, the old parish schools of Scotland—although there was much to be desired in the improvement of their organisation—stood close to the people, who took the greatest interest in them and knew all that was passing in them. The school boards had also been in close touch with the people of all ranks and degrees. But if the county were made the area for elementary education how many wheelwrights and other artisans, ploughmen, small farmers, and other poor persons would be able to serve on the education authority and take part in the administration of the education of their locality.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he had another Amendment lower down on the Paper by which he proposed to make the parish councils the managers of the parish schools subject to the supervision of the county councils.
  Mr. BRYCEsaid that that would not by any means meet the difficulty which he foresaw. The local people would only be managers without any sense of responsibility, and, therefore, they could not be in anything like the position of independence the school boards enjoyed under the present system. There were managers under the English Act, but they had no power and had no responsibility. Therefore, to put it on no higher ground, they would lose the benefit of the assistance in educational work of a large class of

  755
  people who were now taking part in the work of education; and they would put in their place men who could afford to pay the railway or coach fares to go to the place of meeting. There was another difficulty besides that of money—the question of time. A small farmer, or ploughman, or rural artisan could not possibly find the time or afford to lose a whole day's work in order to attend a county meeting. There was yet another difficulty. Where there was administration over a large area by a central body there was not that personal knowledge of the local needs of the localities, and the administration, therefore, fell into the hands of the officials. That had been the effect of the Education Act in England. It meant not only a loss of personal knowledge, but the doing of things by general rules instead of adjusting them to each particular case. It meant red tape, because it was only on general lines that officials would work; and that meant a loss of practical touch with the people. It likewise meant more expense, because the tendency of officialism was to increase expense and to demand a larger staff. These considerations seemed to him to be sufficient argument to induce the Committee to reject the proposal of the noble Lord. He was anxious to press this argument, for when they came to discuss the question as between districts and parish areas the same considerations would recur. He also wished to take the opportunity of calling the attention of English Members—whose attendance that afternoon he greatly appreciated — to the fact that the experience they had had in England was an inducement to them to help the Scotch Members in rejecting this proposal, which would destroy a system of educational administration which had done so much for Scotland in the past.
  Mr. MAXWELLsaid t hat there were some districts in Scotland where the population was under 20,000 and where there was no secondary school or even a higher-grade school. In these districts, if they were to do anything for secondary education, they must either start a school of their own or combine with another district. But there was no provision in the Bill to compel two
  756
  small districts to combine. It appeared to him that that was rather inconsistent, because they compelled Leith to combine with Edinburgh and Govan with Glasgow although there were in both these places thoroughly equipped secondary and technical schools. It appeared to him that if they were to build on the county area the Secretary for Scotland or a Commission should have the power, with all the facts before him or them, to divide the county into what would be the best areas for secondary education.
  Mr. CROMBIEsaid that he preferred the district as the area for the reasons which he gave last year and which he thought it unnecessary to repeat now. At the same time he entirely sympathised with his hon. friend when he said that in many cases the district would not be a sufficient area for secondary education and that they must have some plan to combine districts. Last year he proposed a clause to that effect, and the late Lord-Advocate gave him a distinct promise that it would be embodied in the Bill. He had put down a similar clause on the Paper, but he could find no provision in the Bill for carrying out the promise of the Lord-Advocate last year. Would the present Lord-Advocate give an assurance that such a provision would be inserted so as to carry out this most necessary arrangement?
  Mr. BLACKsaid there were several degrees of goodness and badness in the proposals submitted to the House. He must say that the best scheme of all was to adopt the parish area for educational purposes in Scotland and work up from that to suitable areas for elementary, secondary and technical education. That would give an ad hoc area for an ad hoc authority. He would put into the second degree of praise the proposal of the noble Lord opposite. They were all agreed that the county was the best area for secondary education, although it was too large for elementary education. There were only four counties out of thirty-three in Scotland which had a population exceeding 12,000 or 20,000. In a population of,

  757
  say, 20,000 there was only 5 per cent, available for secondary education, and a secondary school with only 100 pupils could not pay the teachers sufficient salaries or provide adequate appliances. At the bottom of the list of proposals for badness he would put that of the Government, which adopted districts of counties formed for an entirely different purpose than that of education. He would vote for the proposal of the noble Lord not because it was a vote against, the parish areas, but because it was a vote against the Government.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he did not agree with his right hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen that county areas were ideal areas for education. The county area was the paradise of officialism. Neither the county, the parish, nor the district was the ideal area. What was wanted was something which would be suitable for education, and it would not do to take for that purpose a district which from historic reasons was either a parish or a county. What ought to be done in Scotland with regard to education was what was done for local government. A Boundary Commission should be appointed to consider the means of transport from one quarter to another with the object of ascertaining if, in view of the transport, a given place was a convenient centre from which to radiate into the country districts, picking up the population which would find for its requirements the most convenient place for education in that centre. Until that was done there would not be peace. While he differed from his right hon. friend as to the ideal position of the county as the area, he had the greatest doubt as to the policy of the Government—as to their policy as a whole. Year after year as these Bills went on, the area was not only growing larger and larger, but facilities were given for combining larger and larger areas, and in this Bill it was actually proposed that the Secretary for Scotland should permit two counties or districts to be combined for the purposes of education. But there was no power in the Bill to enable the Secretary for Scotland to permit an inconveniently large county, in regard to education, to be sub-divided into districts.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Oh, yes, there is a power.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that the power was a conditional power, conditional on the districts so created being inside the county. The clientele of a secondary educational centre was drawn very often from six or seven counties and it could not possibly be said that a county area was suitable for a purpose of that kind. What was manifestly wanted was that a Boundary Commission should go down and investigate cases of the kind of Galashiels so as to ascertain whether they would produce an educational result, having in view the fact that localities must have local representation in an effective form, as to their requirements with regard to technical and secondary education. This might lead up to the formation of secondary and technical educational centres which would be convenient to the population affected. He expressed his obligation to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment as it brought before the attention of the Committee a question which was growing graver year by year. When these districts came to be investigated that question would be found still more strongly accentuated because some of the districts in point of view of population were absolutely contemptible, and at the other end of the scale they were so large as to be unworkable.
  He did not desire to detain the Committee unduly upon this matter, but he must say he thought his hon. friend the Member for Kincardineshire had a good case for asking for an express clause in this Bill to deal with the circumstances to which he had referred. The point was brought out in an Amendment proposed by the late Lord-Advocate last year. The learned Lord then said he could agree that there might be cases where there should be combination for the purposes of secondary education, but not for the purposes of primary education, and, in admitting that, the learned Lord admitted the cardinal error of the present Bill, namely, the dislocation of the old school boards that had worked so well. As an illustration of what would be the effect of county centres he might say that a friend

  759
  of his who was largely concerned in management had told him that, independent of other expenses, in railway fares alone his duties entailed upon him an expense of £50 a year. What were they going to do in the case of large counties like Inverness and Sutherland. In Inverness they had an area of 2,695,000 acres, and he put it to any hon. Member whether it would be possible to have a school board administering the educational affairs of these great counties without the parents of the children being completely disfranchised with regard to questions of education. There was no provision in this Bill for the payment of expenses even to those who could not afford the expense thrown upon them by their duties as members of these bodies. If the Government would give them that concession they might substitute small districts for small parishes. But instead of that, they had an Amendment before the Committee to go back to counties and to make them the centre for education, of all kinds.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was not surprised that this Amendment should come from the other side of the House, because the main object of the Conservative Party was centralisation in connection with all local affairs. No reason had been assigned why a county should be chosen as the area. In Scotland education was almost entirely carried on in Board schools which were not confined to elementary education but which embraced secondary education as well. The object in Scotland had always been to carry on secondary and elementary education under the one authority, as it was carried on in the thousand parishes in Scotland. There were in Scotland three divisions of education. There were the State-aided schools which gave both primary and secondary education, the secondary schools proper with a curriculum of their own, and the Universities, and there must be a separate class of people to manage each different class of school. For the sake of these 20,000 children in purely secondary and technical schools were they going to change the body which governed the education of 700,000 children? It has been suggested that
  760
  the county area was the better one for secondary education, but how could that possibly be so? They had an example of the difficulty in the case of Glasgow and the counties round about. There they had Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire, and Stirlingshire all surrounding Glasgow. They wanted secondary education and high-class technical schools, but how could they limit the district for a high-class technical school? If they were to introduce such a school in each of those counties they would destroy the very object and power of such a school, for, after all, high-class technical education was not to be limited by locality. A high-class school was like a University, it should draw its pupils from all the centres round about.
  He had been inquiring into the working of education boards in English counties, and he had found that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the wideness of the area and with its consequent unworkability. He had in his hands a magazine in which the writer of an article described the working of the system, and one of the first things he pointed out was that none but men of leisure could afford to become members of the education committee of the county council, the expenses being so heavy. One of the previous speakers had cited a case in which the annual expense of attending the meetings of the educational authority had amounted to £50, and according to this article he found that it was frequently the case that such expenses amounted to £30 per year. Another objection was that under that system a great deal of the work fell practically into the hands of the officials. No doubt members of the county council took an interest in matters which specially affected the district they represented, but when it came to dealing with the affairs of the county as a whole, and with matters affecting other districts, they really took little interest in them. Consequently, there was a system of wire pulling, and he ventured to think that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire was well aware of the existence of that practice.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAW: I deny it.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that apparently the hon. Member was not sufficiently on the alert to see it, but at any rate that had proved to be the experience in England. It was clear that the system, afforded more scope for the wire-puller than would be possible in a smaller district. He trusted lion. Members would not think that he had for a moment any intention to slander county councils in Scotland. He was only referring to matters as they existed in the East of England. But still there was a danger that these practices might extend to Scotland. Then, again, in England they found the effect to be that more and more power was falling into the hands of the officials. What happened was that the official had more technical knowledge of the details of the policy which had to be carried out, and consequently he was allowed to have his own way, which would not be the case where the area was smaller. Again, in a large area they practically had the monopoly of the education of the whole district in the hands of one body, and while possibly in that large area there was one borough which had special aspiration in regard to educational matters which a view to being able to fit itself to compete with the industries of surrounding districts, the remainder of the area might probably be purely country, possessing county interests, and the result might be that the representatives of those county interests would dominate the educational policy, which would have no sympathy whatever with the borough aspirations. Consequently the representatives of the borough would fail to have an interest in the proceedings of the educational authority. In England, too, it had been found that under this system of wide areas there had been a slackness of administration.
  There were likely also to be produced considerable difficulties arising from the variation in the size of the county areas. For instance, there was the county of Buteshire with its population of 18,641, just 141 more than sufficient to save them from the effect of the new redistribution proposed. Let them compare that with the county of Lanark with its enormous population.
  762
  How could they expect one education authority to cover that vast county? It might be all right in the case of a borough like Glasgow to have one educational authority, which no doubt could satisfactorily manage the educational interests. But it was altogether different when they had to deal with a vast area like the county of Lanark, and undoubtedly one effect of having such a wide area would be to prevent men taking a keen interest in educational matters or accepting positions on the education authority, unless they happened to live in the particular town in which that authority had its headquarters, and they would thus deprive them of the power they desired to exercise in controlling the education of their country. The district area was bad enough, but the county area would make things absolutely unworkable, and entirely destroy that local interest in education which marked the great difference between the educational systems of England and Scotland.
  MR. EUGENE WASON (Clankmannan and Kinross)thought it was right to point out that not a single Member on the Ministerial side of the House had supported the Lord-Advocate in regard to the Amendment under discussion. There was a strong feeling among his own constituents that it would be a thousand pities to do away with the existing school boards so far as elementary education was concerned. No doubt as regarded technical and secondary education they might have larger areas, but so far as primary education was concerned they could have no better area than the present. He hoped they should get the Bill modified in that respect, so that local interest in education might be maintained.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he thought he might be allowed to explain his position. In his previous speech, when moving the Amendment, it seemed that he had not made it quite clear that he wanted to have the county education authority elected ad hoc the authority for secondary education. In a later part of the Bill he proposed to move a new clause which would give the parish council great power as regarded

  763
  elementary education. Therefore he proposed to preserve the local interest in elementary education in the different parishes.
  MR. BRIGGsaid he intervened in the debate for the purpose of stating what his own experience had been. It had been found by practical experience that the areas in England were much too large. Before the county councils could get to work, local committees had to be appointed for each district, and in connection with one county council there were fifteen or sixteen local committees. County councils were therefore considering the question whether steps should be taken in order to lessen the area.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIGsaid he would deplore the demolition of the Scottish school boards and the acceptance of the county area. He had had twelve years experience as chairman of a school board in the North of Ayrshire, which drew its pupils not only from two parishes, but from two counties, and the effect of making the county the school board area would be to cut off from it one-half of its pupils. If the framers of the Bill had acted on the basis of populous areas the measure would have been a much more practical one. There would be great inconvenience and expense to members of new school boards in the attending of meetings held many miles away from their localities. It might be well to have a county area for secondary education, but certainly not for elementary education. The life of education in Scotland had been that they had local schools locally managed. Without respect to the county area let them take the nearest and most convenient place for secondary education. According to this Bill scholars would have to be sent to Ayrshire secondary schools from, the district of which he was speaking, whereas if there was the opportunity of
  sending them into Renfrewshire, scholars would have the advantage of a railway system which would take them to Greenock, where they could attend the secondary schools. He hoped something would yet be done to preserve these valuable school boards.
  MR. DOBBIEurged that the Amendment should be withdrawn. At this rate they could make no progress with the Bill. A very slight Amendment to the next sub-section would meet all the difficulties which had been put forward. He intended to support the Government, in the hope that after disposing of this Amendment they might make some headway with the Bill.
  Mr. BLACKsaid it was a very extraordinary thing that not one Member on the Government side had supported the proposal of the Government. The Amendment was associated with the proviso in the clause, which was in the following terms—
  "Provided that on a representation received not later than October 25th, 1905, from a county council, or from a town council, or from an existing school board, and from time to time after the commencement of this Act on a representation from a county council, or from a town council, or from a school board, the Secretary for Scotland may, by order, determine that any two counties or that any two or more local government districts, shall, for the purpose of this Act, be combined into one education district, or that any county not divided into local government districts, or any local government district, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be divided into education districts, and such education districts shall be specified in the order; and a school board shall be established for each of the education districts so specified.
  Here they had a provision under which unsuitable counties could be sub-divided, and that was why he supported the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 282)

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Bingham, Lord

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW(Leeds

  Bond, Edward

  Bailey, James,(Walworth).

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch).

  Bowles,Lt-Col.H.F. (Middlesex)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick Geo.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh).

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Grant, Corrie

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Reid, Sir, R Threshie(Dumfries

  Bull, William James

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Buxton,N.E (York, NR. Whitby

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Caldwell, James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ritchie,Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Campbell, Rt Hn. JA(Glasgow)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robinson, Brooke

  Campbell, J.HM(Dublin Univ.

  Hozier, Hn.James Henry Cecil

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rutherford John (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh-

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chamberlain, Rt HnJ.A(Worc.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.Fareham

  Stroyan, John

  Crombie, John William

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Crooks, William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tuff, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col.Edward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cummming

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H.(Sheffield

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir WilliamH.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh,W

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Maxwell, Rt.HnSirH.E(Wigt'n

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Edwards, Frank

  Mitchell, William (Burnley

  Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Elibank, Master of

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmor

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw'sB'ghs

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Evans, Samuel T (Glamorgan)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, NE.),

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Finlay, Rt HnSir RB(Inv'rn'ss

  Percy, Earl

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert J.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  and Mr. Henry Forster.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Purvis, Robert

  NOES.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bell, Richard

  Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brigg, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Maxwell, W. H (Dumfriesshire

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan,Gower

  Cameron, Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ure, Alexander

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Parrott, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Lord Willoughby de Eresby

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  and Mr Black.

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Langley, Batty

  Russell, T. W.

  MR. CALDWELLmoved an Amendment, the effect of which was to maintain the existing state of things under which every burgh, and parish had its own school board. He said the Amendment raised one of the most important points in connection with the whole Bill. It dealt with the education
  766
  authority to be set up under the Bill. The effect of the clause, if passed as drafted, would be to abolish about 1,000 school boards. Upwards of 900 of these were parish school boards, and fifty-seven were burgh school boards. Obviously a change of that kind would require something very strong so justify

  767
  it. He had always advocated the old parochial school system of Scotland. He admired it in many respects as having been at the root of the success of Scottish education. In that respect Scotland differed in educational matters from any other country. If he felt strongly in the matter of preserving the parish area in Scotland as the unit for educational administration, it was because he had the idea that in that area, and that alone, education could be successfully conducted.
  MR. T. W. RTSSELLcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  House counted, and forty Members being found present.
  MR. CALIHVELLsaid he wished to refer to the way in which this Bill affected the constituency of Mid-Lanark, which he represented. That constituency would be affected by the Bill in a manner more prejudicially than any other constituency in Scotland. The Middle Ward of Lanark had a population of 322,000 at the present moment, and it had nineteen school boards. All these school boards had been carrying on very great work both in elementary and secondary education. If this Amendment were defeated these school boards would be entirely abolished, and in their place there would be set up only one school board for the whole of that ward. The ward had not only a large population, but very large territorial area. It extended from Airdrie to Shotts, and the suggestion of the Bill was that these nineteen school boards, against which not a single word had been said, should be abolished. Whatever argument might be used for abolishing these boards, inefficiency would not be urged against them. In the case of Buteshire, which had a population of about 18,641, there were to be three school boards, and one of these would be for the Island of Cumbraæ with a population of about 1,800. Could anyone conceive a more nonsensical system than that which they were asked to adopt? When the principle of the Bill was applied it worked out by giving one school board for 1,800 inhabitants in Cumbraæ, and only one school board for
  768
  322,000 inhabitants in the populous and industrial centre of the Middle Ward of Lanark.
  He was curious to know what were the grounds upon which the Lord-Advocate could justify a change of that kind. There were no school boards in the whole kingdom—he did not take Scotland alone, but in this connection he included England—which had done their work more efficiently than the boards in the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire. He instanced Motherwell, which had a first class secondary school, where in the past work had been carried on successfully. Wishaw had one of the most important secondary and technical schools in the whole of Scotland, and it was doing a great deal of good work suited to the particular industry which was carried on in the district, namely, coal and iron mining. At Larkhall there was another secondary school, and he would like to know what the Lord-Advocate had got to say against the school board of Larkhall. Had the Education Department got a single bad report in regard to the secondary education given in that school? At Blantyre the school board had not limited itself to elementary education, secondary education was given at that place of a pretty high order. At Cambuslang, where the population consisted of the overflow of the middle class of Glasgow, people who lived in villadom, and where also there was an industrial population connected with the locality, the deepest interest was taken in the school work both in respect of elementary and secondary education. It had one of the best secondary schools in the kingdom, and the very best teachers were engaged to carry on the work. In regard to Hamilton, Airdrie, Coatbridge, and other places the same thing could be said. It was proposed by this Bill, which had been brought in without any justification, to dispossess these places of their school boards, and to put the whole area under one school board. The effect would be that the new school board would require a home somewhere. Probably it would be at Airdrie as perhaps the most populous place in the district. If the board had not its headquarters at Airdrie, Glasgow might be chosen. The result

  769
  of that would be that the education affairs of the different parishes would be managed by representatives sent to that board who would not have the same local interest as was possessed at present by the members of the existing school boards. Wishaw, which had at present the full management of its own educational affairs, would have one representative on the new board. Who was to manage the schools which were now managed by the present school boards? They would be managed by persons outside the district. Who were the parties who had been in favour of this change? The Lord-Advocate very likely would say that Scottish opinion was unanimously in favour of the Bill.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The hon. Member for Mid Lanark is not.
  Mr. CALDWELLsaid that was to say that with that exception Scottish opinion was in favour of the Bill. He ventured to say from communications he had received that that was not correct. The Lord-Advocate received deputations from one quarter in favour of the Bill, and they knew very well where those deputations came from. He remembered when Lord Balfour of Burleigh wished to introduce an Education Bill for Scotland, he. invited information and suggestions from all parties as to what should be put in the Bill. He never knew of anything more ridiculous, because when dealing with an Education Bill the framer ought himself to be able to deal with it on his own authority. If information was asked here and there they would get a hotch-potch Bill.
  Teachers were in favour of the wider area proposed by this Bill. They would have liked the county area, but the Government had gone between that and the parish area and had proposed the district area of the county. The Secondary School Teachers' Association and the large burghs in Scotland were the only parties so far as he could discover who were pressing this Bill forward. So far as he could gather, outside of the Teachers' Union, the people of Scotland were in favour of letting things be as they were. There was the strongest possible argument for that. The parish
  770
  area was to be the area for taxation I under the Bill. The school buildings were to be separately charged to the parish area. It was said in the case of England that there was an anomaly about school boards because they were not rating bodies and that they only I issued a precept to the rating bodies. It was said that that was an anachronism, and yet in Scotland the county councils were to be the rating authority for education. If they looked into the history of the parish area in Scotland, they had to go back a very long time. They had to go back to 1696. In Scotland the parish was not only the area for education, but for the Church, and the management of the poor. The parish was the area for everything relating to the social life and condition of the people, and it had continued so down to the present moment, when the Government sought to abolish that area.
  The Committee had not yet had any reason assigned why the change should be made. The Education Act of 1872 made education compulsory, and school boards were appointed in every borough and parish in Scotland. The ratepayers in the different parishes had the opportunity of electing the school boards, and in that way they had the full management of their own parish education. They were now, under the proposal in the Bill, to have only one vote in the management of their own school, and other people were to have a share in the management, although the school might be one in the management of which they were not concerned. At the present moment working men were able to become members of the school board, and a great deal of educational work was done by that class. Men in the rank of life of the hon. Member for Woolwich, the hon. Member for Durham, and the hon. Member for Battersea would have no possible chance of being on the new school board. In the parish area such men could attend board meetings, but in the larger area they would not be able to attend the board. A system which divorced the working classes not merely from having the full management of their parish school, but also divorced the great mass of the working classes from sitting on

  771
  the school boards, was something for which the Committee wanted more justification than had yet been offered.
  Another reason why it was desirable to have the school board in the particular parish was that the school attendance committee had to consider questions as to whether certain children should be exempted from attending school. How would that be dealt with under the Bill? Of course they could not have the school boards sitting in a particular locality hearing cases and deciding whether they would grant exemptions or not. It was an important matter to have men in the locality who knew the condition of the people, and who were able to decide in such cases from their own knowledge. In future, under the Bill, there would be managers composed of people outside the district altogether sitting in judgment on these cases. The majority of them would have no local knowledge, and perhaps no sympathy for the people. The Bill recognised that the district councils could not possibly perform the work themselves, and that there must be delegation. At present school boards had the power of delegating a portion of their work to managers, but practically no managers had been appointed, as boards preferred to do the work themselves. In the Bill proposed last year two-thirds of the managers in the case of a borough were to be elected by the town council, and two-thirds in the case of a parish were to be elected by the parish council or landward committee. Even that concession was taken away in the present Bill. Why was it taken away? The Lord-Advocate knew very well that it was taken away because the teachers did not want local control. The Bill now left even the appointment of managers in the hands of the school board, which would be composed to the extent of nine-tenths of aliens, so far as the parish was concerned.
  The intention of the policy proposed to be carried out was to centralise the control of education. The reason why the parish system was to be abolished and the larger area adopted——a proposal which was being supported by the teachers alone—was that the teachers
  772
  hoped to get larger salaries because there would be, more lavish expenditure with the wider area. They also considered that they would have a larger field for promotion. His own view was that instead of there being a larger there would be a smaller field for promotion. If a vacancy occured in a school at Wishaw or Larkhall at the present moment the school board of the particular parish interested would consider how it was to be filled up, and if they wanted a superior teacher they would have no difficulty in giving an increased salary to the man they wanted. But if Wishaw or Lark-hall only formed part of a wider area a teacher would get promotion from another school in that area, though be might not be a man of the superior class whose services the board could at present command. It was obvious that educational progress would be more likely if they had one district competing against another for teachers than if the appointments were in the hands of one board acting for a wide area. A district of a, county which might be quite suitable as an administrative unit in connection with such questions as cattle disease and the maintenance of roads might not be a suitable area for education purposes. Education had to deal with population alone, and the administrative area should not be one which had no relation to the population of the locality.
  He had not heard an argument based on educational considerations in favour of the proposed change. It had not been shown why for the sake of 20,000 children attending the secondary schools the school board areas were to be changed for 800,000 children in the elementary schools. As a rule working men took more interest in the education given in the schools than in the particular rate imposed for education. The amount of the assessment might be a very small matter on a £5 rent, but it was of great importance that the education given should be of the best quality. If the area under the administration of a board was so large that its members were not in the same degree representative of the different localities as the members of smaller boards, the popular interest in education might be diminished, and the electors might be swayed more

  773
  by the amount of the rate than promotion of education.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 19, to leave out from the word 'each,' to the end of line 24, and insert the words 'parish and burgh in Scotland.' "—{Mr. Caldwell)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he was anxious to know what the Lord-Advocate would say in reply to the powerful speech of his hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark. It appeared to him that so far as anomalies were concerned, the proposals brought forward by the President of the Local Government Board for the redistribution of seats were not so great as the anomalies contained in this Bill. It seemed to him to be absolutely preposterous that there should be a school board for Cumbrae with a population of 1,800, and only one school board for Mid Lanark with a population of 322,000. He reminded the Committee that some of the parishes in Scotland were very large. The parish in which he was born was twenty miles long by eight miles broad. He considered that was sufficiently large for an education area. Although the people of Scotland wanted an Education Bill passed, he did not think they wanted this special Bill. He would like to see the parish retained as the unit for elementary education. If that could be done, and if there was a power of amalgamation for secondary and Technical education then, and then only, would they get a Bill acceptable to Scotland. He was most anxious to see the Bill passed, but he really was at a loss to know what the Lord-Advocate would be able to say in reply to the indictment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he had difficulty in understanding the position taken up by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, who said that the people of Scotland desired an Education Bill, but did not desire this Education Bill, and then concluded by remarking that he desired to see this Bill passed.
  MR.EUGENE WASON: with Amendments.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he had correctly represented what the hon. member stated. He asked the Committee to consider what the position was. Of course, the Amendment struck at the very root of the Bill, and, if it were carried, the Bill necessarily went.
  Mr. CALDWELL. Hear, hear!
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONsaid the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment evidently recognised that that was so. Yet he was a party to allowing the Second Reading to pass without a division—which was to say that he was satisfied with the principle of the Bill.
  Mr. CALDWELL: No, no! The Lord-Advocate would not suppose that. I would call a division of my own Motion. I reserved my objections till the Committee stage.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONsaid that his objection was that this Amendment struck at the principle of the Bill More than that, this was practically the same Amendment which the hon. Member proposed last year, and which received so little support that he did not challenge a division.
  MR. CALDWELL: Since last year public opinion in Scotland has got more developed, and it is now very much stronger against the abolition of the parish areas.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONsaid that he had had a fair amount of opportunity of ascertaining what public opinion in Scotland was, and, so far as he could judge, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill as it stood, even without amendment, rather than lose it. Last year, when the same Amendment was proposed, the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs said he was bound to accept the proposal of the Bill in favour of districts on the assumption that some provision would be made for sub-dividing districts in the case of huge extents.

  775
  of territory or large masses of population. That assumption had been given effect to by the proviso introduced into the Bill. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman stood bound to oppose the Amendment and to support the proposal of the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark assented to the statement that the Amendment would strike at the principle of the Bill, and that he would defend the small parish areas as suitable for the educational needs of the country.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I do.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIG: As confined to elementary education—Yes.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Who is there among us who will say that you are to separate elementary and secondary education?
  MR. CALDWELL: When did you discover that the present system was so inefficient? We never heard any dissatisfaction until the Bill was brought in last year.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid the position of the Government was not one of complaint against the existing school boards, which had ably discharged their duties, but they recognised that the situation had changed, and that the time had come when they must adapt their educational system to the needs of the country. Hon. Members opposite could not even agree among themselves. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] There was no vice in that surely. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had interposed in the debate, and the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs afterwards got up to controvert the views of his right hon. friend. That was a distinct instance of want of agreement between two eminent Members for Scotland in regard to an educational policy for Scotland. He had understood that there was a general agreement amongst all educationalists that secondary and elementary education should be placed under the same control. He had also understood that there was a general agreement that the smaller area should no
  776
  longer manage the educational interests in all their branches and they must have a large area. He agreed that the local government district was open to comment. It had never been said that it was perfect, but it had been put forward as the best area they could get. Large powers had been given to provide for aggregation or distribution in areas which required it. The result of the Bill would be that the districts proposed would be an immense improvement upon the existing parish areas so fat as the management and conduct of their educational work was concerned. No reason had been advanced for departing from the position taken up last year. On the contrary, public opinion in Scotland was immensely in favour of the Bill, and there would be very great dissatisfaction if a Bill, which the vast majority of those interested in education in Scotland believed to be a long way in advance of anything that now existed or had heretofore been proposed, was endangered or lost by reason of the discussions in this House. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] He was sure he had not said anything that was discourteous, or that could be taken exception to. He was quite satisfied that public opinion in Scotland wished this Bill, and that it would be greatly dissatisfied if it were not passed.
  MR. DALZIEL: Why, you have put down a whole lot of Amendments yourselves.
  MR. BLACK: Do you tell us this is not a proper place to discuss the Bill?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid that the country would judge. All he submitted to the Committee was that the arguments which the hon. Member had submitted in favour of this proposal—the same as those he submitted last year—should be treated as they were then treated, and that the House should agree with the Government that the proposals in the Bill were better calculated to advance the interests of Scotch education, and to effect a great improvement on what existed at the present time.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that the Lord-Advocate had directed

  777
  quite a small part of his speech to the particular Amendment before the House. For his part he was not opposed to the views of the Lord-Advocate; and he agreed that it would be preferable to accept the Government proposals rather than to sacrifice the Bill; if, indeed, the passage of the Bill depended upon that acceptation. A good many of the Scottish Members had exercised considerable self-restraint during the discussion and desired to do nothing that would prevent the Bill from passing. Last year the Bill might have been passed into law had a little more time been given to it by the Government. Everybody knew that; but no,, it was relegated to the dog days, and they were told that unless they despatched the Amendments in a few hours instead of days, the Bill could not pass. This year they had come to the even more sorry spectacle of the House being engaged on a Bill, the Second Reading of which had been passed without a division, but to which the Government had not the slightest intention of giving sufficient time to enable it to pass.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. and learned Member's remarks were rather wide of the discussion of the Amendment.
  Sir ROBERT REIDsaid he would not pursue that subject further beyond saying that the Government had only given four hours that afternoon for the purpose of considering what the Lord-Advocate had himself admitted to be an enormous and very serious question. All he could say was that the Government had no intention or idea of passing this Bill; and that they did not think it necessary or worth while to give proper time for the discussion of Scotch business. What they had said before and would say again in Scotland was that the business of Scotland was treated with contempt by the Government that was now in power.
  *MR. AINSWORTHsaid he was inclined to suggest an Amendment by which the parish should be acknowledged as the unit, but that the Secretary for Scotland should have the power, if he thought fit, to combine for educational purposes, more than one parish or
  778
  burgh. He thought it would meet the views of all parties.
  Mr. DALZIELsaid that like many of his hon. friends he had refrained from taking part in the debate with the view of preventing the Government trying to place, the responsibility of the non-passage of this Bill on the shoulders of the Opposition. He was surprised that the Lord-Advocate, who was usually so conciliatory, should have levelled a totally unfounded charge against the Opposition. That charge was that if this Bill was not allowed to pass it would be on account of prolonged discussion. Did the Lord-Advocate mean to suggest that this Bill, affecting the whole of Scotland, was to pass without any discussion at all? Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there had been any undue discussion? It was not fair on the part of the Government, when they brought forward a Bill of the greatest importance to Scotland, that they should take shelter from their own delinquencies and place the blame on the shoulders of the Opposition. If the Government had thought anything of this Bill they would have brought it forward and had it discussed earlier in the session. The fact was that it was the Eton and Harrow cricket match that day which was responsible, he supposed for the Bill having been put down at all. Yet he believed there was a general desire that the Bill should pass with proper Amendments, and in passing it the Lord-Advocate would have the hearty co-operation of many Members on that side of the House. He would rather see the Bill openly and promptly sacrificed than—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must come to the Amendment.
  MR. DALZIELsaid it was only a question of time. He confessed he had been led away by the most discursive and argumentative speech of the Lord-Advocate on the general point. The question was whether they ought not to retain the parish area as the unit in connection with elementary education. He confessed he had listened with astonishment to the indictment which the

  779
  Lord-Advocate had made as to the working of the present system. The Lord-Advocate had said that the present system had been a complete and absolute failure, and that the whole of Scotland recognised it. Now, that was a totally unwarranted statement.
  Mr. SCOTT DIOKSONsaid that that was not a statement made by him.
  Mr. DALZLELsaid that, then, he did not know what the Lord-Advocate meant. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the parish authority had not been a success, and that therefore these increased powers ought to be given. He contended that there was no person in authority in Scotland who would dare go before any representative public meeting and condemn the way in which the work of education had been carried on by the parish school boards. It was the proudest boast of Scotland that boys had been sent out from the parish school board schools and had taken distinguished places in every part of the world; and, therefore, he had heard with surprise and indignation the reflections which the Lord-Advocate had made on the present school authorities. The question was whether they should have a larger area than the parish. It was true that in regard to particular parishes the local school board had fuller knowledge of the wants of the district than a board representing a larger area would possess. Then under the scheme of the Bill they would require to have as representatives on the board men of wealth and leisure. He acknowledged that for secondary education there was something to be said for having a larger area; but he insisted that for elementary education the areas should be kept exactly as they were.
  Mr. THOMAS SHAWsaid that the inadequate opportunities for discussion on the Bill required no demonstration, and it was out of the question for the Lord-Advocate to deprecate discussion in this House on this most important question. As to differences of opinion among the Opposition, they would be in a sorry case if, on the Committee stage of a serious and important Bill, they might mot exchange ideas in regard to the best
  780
  lines of educational development for their country. He did not think that the Lord-Advocate quite appreciated the development of opinion in Scotland in regard to this question. He had already given one notable instance of that which ought to have been taken into account viz., the opinions expressed by the For-farshire school boards. He quite took it from his hon. and learned friend that there was no intention on his part to make derogatory remarks on existing school boards. One of the most valuable reports of the past year was that of the Port Glasgow School Board, one sentence of which wag relevant to the Amendment before the Committee. It was to the effect that the provisions in the Bill for the extension of the area and the supersession of the existing school boards were such as practically to ignore the right of parents in each locality to have a direct voice in the management of the schools in the area. Another school board reported that the areas proposed in the Bill were too large, and, if carried into effect, would be the means of destroying to a large extent the local interest in the schools. Further, that school beard declared that, if the proposed areas were agreed to, very few local gentlemen would have the means or the time to travel to the meetings of the board, and consequently the selection of the representatives would be limited to candidates, of wealth and leisure. In the clause under discussion, he quite granted that the Government had gone some way to meet the argument presented, because amongst powers of aggregation there were also powers of division; but that power of division into education districts was only permissible on the sanction of Dover House. They did not desire to hand over that power to the gentlemen in Dover House, however eminent they might be. He believed that if the old parochial areas were retained for the purposes of elementary education, with power given to them to combine for secondary and technical education, even though they were supervised from Whitehall, it would be greatly to the interest of education in Scotland.
  SIR MARK STEWARTsaid that he had had a large practical experience of school board

  781
  work during the last thirty years, and he admitted that he would part company with the old system with, much regret. A great deal more interest used to be taken in the management of education than now; but he concurred with the Lord-Advocate that the time had come when they should have a more extended sphere of educational management. He did not think that they would lose local interest if they parted with the old system. The schools were not to cease to exist, and the boards would practically remain the same as they were before. Although the managers would not be elected directly to that position, in all probability they would be taken from the members of the parish councils. He would rather have the Bill as a whole as it stood than lose the opportunity of passing a Bill at all. There were several points with which the existing school boards could not adequately deal; and it was not to be wondered at that the teachers came and asked Parliament to pass this Bill. Under existing conditions they were subject to very considerable hardships. If a good teacher was appointed to a rural school, he remained there to the end of his days; but the Bill proposed to deal quite impartially with the whole system of teaching in the county; and he thought the teachers would have a much greater chance of promotion under the proposed newly constituted authority than under the old system. Again, what could the present members of the school boards know of secondary education? He believed that 90 per cent. of the Scotch Members were willing that this Bill should pass, and he asked the Lord-Advocate to induce, in the course of the week, the Government to give a few more days to carry the Bill into law thin session.
  Mr. DOBBIEsaid that the Lord-Advocate had perhaps minimised the feeling in Scotland upon the question under discussion. He had a report from the school board of Port Glasgow, a most important industrial centre in the West of Scotland, which stated that some of the features of this Bill were most objectionable, especially the provision for the extension of the areas, which practically
  782
  ignored the right of parents in each locality to take part in the management of the schools. Undoubtedly public feeling in Scotland was developing on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark. His own opinion, however, was that the larger area proposed by the Bill was an improvement, and he should therefore vote against the Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he regretted that the Lord-Advocate had introduced into this discussion a degree of animadversion which he thought the Committee had done nothing to justify. There was only one day's debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and now they had only this short time given to begin with for the Committee stage. A supporter of the right hon. Gentleman had moved an Amendment which occupied one or two hours, finding many supporters on the Ministerial Benches, and because of that the Lord-Advocate told them that if the discussions were prolonged at the same length Scotland would be deprived of the advantages of this Bill. But unfortunately, the House had a duty to perform in regard to this or any other Bill; he held that the edge of fair discussion had not yet been reached. In any case the Lord-Advocate's lecture was premature, as this was only the second day on the Bill. With regard to the Amendment he had to say that he thought it was a thousand pities that the Government ever contemplated interfering with the parish school boards of Scotland. No doubt, as they had slaughtered the school boards in England, they thought it would be inconsistent if, having to remodel Scottish education, they did not abolish the school hoards in Scotland also. Local control had been the corner-stone of the education system in Scotland through all the generations of the past, even in the old days when the parish minister was the principal local authority; and he was enough of a democrat to believe that such local control was a most essential point in regard especially to primary education, which concerned the great mass of the people. They did not keep up the same control if they took the

  783
  larger district of the county. Now the control would be left to the managers who were to be appointed and who would be only the agents of this higher authority. When the Lord-Advocate said that the whole of Scotland was waiting and gasping for this Bill to pass, he could tell him this—and he thought he could pit his knowledge of Scotland against that of the, right hon. Gentleman—that so far as his knowledge of Scotland went, and also his conception of the genius and general sympathies of the Scottish people, he believed that nine-tenths of the people were opposed to the abolition of the parish school boards, however much they might approve of other parts of the Bill.
  The people of Scotland were not all composed of schoolmasters who were, no doubt, in favour of it, or philosophers, dreamers, or doctrinaires, and all those who had had a hand in creating this ridiculous co-ordination system which had played havoc in many instances and respects with English education, and which he did not expect would do much good to Scotland. The Scotch were a plain people who wished their children to be properly educated in the parish schools, by the parish schoolmaster, up to the time they went to the University. This system of secondary and technical education might be wanted in some parts of Scotland, but if it was, why was it not possible to have it going on side by side with the old system with all its benefits. It was because this part of the Bill abolished the old parish connection that he should heartily support the Amendment of his hon. friend. It would be quite possible, of course, to enlarge certain areas, for some of the present areas were too small. He was, he believed, the only survivor in the House of those who took part in Lord Young's Act of 1872, and he remembered either moving or at least putting on the Paper an Amendment on this very point, that parishes should have the power of uniting under proper control for the purpose of efficient management. With that they got all the advantage they required, and that, of course, would be consistent with maintaining throughout the country the school boards which had done such splendid service in the past, and which were better than any fantastic alien body
  784
  which they could erect in the vicinity of the parish to carry on the great work upon which the prosperity of their country had so largely depended in the past.
  Mr. PARKER SMITHsaid he would like to have the opinion of the four right hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had just made, as to whether they signified their desire to return to the old parish system.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I never said so.
  Mr. PARKER SMITHsaid he certainly understood that the right hon. Gentleman regarded the large development of secondary schools as apparently superfluous and unnecessary.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, on the contrary, he said exactly the reverse. What he said was that he did not wish to destroy the old system which should, in his opinion, be carried on side by side with the new, which the changing conditions in Scotland made necessary.
  MK. PARKER SMITHaccepted the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and said it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had by his speech opened up a very large and bold question which he (Mr. Parker Smith) thought was settled years ago. Was that the spirit in which the Opposition were going to discuss this Bill? Was that the spirit in which, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Scotch people expected it to be discussed? The question raised in the Bill was one of the most important questions that could be raised with regard to Scotland, but if all these points were to be regarded as open questions, and were all to be argued out from beginning to end, it was not one day but a whole session that would be required to force the passage of this Bill. It would, however, be clear to people here and in Scotland, and to all those strangers who took a great interest in the Bill—
  Mr. DALZIEL,on a point of order, asked whether, he having been called to order for referring to the general state of the Bill, the hon. Member now addressing the Committee was in order in taking the same course.
  MR. PARKER SMITHasked whether it was not the fact that the question had been opened up by several speakers on the other side, and whether, that being so, he was not entitled to reply.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid an opening had been given by the Lord-Advocate in his speech, and that being so, he (the Deputy-Chairman) had allowed some latitude to one or two speakers. The debate had since continued on the same lines and he felt he could not rule it out of order on account of the Lord-Advocate having introduced it.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the Committee was to understand from that ruling that this discursive debate was entirely due to the speech of the Lord-Advocate.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not admit that. He only desired to convey to the Committee the reason why he had allowed some latitude.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he would not pursue the subject further. But having regard to the fact that the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite enjoyed a certain consideration in Scotland, he also desired to state his view in order that the people of Scotland might be perfectly able to judge on which side was the desire to pass the Bill into law.
  MR. FINDLAYsaid he had had no special desire to intervene in the discussion, but after what had been said he felt constrained to show the Committee how this matter affected his own district. The school boards of the various parishes had done their work most efficiently, and he could not conceive that the work could be better done. He thought the proposed change would kill a great deal of the local interest, and he wished emphatically to say that he did not believe that the larger school board area would ensure the work being carried on more efficiently or more economically than it was being carried on by the present authorities in the parish areas in and round Motherwell.
  Mr. HALDANEadmitted that this was a very difficult question, and one upon which all people in Scotland did not think alike. The conclusion that he had come to was that, taking Scotland as a whole, the system of this Bill was the only system upon which education could be conducted. There might be some improvements made in the Bill, because he was satisfied that many people in Scotland held a very strong opinion with regard to parting with the old school boards, and he thought something might be done to ameliorate that Speaking for himself, he was so anxious to get the new system introduced into Scotland, so conscious of the extent to which Scottish education was suffering from want of a new instrument, so much moved by appeals which reached him by every post to get the Bill through, that he would go a long way to take the Bill as it stood.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down was so laudably anxious to spread secondary education in Scotland that he sometimes overlooked the real interests of elementary education. Had the Government, in dealing with the English Bill, confined themselves to the lines suggested by his right hon. friend below, they would not have tampered with elementary education in the way they had. It had not been proved that the larger areas had been a success. He ventured to say that all those actually interested in progressive education found the areas over which they had to preside altogether too large to enable them to keep in personal contact with the work, so that the Act had become an officials' Act, to be worked mainly by officials. The general interest which was taken in the parish schools in days gone by had disappeared owing to the treatment of the managers, who could not now order so much as a lead pencil without going to the education authority. He quite agreed that there were in Scotland, as there were in the past in England very small parish school boards, and it would be better to join two or three together. But it was not necessary to destroy the parish school boards and the direct contact of the parents with them in order to do that. In England they had done their best to make secondary education an absolutely separate work, and they had not found that the principle of co-ordination could be carried out in the way in which it was first supposed it could be. He therefore felt satisfied, from his experience of the working of the Act in England, that, so far as Scotland was
  788
  concerned, both on the ground of economy and of efficiency, it would have been far better to have enlarged the area of a few of the smaller school boards in Scotland, but to have maintained for the most part the parish unit intact.
  MR. BUCHANAN, referring to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Partick, pointed out that only yesterday morning forty new Amendments were put on the Paper in the name of the Lord-Advocate. In view of that fact, were they to be told that they were doing anything at all unfair in considering one of the most important Amendments that could possibly be discussed?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid the Amendments standing in his name were put down merely that hon. Members on both sides of the House might ascertain the Amendments he was prepared to accept.
  MR. BUCHANANreplied that that did not vitiate his point which was that it was only yesterday that they got an idea of what the intentions of the Government were. There were yesterday morning 360 odd Amendments on the Paper. More than half of these stood in the name of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and a large number of them in the name of the right hon. Member for Partick himself. In these circumstances it was absurd to bring railing accusations against hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House.
  THE CHAIRMANthought the hon. Gentleman had better address himself to the Amendment.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Partick had made a variety of charges against the Leader of the Opposition, and all he desired to point out was that there was another side to the question.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid his Amendment did not include the combination of
  parishes, and he was not moving the existing state of things. He was moving to take the parishes and burghs as the units.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:——Ayes, 130; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 283.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Allhusen,Augustus Henry Eden

  Finlay,RtHn.SirR. B.(Inv'rn'ss

  Purvis, Robert

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Pym, C. Guy

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Rankin, Sir James

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, W. Raymond (Camps,

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirH.

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hamilton, Marg,of(L'nd'nderry)

  Ritchie Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Clande George

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

  Balfour, Rt. Hon.AJ.(Manch'r

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Balfour, RtHnGeraIdW.(Leeds

  Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham

  Robinson, Brooke

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henrycecil

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hudson, George Biekersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bingham, Lord

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Bond, Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Brown, Sir Alex. (Shropsh.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Smith, Rt.HnJParker(Lanark

  Brown, George,M. (Edinburgh

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Stroyan, John

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniy.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Strutt, Hon. (Charles Hedley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh,

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Long, Rt. Hn.Walter(Bristol,S

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Chamberlain,Rt.HnJ.A.(Wore.

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coddington, Sir William

  Macdona, John (Cumming

  Ure, Alexander

  Corbott, T. L. (Down, North)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wallace, Robert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Walrond, Rt,Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Crombie, John William

  Maxwell,Rt.HnSirH.E.(Wigt'n

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Welby, Lt,-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Milvain, Thomas

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Whitmore Charles Algernon

  Dixon-Hartand, SirFred.Dixon

  Montagu, Hon. J.Scott(Hants.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Elibank, Master of

  Percy, Earl

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  and Mr. Henry Forster

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Austin, Sir John

  Findlay, Alexander (LanarkNE

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Fowler, Rt. Hon Sir Henry

  Slack, John (Bamford

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Black, Alexander William

  Grant, Corrie

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Higham, John Sharp

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  Tennant, Harold John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Thomas,J.A(Glamorgan, Gower

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accirngton

  Toulmin, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Cremer William Randal

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Crooks, William

  Morley, Rt.Hn.John(Montrose

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,N

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Parrott, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLEKS FOR THE NOES—

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Russell, T. W.

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Eugene

  Dunn, Sir William

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason

  Edwards, Frank

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. BLACKsaid the Amendment he moved was an attempt to safeguard the rights of parish councils in the event of an order by the Secretary for Scotland being contemplated for dividing or combining areas proposed in the Bill. If the Bill passed as it stood, the only authorities who would be allowed to make representations to the Secretary for Scotland were the county or the town council or the enlarged school board. He thought he would carry the Committee with him in suggesting that the parish council should be entitled to come forward to the Secretary for Scotland and say that in the interests of local control over education the district proposed by the Bill should be split up so as to preserve the local control which he was sure all desired. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, after the word 'board' to insert the words 'or from a parish council,'''—(Mr. Black.)
  Question proposed, 'That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. Until the Bill was passed the existing school board would be able to make representations, and after the Bill was passed the enlarged school board would be able to do so. Surely the interests of education would be sufficiently attended to by the representations which could be made either by the school board or by the county council.
  Mr. CALDWELLurged that Amendment was necessary.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONsaid that the matter was not of great importance, and if the hon. Member wished to press the Amendment he had no objection.
  MR. BLACKsaid the next Amend merit standing in his name was intended to provide for the case of art order dividing or combining districts before the Act came into operation. As the Bill at present stood, if the Secretary for Scotland made a division or amalgamation he could do so without consulting anybody and without giving notice to anybody. His Amendment was to provide that before the change took place, and before a county or district was joined to or divided from another, due notice should be given to all parties interested. His Amendment also provided that any of the local authorities interested or any twenty ratepayers might appear before the Secretary for Scotland and plead their case for or against amalgamation or division. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 14, at the end to insert the words, 'Provided further that an order made under this section shall not come into force until one month after the same has been published in at least one newspayer circulating in the neighbourhood affected by the order during which period it shall be competent for any local authority or any twenty ratepapers within or bordering upon the area affected by such order to present a requisition for a hearing thereon, and on receiving such a requisition the Secretary for Scotland shall appoint a convenient time and place for hearing parties, and he shall then and there, either by himself or by a proper person as his depute, hear parties as to such order, and shall at his sole discretion or at the sole discretion of his depute receive evidence written or oral and shall determine in the matter as may seem just.'"—(Mr. Black.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that under this proviso a most important change might be effected without any intimation to the people of the district concerned. Surely
  794
  a proposal to reduce a county area into a district or parish area was a vital one and the inhabitants affected ought to have an opportunity of making representations before the Secretary for Scotland came to any decision on it. Would it be right to create a new school board district just before the Act came into operation, without hearing the parties vitally concerned? They were already trying to leave out certain adjuncts, such as Leith from Edinburgh and Govan from Glasgow, but of what use was it for them to do that if the Secretary for Scotland was to be able, by a stroke of the pen, to practically undo all that had been done or that was contained in the Bill! Why should not notice be given in the same way as when alterations were proposed under the Boundaries Act of 1894. In that case it was provided that the Secretary for Scotland should hold an inquiry and give complete notice in the Edinburgh Gazette and in the newspapers, so that every person having an interest should have an opportunity of being heard. Even if this proposal were carried the Secretary for Scotland would have the most absolute power to make any change he thought fit. The only effect of carrying the Amendment would be to ensure that persons affected would have an opportunity of being heard.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid this matter had not been overlooked, but the question was whether time would allow of doing as suggested in the Amendment. Under Section 50 the first school board was to be elected on April lat, 1906, and while he did not dispute the reasonableness of the hon. Member's proposal, he did doubt whether there would be time between the passing of the Act and the making of the

  795
  necessary arrangements which would have to precede the election, to hold such an inquiry as was suggested. He was quite willing, however, to consider the point. He could not accept the Amendment now. It must be remembered that the Secretary for Scotland could not act on his own initiative; he had to be set in motion by representations from the county council or the school board or some other public body. Those bodies would necessarily take some time to consider whether representations should be made, and then the Secretary for Scotland would probably require to communicate with them before coming to a conclusion. Then a month would be required for advertising purposes, and more time must be allowed for the consideration of evidence either oral or written, and the matter would have to be further considered before the issue of a final deliverance which must be made before April, 1906, so as to enable proper arrangements to be made for an election at that date. If the hon. Member, however, would withdraw the Amendment he would undertake to reconsider the matter, although he could not pledge himself that that reconsideration would result in a favourable answer.
  MR. CALDWELLthought the suggestion a reasonable one, but pointed out that the cases in which the suggested inquiry would be necessary would probably be very few indeed.
  MR. BLACK: Under the circumstances I ask leave, to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BLACKsaid the object of his next Amendment was to ensure that
  796
  when the Secretary for Scotland came to consider either now or at some future time the question of dividing a large area into small areas he should as far as possible have regard to the school board districts under the existing laws, or such aggregation thereof as might for educational purposes solely seem best. The object of introducing the word "solely" was to be found in the fact that the districts proposed in the Bill were admittedly in many cases entirely unsuitable for education, and when the right hon. Gentleman came to the task of dividing them it was only right and reasonable he should have special regard to educational convenience. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment it would go far towards meeting the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would also be desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should keep in view the securing of a convenient centre with good means of communication so that pupils living at home might be able to attend the school of the district to which they were attached. Further, regard should be had to the efficiency of the facilities provided in existing schools for purposes of both elementary and secondary education. To this proviso he attached much importance, and where schools were so conducted that they were unable to send their pupils direct to the University they should be made the centre of the district.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert the words, 'provided further that in considering as to dividing a local government district into education districts under this section the Secretary for Scotland shall as far as possible preserve the school board districts under the heretofore existing law or such aggregations thereof as may for educational purposes

  797
  solely seem best, keeping in view not only population and area but also means of communication with a convenient centre for secondary education and the efficiency of the facilities heretofore provided in the existing school board district for secondary as well as elementary education."—(Mr. Black.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he could not accept the Amendment. Keeping in view the fact that the Secretary for Scotland was not to initiate proceedings it would be better that he should be left with a free hand. He did not suggest that the considerations mentioned in the Amendment should not be taken into account, and due weight no doubt would be given to them, but inserted as a statutory declaration they would unduly fetter the judgment of the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. BLACK: I have put in the word "as far as possible."
  SCOTP DICKSON: If a thing is not possible it cannot be done. I repeat that in my opinion it would be unwise to tie our hands in this manner, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
  THOMAS SHAWthought it would be extremely advantageous when
  they were providing for a combination of the areas, to give some statutory lead to the official responsible so as to guide him in making up his mind on the subject. He trusted that the Lord-Advocate would see his way to accept some form of words in this direction.
  MR. TENNANTsaid that those who lived in Scotland and took an active part in public affairs had good reason to realise the extreme difficulty of communication, having often to travel distances to attend meetings of public authorities which could not be conveniently completed in one day. This Amendment seemed harmless enough. It was only in the nature of a signpost directing the administrator's path, and he did not agree that it would unduly tie the hands of the Government.
  MR. CALDWELLalso appealed to the Lord-Advocate to accept the Amendment.
  MR. DALZIELtrusted the right hon. Gentleman would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 69; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 284.)

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cameron, Robert

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Austin, Sir John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dunn, Sir William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark'

  Eve, Harry Trelawne.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Cremer, William Randal

  Findlay,Alexander(LanarkN.E

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Crombie, John William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Crooks, William

  Grant, Corrie

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Burt, Thomas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Caldwell, James

  Davies, M. Vanghan (Cardigan

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Jones Leif (Appleby)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lambert George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Slack, John Bamford

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax

  Lough, Thomas

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  M'Crae, George

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

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Tennant, Harold John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen,E

  Morley,Rt. Hon. John(Montrose

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Parrott, William

  Thomas, JA.Glamorgan,Gower

  Mr. Black and Mr. Robert

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Toulmin, George

  Wallace.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Ure, Alexander

  Russell, T. W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Elibank, Master of

  Percy, Earl

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Atkinson, Et. Hon. John

  Finlay, Rt HnSirRB.(Inv'rn'ss

  Rankin, Sir James

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bailey, James (Walworth

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Ridley, S. Forde

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Robinson, Brooke

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bentinuk, Lord Henry C.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Runciman, Walter

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert

  Bill, Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Bond, Edward.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, Rt HnJ Parker(Lanarks

  Brymer, William Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M 'Taggart

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M,

  Campbell,J.H,M.(Dublin Univ.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stroyan, John

  Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

  Tuff, Charles

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

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir WilliamH.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Whiteley. H.(Ashton and Lync

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Maxwell, Rt.Hn.SirHE(Wigt'n

  Wilson-Toad, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Disracli, Coningsby Ralph

  Milvain, Thomas

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Dixon-Hartland.Sir Fred.Dixon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway,N.)

  Sir Alexander-Acland Hood

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Pease, Herbert PikeDarlington

  and Mr. Herny Foreter.

  And, it being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Wemyss Dock Bill [H.L.]. Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Worcestershire County Council (Bridges) Bill. Read 3aand passed.
Earl of Stamford's Cheshire Estate Bill [H.L.]. Read3aand passed, and sent to the Commons.
Skegness Water Bill. Read 3awith the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Southend and Colchester Light Railways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Tees Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Whitby Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read 3a(according to order), and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3aon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3aon Monday next.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a(according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee; and to be read 3aon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill No. 139); Local Govern-
686
ment Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill (No. 140). Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SKRIKS).
  No. 3436. Brazil (Pará).

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1893.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade. (County of Middlesex Light Railways (Extension of Time) Order, 1905), amending the County of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1901. (North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways (Light Railway) Order, 1905 authorising the working and maintenance of the Moel Tryfan Undertaking of the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways Company as a light railway, and other matters.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 8th July, 1905, declaring Bushire to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876.
  >SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (BOROUGH OF DARWEN).
  Order made by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Darwen, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for hairdressers' and barbers' shops within the borough.

  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (IRELAND).
  Account of receipts and disbursements, for the year ended 31st December, 1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to County Courts in Ireland. Was presented

  687
  by the Lord Ashbourne; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Thursday next. (No. 138.)

  THE IRISH LAND ACT.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENrose "To call attention to the ad interim Report of the Estates Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and to the regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant and published in the Dublin Gazette of 7th July." The noble Earl said: My Lords, since I put down my notice on the Paper to call attention to the ad interim Report of the Estates Commissioners, regulations have been issued under the name of the Lord-Lieutenant and published in the Dublin Gazette. I do not think the regulations have been laid on the Table of this House, and I do not know why they have not been laid. The Act orders that such regulations should be presented to Parliament at the earliest possible date. The regulations were published in the Dublin Gazette, I think, more than a week ago, and I should be glad to know why they have not been circulated amongst your Lordships.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): They are on the Table.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: The ad interim Report of the Estates Commissioners gives some useful information as to the working of the Act, but on the whole I think it is rather more noticeable for what it does not say than for what it says. It gives us some information, but it leaves us entirely in the dark as to the causes of a certain amount of failure in the Act, and it is impossible to read the Report without coming to the conclusion that it could have contained information which would have been very useful to your Lordships and to Parliament in forming an opinion as to the causes, whatever they may be, that have led to this comparative failure of the Act in certain directions. The Act is entirely satisfactory in one respect. The Commissioners report that practically in all cases owners have retained their houses and demesne lands, and they say that there is no indication whatever that land-
  688
  lords selling their estates have any intention of leaving the country. That is altogether satisfactory, and sets at rest the fears of those who anticipated that the sales of property would be followed by a kind of exodus of the landed gentry —a proceeding which, for financial and many other reasons, would have been injurious to the country.
  But in other respects the Act does not seem to be working satisfactorily. As I regards the labourers, during the fourteen months which come under review in the ad interim Report only fourteen schemes I were put forward to the Local Government Board and to district councils. Well, that practically amounts to nothing. I do not wish to comment on that. The Land Act of 1903 was not a labourers Act, but the fact that the clauses in the Act intended to benefit the labourers have been practically inoperative, emphasises the necessity for legislation dealing with that phase of the question, and I should I hope it would be forthcoming at a not very distant date. Nor is the Act working satisfactorily as regards the reinstatement of evicted tenants. Up to the end of last year, which is as far as this ad interim Report goes, out of 4,275 applications only 137 tenants were reinstated; ninety-one were reinstated by the landlords and forty-six by the Commissioners. Well, my Lords, that is very slow progress. The immense importance of the reinstatement of evicted tenants was urged on Parliament during the debates on the Land Bill, and was fully recognised by Parliament; and it is obvious that for some reason or other the intentions and hopes of Parliament are not in that respect being fulfilled.
  I can find nothing whatever in the Report of the Estates Commissioners explaining this very partial success of the Act as Regards the reinstatement of evicted tenants. It is plain, I think, from the Report that unwillingness on the part of the landowners has nothing whatever to do with it. It is quite obvious that they do not block the way. I do not know what the cause is. If it is want of money it would be a most lamentable thing that for the sake of a comparatively few thousand pounds the success of the Act in ore of its most important principles should be jeopardised. But I cannot help

  689
  thinking that there must be other reasons which are not disclosed in the Report of the Commissioners, and if His Majesty's Government can give us any information on that point I think it would be very welcome. The Act is also only a partial success in the province of Connaught. In Connaught 3,308 originating applications were made up to the end of last year, as compared with 10,422 in Ulster, 10,057 in Leinster and 6,846 in Munster. I cannot find in this Report any reasons given by the Estates Commissioners accounting for this comparative failure of the Act in Connaught; and I would remind your Lordships that the immense importance of dealing principally with the uneconomic holdings in Connaught was fully recognised by Parliament.
  The intention of Parliament, as indicated over and over again during the passage of the Bill through both Houses, was that the provisions of the Act should have such application in Connaught and the West as to have substantial effect in converting utterly uneconomic holdings into holdings of an economic character; and Parliament believed that the inducements offered to landowners to sell, and the powers granted to the Estates Commissioners, were sufficient to enable them to acquire a sufficient quantity of good and untenanted land in order to improve the condition of the uneconomic holdings which are such a distinct feature of the province of Connaught. I know that the theory has been put forward that this good grazing grass land should be devoted to grazing purposes, and that it is false economy to try and divert it to any other use. But your Lordships will admit that the condition of the people living in these uneconomic holdings is almost intolerable. There are large populations living practically on the verge of chronic starvation in conditions in which human beings ought not to live. If you are to carry out those theories to their logical conclusion, I do not see how you can help admitting that these people ought to be deported from that part of the country and the land allowed to go to waste. But that is not my opinion, nor was it the intention of Parliament. Parliament intended that the effect of the Act should be that the Estates Commissioners would obtain possession of a sufficient quantity
  690
  of good lands to add to these uneconomic holdings and apparently that has not taken place.
  Now, my Lords, what is the cause of this failure in Connaught. I do not find it accounted for in any way in the ad interim Report of the Estates Commissioners. They, it is true, mention certain legal and other difficulties, but they are not difficulties of any serious character; they are difficulties that could be easily overcome. Your Lordships know very well that the condition of Connaught is not at all on all fours with that of the other provinces in Ireland. Connaught is full of these uneconomic holdings. I want to know—and I think Parliament and the public have a right to ask for this information—what is the cause of this comparative failure in Connaught. There must be some reason for the small number of originating applications there. These uneconomic holdings are, of course, occupied by men who to a large extent eke out their existence by harvesting in England or by other means. I have seen it stated that the landowners attach a large residential value to these wretched little holdings and are asking an exorbitant number of years purchase in respect of their residential and agricultural value. I am not at all inclined to believe that such is the case.
  I have seen it stated, on the other hind, that the tenants are offering prices based on the purely agricultural value of these little holdings. I should be curious to know what view the Estates Commissioners take of the value of these holdings. Do they value them merely on their agricultural value? Do they take into consideration the fact that the occupiers have other means of making a livelihood; or do they consider at all the prospective value that may attach to them when they are improved or enlarged. There is no question at all that the Act is to a very large extent a failure as regards the uneconomic portions of the West, mainly in Connaught. Neither Parliament nor the public have any information whateve before them to enable them to form an opinion as to whether that is due to the parties principally interested in the matter there, to any faults in the administration of the Act, or to any defects in the

  691
  Act itself. I admit that to give information would be to give publicity to matters which under ordinary circumstances are and ought to be considered entirely private matters, but the circumstances are peculiar. The great Act of 1903 was not merely an Act to enable one man to sell something to another. It was a great Imperial measure designed for a special purpose, for the benefit, not of individuals or of classes in Ireland, but for the benefit of the whole community in that country. The whole of the taxpaying community pledged their credit to finance the Act. Under these circumstances it appears to me that when it is evident that in a most important particular the Act is failing, Parliament and the people have a right to such information as will enable them to judge of the causes of failure.
  My impression is that the Estates Commissioners could perfectly well give such information if they were invited to do so, and it appears to me that that would be the simplest method of dealing with it. But, if no information is given in that or some similar direction, it is perfectly certain that before long, if matters do not go much more smoothly and much more rapidly in Connaught and in the West, an inquiry of some sort by a Committee or Vice-regal Commission will have to be made. The Act of 1903 was a great measure, and it was entrusted in its administration to three very able and capable men as Estates Commissioners. Have these Commissioners had fair play in administering the Act? It seems to me, my Lords, they have not. They are subjected to rules and regulations emanating from two sources—from Dublin Castle and from the Treasury. These unfortunate Commissioners are the servants of two masters; they have to obey the rules coming from these two sources, which may coincide or conflict or be altered or changed from day to day.
  The regulations lately issued under the Lord-Lieutenant's name appear to me, in one or two particulars, to be exceedingly objectionable. The first regulation it is not necessary for me to read at length. The gist of it is contained in the last three lines—
  No vendor or class of vendors shall be given any undue preference over any other vendor or class of vendors.
  692
  That seems perfectly right and just but things are not always exactly what they seem; and I think if your Lordships will consider the matter a little you will find that that regulation will not work out in the way that it is intended to Roughly speaking, it may be said that there are three distinct classes of estates sold in Ireland—bankrupt estates in the Land Court, estates which are sold to the Estates Commissioners, and estates which are sold by the landlord direct to the tenant. Nearly all of the vast number of originating applications are in the latter category. I should have thought that it was obvious that the proceedings in the Land Court ought to be expedited as much as fairly and legitimately can be done. Mr. Justice Ross has publicly stated that his Court is completely blocked for want of money, and, if only on the ground of economy, the sooner the bankrupt estates are cleared off and the Land Court closed the better. But the Court is already blocked, and it will be impossible for any money, or any sufficient sum of money, to be allocated to the Land Court until this vast accumulation of originating applications for sale direct from landlord to tenant have been disposed of; and at the present rate of progress that will be a matter of probably six or eight years. Is it sensible or wise to allow a deadlock to take place in the Land Court, and offer no means whatever whereby that can be removed?
  Then, my Lords, there are sales to the Commissioners. Sales to the Commissioners have scarcely taken place at all. They are very few in number. I do not in the least know why that should be the case, except it be that landowners are afraid that the Estates Commissioners would largely reduce the price which they would otherwise obtain from their tenants. Now, sale to the Commissioners has many advantages. It has advantages to the landlord; it saves him a great deal of responsibility and trouble, and the Commissioners have to pay him 3½ per cent. after the sale is completed pending the distribution of the money. It has most decided advantages, to my mind, to the tenant, and it gives the Commissioners considerable powers of dealing with the cases of evicted tenants and making

  693
  improvements. That part of the Act has been scarcely used at all. It is quite certain that Parliament was under the belief that that method of sale would be largely resorted to, and evidently wished that it should be largely resorted to. But it has not been, and if this regulation is to remain in force it never can be, because landlords desiring to sell in that way will practically have no opportunity of getting their cases heard until this vast number in the other category have been disposed of.
  It is true that the Estates Commissioners are given a certain latitude; they can postpon or accelerate dealing with any particular estate or untenanted land if they see fit. That is a discriminating power which; personally, I dislike. I do not see why the Estates Commissioners should be given power to accelerate or retard proceedings in regard to any particular individual or any particular estate. But, at any rate, that provision cannot affect the main question, and my contention is that the regulation stating that practically the first comer has to be first served will not work out fairly or well, and that whatever money is available should be divided in some way proportionately amongst these three categories of estates. A certain amount should be allocated to the Land Court, a certain amount to the Commissioners for the purchase of estates, and by far the larger amount should be allocated to estates sold direct from landlord to tenant.
  The second regulation deals with the question of intimidation. In the first place I am bound to say it seems to me a rather trivial and childish way of dealing with a matter of that importance to say to these men, "Oh! you naughty boys, go to the bottom of the class." I do not think that is the proper way to treat them. But what I object to is that it appears to me to be imposing duties on the Estates Commissioners which they cannot possibly fulfil, and which ought not to be imposed upon them. The Estates Commissioners have to ascertain whether direct or indirect intimidation has been exercised, and if they think it has, then the estates are to go to the bottom of the list. Indirect intimidation is not a very easy thing for anyone to define,
  694
  and this seems to me a rather improper task to impose upon the Estates Commissioners. Of course, there has been a great deal of pressure used on both sides. A great deal of pressure has been used upon tenants to be true to their class and not to set a bad example by offering too good a price, and a great deal of pressure has been put on the landlords for the same reason, to be true to their class and not set a bad example by accepting a low price. That does not amount to intimidation, but it amounts to considerable pressure.
  The pressure of social influence can very often be very severe. But how are the Estates Commissioners to determine whether indirect intimidation has been used or not, and what are they to do if they differ in this matter from the ordinary Courts? There are a number of men to be tried on charges of intimidation by special juries. If the special juries find them guilty and the Estates Commissioners look into the matter and think there has not been intimidation, which is the superior authority, will the estates in question have to be sent to the bottom of the list? It appears to me you are placing the Estates Commissioners in an absolutely absurd position. No doubt a certain amount of intimidation has been exercised. I accept it on the authority of the responsible Minister that a certain amount of terrorism exists which must be dealt with. Stop that by all manner of means, but I do not think that regulations of this kind will have the desired effect.
  Consider for a moment what the effect will be on the landlord. The landlord may be perfectly willing to sell his estate, and the bulk of his tenants may be willing to buy; you place it in the power of any scoundrel who happens to write half-a-dozen anonymous letters to have the Commissioners come down and say that intimidation has been used and preclude the landlord from selling his estate for, say, the next ten years. It seems to me pretty hard that the landlord should not be allowed to sell his estate because the Estates Commissioners would be obliged to say that intimidation had taken place. That is not the way to deal with a question of this kind. I have not a word

  695
  to say against any steps that the Executive think necessary to put down terrorism and to stop intimidation, but this much I will say—that if there was a similar state of things in England, if a great Bill had been passed for the benefit of the English people to put an end to a perennial source of trouble, and if that measure conspicuously failed in an important part and disorder arose, I have not the slightest doubt but that Parliament would back up the Executive in putting down that disorder, but would also insist on getting such information as would enable it to judge whether in the Act itself or in its administration there was any fault which had caused the Act not to work in that direction and to which the disorder might possibly be traced.
  I should like some information as to regulation No. 3, because, if I read it aright, appears to me to practically amend the Act. Regulation. No. 3 is as follows—
  "Having regard to the provisions of Sections 2, 4, and 8 of the Act, and of the enactments repealed by the Act, untenanted lands when purchased by the Estates Commissioners, whether they form part of an estate sold or have been acquired under the provisions of Section 8, should be utilised for the enlargement of the uneconomic holding of agricultural or pastoral tenants, or for providing lands for the persons or for the purposes described in Sections 2 and 4 of the Act, and not for the purpose of creating tenancies for the benefit of, or making allotments to, persons other than those described in the said last-mentioned sections.

  (a.) The Estates Commissioners should only consider the question of providing a holding for a tenant evicted from any holding comprised in an estate upon the sale of that estate, and where there is untenanted land available for such purpose either comprised in an estate or acquired by the Commissioners under Section 8 of the Act.

  (b.) In considering the said last-mentioned question preference and special consideration should be given to those cases in which the tenancy was lost, not owing to inefficiency or negligence on the part of the former tenant, but in consequence of some general rent dispute."

  Sections 2, 4, and 8 of the Act are the sections to which this regulation applies. Section 2 enumerates the persons to whom advances may be made; Section 4 deals with powers of trustees; and Section 8 gives the Estates Commissioners
  696
  power to acquire land without placing any particular restriction upon them. That is quite clear from the section. But this regulation does put a restriction upon them. They are obliged to use that land for the specific purposes mentioned here, and they can have no object whatever in purchasing unless they can use it for those specific purposes. They can only use such land for the purpose either of reinstating a tenant evicted from that particular estate, or for the benefit of a tenant on that particular estate, or for the son of a tenant on that particular estate, or to add to a holding not exceeding a rateable value of £5 in the immediate neighbourhood of the estate;: and I believe the legal meaning of neighbourhood is almost absolutely touching the estate.
  I am not personally well acquainted with that part of the country, but is it not a fact that there are tracts of good grass land from which no tenant has been evicted during the last twenty-five years, which have, not been tenanted, at all for long periods of time, and in which there are no holdings belonging to the same estate under £5 valuation in the immediate neighbourhood according to the legal interpretation of the term? If that is the case—and I believe; it is the case—landlords may be perfectly willing to sell this land and the Estates Commissioners may be most ardently desirous of buying, but they cannot, because if they do they can do nothing with it. They are not allowed to use it in the way the Act intended they should. The regulation restricts them to using the land in a particular manner. The effect of that is to absolutely stop migration. The Estates Commissioners cannot buy these lands and remove people from any distance to them, and therefore cannot make room in the congested portions of the country to enlarge uneconomic holdings; and the practical effect of that regulation will be to make it almost impossible for the Estates Commissioners to carry out the intentions and the wish of Parliament by turning uneconomic holdings in the West of Ireland into holdings of at any rate a tolerably economic character. That regulation, to my mind, is tantamount to repealing

  697
  clauses in the Act, or, at any rate, to very seriously altering clauses in the Act; and I do protest against the Executive making rules and regulations which, can have such a serious effect on the Act as to thoroughly frustrate and stultify the obvious intention of Parliament in passing it.
  If this regulation, with the others, continues to be acted upon, the Act will, of course, work, but it will affect mainly, if not solely, the sound and economic properties. It will affect only the healthy part of the body politic. The unhealthy parts—the parts of the country where the disease is acute, where Parliament recognised that the disease was acute and the remedy urgent—will be entirely left out, and Parliament need not be disappointed if the Act does not come up to its expectations. This kind of regulation, interfering with the intention of Parliament to apply a remedy where a remedy is most urgently needed, is certain to cause discontent and possibly disorder. Regulations of this kind are really playing directly into the hands of those who favour disorder and make it more and more difficult for those—and I am sure they are the great majority of the people of all classes in Ireland—whose earnest desire is to see the Act carried out and fulfilled according to the conciliatory spirit which animated the Land Conference which preceded the Act. The Estates Commissioners are forbidden to make grants although they are ordered to do so by the Act. They are told they are to pick out among candidates and aspirants men who are the best farmers and so on, and they are not to make advances to any man who is in such a position that he could get a loan from the Local Government Board. I should have thought that the Estates Commissioners had enough to do as it is, but, in addition, they have to act as a kind of Court to ascertain whether intimidation takes place or not. They have to sit as an examining board in the matter of scientific agriculture, and they have to find out whether a man can or cannot get a loan from the Local Government Board.
  I quite admit that at the bottom of all the trouble, and the real cause of the
  698
  difficulty, is the lack of money. The staff at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners is utterly insufficient. I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from what was said the other day at a special meeting of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. Mr. John P. Lynch made a very important speech in which he stated—
  "They (the solicitors) were not allowed to lodge their abstracts of title, although these were sworn and ready, until the prima facie titles had been first passed. The prima facie titles that were being read in the present week were titles that were lodged on August 7th, 1904."
  Further on he said—
  "Originating applications that were lodged last February were only being opened now, and on June 1st there were 10,000 agreements that had not been posted in the ledgers for collection of interest. Why? Because there were ten men doing work that required seventy. At present there were 5,000 applications in which interest due on the 1st of last May had not been sent out. He had in his own office twenty-four originating applications in which the abstracts of title were sworn and ready to be lodged, and the earliest of which was in. September 1904 but he was not allowed to put them in. The examiners would not be allowed to read the applications."
  Is not that a perfectly scandalous state of things? And all that delay, confusion, and trouble is caused for the lack of perhaps twenty or thirty additional clerks. I believe it would be true economy to facilitate in every way the working of the Act. We have now the Land Judge's Court, the Congested Districts Board, the Land Commission, and the Estates Commissioners all employed upon very much the same work, all engaged in fixing or unfixing rents, selling estates, or proving titles, and until this revolution is completed and the transfer made, all these boards and Courts will go on sitting at enormous expense. My impression is that if the whole transfer could be completed in the next five years the loss which would be sustained on flotation would be more than recouped by the saving of the expense of all these Courts and boards which at the present rate will continue to be working for the next twenty-five, thirty, or forty years.
  The lack of money is dangerous. Take this very case of Connaught to which I alluded a little while ago. How on earth can the owners of these grass lands be expected to sell unless they can form

  699
  some kind of idea when they are to give up possession? They cannot stock them at the risk of having to clear off the stock at any moment. Delay will be very fatal to the working of the Act. In every part of Ireland the basis of nearly every agreement between landlord and tenant lies in the investment that the vendor can make of his purchase money. He founds his agreement upon what he can do with the purchase money when he gets it. He will probably invest a considerable portion of it in paying off incumbrances on which he is paying 4 per cent., 4½ per cent., or 5 per cent., and the balance in trustee securities. That is the foundation of his agreement; ninety-nine out of every hundred of these originating applications are founded on that basis, and if the man cannot get the money what is he to do? He cannot pay off his incumbrances. That was clearly put at the meeting of the Incorporated Law Society which took place in Dublin the other day. Mr. Fry put the position very clearly in these words—
  "Tenants will not consent to purchase unless they can get an immediate benefit by a speedy reduction in their annual payment; vendors with liability on personal covenants, will not run the risk of having their furniture seized at the suit of their creditors, or being pressed on foot of their everyday legal and necessary obligations; and middlemen, paying heavy head-rents, but who desire to sell, will not subject themselves to the chances of having their land ejected pending the sale by reason of the non-payment of their rent.… I am not using language too strong when I say that it is intolerable. The public are affected as well as vendors, purchasers, and incumbrancers. The tradespeople cannot get their accounts paid, and commerce in daily life is restricted. All classes of the community are inconvenienced by this present position."
  I think that places the case as clearly as it can be placed.
  It is perfectly certain that lack of money to finance the Act is causing infinite trouble. Landlords are placed in this position. Either they must decline to sell and are called preposterous persons who ought to be made to sell, or they must go back on the bargains which they have already made, or, worse than all, they have to ask higher terms from their tenants than they would otherwise demand. They must protect themselves against the expense involved in this long and interminable delay, and the result is
  700
  that all over Ireland landlords are asking considerably higher terms from their tenants than they would otherwise have been willing to accept if they could have relied upon getting their purchase money within reasonable time, and if the whole thing could go through, as it ought to, without these great delays. It was pointed out, in the quotation I have read, that interest is not being collected by the Estates Commissioners. They are letting the tenants get into arrear. How are they going to get those arrears made up? And the interest that is obtained is not handed over to the landlords. They are getting things in that office into such a muddle and mess that it will be almost impossible to extricate them.
  I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long on a very dry subject, but it is a very serious and important subject. It is not, however, for me to attempt to suggest any remedies. I object to the rules and regulations for the reasons I have given, but I admit that the root of all the trouble lies in the lack of sufficient money to reasonably finance the Act. I can imagine that arrangements might be made to relieve the landlords. I should think that with the assistance of the Treasury something in the nature of a certificate promising to pay within reasonable time might be issued; and I should imagine that private effort could produce a trust sufficiently strong to stand between the State and the landlord and the incumbrancers—in fact, that means might be devised for the State either to finance the landlord or assist him to finance himself during the time he has to wait for his money. I do not know whether that is practicable or not. I have heard it stated that there was an idea of offering scrip instead of cash for a portion of the purchase money. Whether that can be of use or not depends on the terms under which the scrip would be issued. I do not see how in the present state of the market it would be possible to avoid making a loss, which must fall on somebody, and if it falls on the landlords I need scarcely tell your Lordships that it will react on the tenants. The more expensive you make it for the landlord the more expensive you make it for the tenant.

  701
  Estates to the value of £27,200,000 have been applied for, and estates a little over the value of £7,200,000 have been distributed. That is an absolute dead-lock. What is to be done to relieve it? I am not by any means a financial expert, but my own impression is that the system of making frequent small loans is not a good one, and I believe money would be procured more cheaply if we had larger loans at longer intervals. I believe if you went in for sufficient money to carry out the Act for a year or two it could be had more cheaply than a succession of loans of £5,000,000 each year. Of course I am aware that there was an understanding that not more than £5,000,000 a year should be raised during the first three years. That is not in the Act; it was an understanding, but not one of a binding character, and it should be relaxed by mutual agreement. I think it was a mistake in the Act to place the loss on flotation on the Irish Development Grant. This grant was an equivalent grant to be devoted to educational purposes, and I do think it was rather a small-minded matter to place the whole of the loss on flotation on that grant. After all, the Act, although its operations were confined to Ireland, was for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom, and the taxpayers of the whole of the United Kingdom pledged their credit for it.
  I do not know whether His Majesty's Government have any plan in their heads, or have arrived at any conclusion whether anything practical can be done to relieve the deadlock and allow the Act to work as smoothly as it should. We know that His Majesty's Government have been seriously considering the question, but unfortunately when Government seriously considers a question it does not always follow that they come to any particular solution of it. Of this I am certain, that the Act will not succeed as it ought to succeed, will not fulfil the expectations and hopes of Parliament or of the people of Ireland, unless its operations can be expedited in dealing with, the uneconomic problem in Connaught and with the reinstatement of evicted tenants. Of course the Act will go on creaking and groaning in every joint, and the problem will, in course of time, be solved, but it
  702
  seems to me a lamentable thing, a most pitiable thing, that more than half of the value of a measure so enormously potential for good should be lost simply for the lack of sufficient funds to finance the Act with decent rapidity. I sincerely hope your Lordships, if not tonight, at any rate before this session is concluded, may hear that His Majesty's Government, have devised some means for remedying this state of things.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I do not propose to follow my noble friend through the many points he has brought forward in his able and exhaustive speech, but there are one or two on which I should like to make a few remarks. My noble friend took great exception to the regulations that have been lately issued to the Estates Commissioners, especially to regulation No 2 dealing with properties where intimidation has existed. I was suprised to hear his statement that the Commissioners would have difficulty in knowing whether or not there had been intimidation, and also at his saying that he did not understand what was meant by indirect intimidation. I really thought that the organised system of intimidation which has existed in a great many parts of Ireland was a matter of public notoriety. It is certainly not confined to the province of Connaught. There are certain districts in my noble friend's own county where intimidation has been pretty strongly exercised for some time. He is apparently unaware of the extent of it.
  We know that my noble friend's most active mind has led him lately to soar upwards into a higher region of politics; but now that he has, so to speak, come down to earth again and is devoting himself to an inquiry why the Purchase Act is not working as he would desire it, I think he ought to recognise that one reason why it has not worked, especially in Connaught, is this system of intimidation. So far as these instructions to the Estates Commissioners are concerned, they appear to me to be exceeding valuable. I ventured last summer to urge His Majesty's Government to adopt a somewhat analogous course,for I felt that if it

  703
  could be shown that intimidation did not pay and that the estates in connection with which there had been intimidation would be put at the bottom of the list, the result would be to largely put a stop to intimidation. Intimidation takes various forms, and is so ingeniously contrived that it is not always the case that a criminal prosecution can issue, even where the intimidation has been most efficient. The common course adopted—and this is what I think is meant by indirect intimidation—is that of issuing orders from the United Irish League to every grass farmer in the district to surrender his farm by the 1st of May. That was going on all through last spring, and many of those who refused to comply with the order were held up to public obloquy and boycotted, and people who worked for them were summoned before the court of the United Irish League—for this body, my Lords, holds regular courts— examined, and called upon to defend themselves for the crime of having worked for a man who had incurred the censure of the league.
  Your Lordships probably do not know to what extent boycotting can be carried, and what a powerful weapon it is. There is a small property not far from where live, consisting of a small demesne in the hands of trustees and occupied by a steward with a certain number of small tenants round about. These tenants were anxious, not only to purchase the holdings, but they demanded that this little demesne should be divided among them. The trustees objected to this, and as a result there was a boycott and that was carried to such an extent that nobody would have any intercourse with the steward or those who lived on the demesne; and during an acute fuel famine, although the people living around were given authority by the agent to collect timber on the demesne after the great storm of February last year, which they could have had for nothing, they would not go in. They, therefore, suffered from the boycott which had been instituted on their behalf. I mention this to show how strictly the laws of the United Irish League are observed.
  Indirect intimidation takes the form of calling upon the graziers to surrender
  704
  their lands in the hope that, if thus left derelict, they will be sold by the landlord and divided among the tenants. This, I take it, is what is meant by indirect intimidation as opposed to direct intimidation, exercised on the vendor. The fact that the Act has made slow progress in Galway is, I think, to be largely attributed to the intimidation that exists there. A landlord is approached by his tenants, who say they wish to purchase. He says to them, "I am prepared to sell your agricultural tenancies to you, and to divide any untenanted land in my possession among you; but I have other grass farms which are held from year to year and I am not prepared to dispossess those tenants as I think their interests ought also to be considered." Then it not infrequently happens that some land of his which is held under the eleven months system is given up by a tenant owing to threats from the United Irish. League. The landlord then says, "I said I was prepared to sell the untenanted land to you, but I did not mean land that had become untenanted owing to illegal pressure, and I refuse to go on with the negotiations." The tenants, on the other hand, when they hear they are not to get the whole of the grazing land, say they will go on as they are. I think that is a reason why the Act is not progressing. The demands of the tenants are exorbitant from their belief that all the grass land in the country is going to be divided among them.
  I should like to say a word about the grass land. My noble friend talked about prime grass land which people thought ought to be devoted now to the fattening of stock. Undoubtedly the prime grass land is better adapted for this purpose than for tillage, and it would not be useful to the smaller people if divided among them; it is stiff deep land and they would be unable to ill it with their imperfect method of farming. I know an instance now many years ago, where a landlord divided a good farm of the kind and gave his tenants about twelve or fourteen acres apiece. In about thirty years they were all so absolutely broke that he not only had to let them off several years rent but had to pay their passages to America. He

  705
  then relet the land to a grass farmer for nothing for a year in order to get it back as far as possible to its original condition, and it is now, as it was before, good bullock land. That is the case with regard to what I may call the prime pasture land in Connaught. But it is no doubt the case that there is a great quantity of second class pasture land which would be very well adapted for the purpose. My late father divided a farm of that character among small people, and they have done very well on it.
  Another difficulty that my noble friend referred to was that of migration, and that is one of the most difficult things that has been attempted. It was tried some years ago by a company smarted by the late Mr. Parnell, and failed absolutely. First, the people will not move to a distance; they all desire to remain where their fathers and grandfathers were before them; and, if they do move, the people of the neighbourhood into which they go do not receive them by any means with open arms. The Congested Districts Board purchased some time ago in the county of Galway a considerable extent of land, the idea being, it was said, to remove people there from the congested part of county Roscommon; but it was said at the time that if Roscommon farmers were taken into Galway there would be severe fighting, and it has never been done. The Board, I believe, now hold it as a grass farm together with other land, and are indeed stated to be at the moment the largest graziers in Connaught. The questions raised by the noble Earl present great difficulty, but I do not think that any part of the regulations to the Estates Commissioners will have the bad effect which he apprehends, while, taking them as a whole, I believe them to be most useful. I agree with the noble Earl that scrip would not be acceptable to landlords in place of cash.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am sure everyone in Ireland will be obliged to the noble Earl for having brought this matter forward in such a lucid speech, but there is one thing he omitted to mention, and it is that the
  706
  Estates Commissioners deserve the greatest credit for having been able to do as much as they have done considering the work entailed upon them and the little material they have had to work with. They have not been able to deal with labourers, with evict d tenants, or with untenanted land. Why? First of all they were put into offices where there was no room for them to do their work; then those offices were enlarged, and new they complain that they have not enough clerks. I ask, my Lords, is that fair? This is one of the greatest measures ever passed for the peace of Ireland, and yet we are hampered in a niggardly and miserable manner for want of proper office accommodation for our Estates Commissioners and lack of assistance in the short staff of clerks,
  The Report discloses what they have done and only hints at the real trouble lying at the root of this difficulty, which is the want of money. That this is so is clearly seen from the Report of the congested estates section and the Report on the resales of estates. The operation of the Act has been stopped because the Treasury do not choose to help its working. The noble Earl said it was not for him to suggest a remedy. Neither is it for me, my Lords; but there is one thing I may say at once, that no landlord would accept land stock at the price at which it now stands—namely, ninety-two—in place of cash. One of the great principles of the Act was that the landlords should be paid in cash, and if that offer has not been made, I venture to say the Act would never have passed at all. Coupled with that is also the bonus, which is another inducement. The noble Earl spoke of the interest not being collected by the Estates Commissioners. That, I must say, is a little fault connected with the Estates Commissioners. I will tell your Lordships what happened in my case. I have no reason personally to complain, because my estate has been put to credit, the money invested, and the matter closed. But they did not collect the interest in my case, and I wrote to say that if they did not do so I should have much pleasure in collecting, it myself, because the tenants had offered to agree to this. In consequence of that

  707
  the interest was collected at once, and has been punctually paid.
  The noble Earl then went into the question of the Land Purchase regulations. I agree with all he said on that matter, with this exception, that I cannot endorse his observations with regard to the question of intimidation. He knows, as well as I do, that intimidation enters into every aspect of our social life in Ireland, from the highest to the lowest; and I strongly approve of the Estates Commissioners having the power to find out if there has been intimidation. If they are not to find that out, who is to do it? If we are to wait for Judges and juries to find it out the estates would never be sold at all. It is the word that is passed in the market place, and the slight boycotting which stops everything in the details of a bargain, and which may have most evil effect. Therefore, with all due respect to my colleague in the Land Conference, I think in this matter he is wrong, and that the Estates Commissioners should have power to find out the presence of intimidation. I hope the House will understand that at the bottom of all the trouble in connection with the working of the Land Act is the want of sufficient money to carry it out in a proper manner. Moreover, there is not sufficient staff in Dublin to do the work, and the accommodation which is provided for the staff which now exists is most inadequate.
  *LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I should like to make one or two remarks as to the reason why grass farms have not been sold under the Land Act in Connaught. I do not intend to follow the noble Earl into the question, of economic holdings; there is a great deal to be said against enlarging uneconomic holdings. But I think the reasons why landlords do not sell grass lands are two—in the first place, because it is almost impossible to sell them direct to the tenant; in the second place, even if they were prepared to sell to the Commissioners, we must remember that the first thing the Commissioners do is to find out what price the tenants are willing to give, and the tenants generally value the adjacent grass land at the same price as their holdings, forgetting that in the
  708
  matter of grass lands there is a landlord's interest as well as the tenant's interest to consider. In addition to this the Land Commissioners have to consider the cost of dividing the lands, fencing, and making roads, and consequently the price offered to landlords is very much below the real value of the land as at present let. Landlords cannot obtain a good price for the grass lands, with which they are not desirous of parting, and I think this is the reason why they are not being sold.
  My noble friend seemed to think that excessive powers were given to the Estates Commissioners under the new regulations. I confess would rather put my trust in the excessive powers of the Estates Commissioners than in the excessive powers which we have seen wielded by the local leaders of the United Irish League. A late learned and witty member of your Lordships' House described these gentlemen as the two or three blackguards whom you find in ever Irish village and who call themselves the Irish people. I think that was a very true description. I hold that the grazing system has brought great prosperity to the parts of Ireland where it has been adopted, that it is the only industry which has ever suceeded there, and it is one for which the damp climate of the country makes it especially suitable. During last winter when the Government of Ireland had passed gently into the hands of that most distinguished and able Home Ruler the Under-Secretary, terrorism was rampant in many parts of the West. Since our present Chief Secretary has been in power a change has come over the spirit of the dream. The Under-Secretary has no longer the power which he had during the winter, and I am glad to say that we now see a great improvement in the condition of Ireland. Peaceable citizens are able to carry out their daily avocations without fear of consequences, and I think all Unionists and law-abiding Irishmen owe a great debt of gratitude to the Chief Secretary for the attitude he has taken up with regard to intimidation generally and in these regulations, of which I was sorry to hear my noble friend complain.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I rise to support what has been said by my noble

  709
  friend Lord Clonbrock regarding the intimidation clauses. I was a little surprised at the noble Earl's view of the present intimidation in Ireland, because I gathered from him that he is only convinced that intimidation does exist because a responsible Minister in Ireland his told him so. I venture to congratulate the noble Earl on living in an Irish paradise of the county of Limerick, wheer the Leaguers cease from troubling and the landlords and graziers are at rest. I am sorry to say that this happy state of affairs does not exist in the South and West of Ireland.
  The noble Earl says it is difficult to see how the Estates Commissioners can tell whether or not indirect intimidation exists, or how they are to convince them selves of its real existence. I would point out that there are many cases in which there is no difficulty whatever, and in such cases as that strong steps to prevent further intimidation would be of the greatest use. There is quite close to my own home a large grass farm which has been let for many years on the eleven months system. It was forbidden recently that this farm should be taken by anybody under the eleven months system, and in consequence the owner, a lady, was unable to find a tenant. She was giver to understand that the only way in which she could get a value for this farm was by selling it to the Congested Districts Board. Two very courageous people, however, undertook to take the farm on the eleven months system, and resolutions have since been passed on the subject by various local boards of guardians. In one resolution a board of guardians declared that they had heard with very great surprise and regret of the action of certain parties in taking this farm, and thus defeating the object of those who wished to see it purchased by the Congested Districts Board to enlarge the miserably small holdings of the tenants adjoining. That resolution, or a similar resolution, has been passed by several boards of guardians in the locality, and I venture to say that very few people will be found sufficiently courageous to work for those who have taken the farm on the eleven months system, and, that those who have taken it
  710
  will not be likely, when the eleven months are over, to renew the tenancy.
  In such circumstances, I think the powers which have been given to the Estates Commissioners under the new regulations could be easily and justly applied, and I therefore venture to think that the regulations as they stand now are amongst the most useful and necessary regarding intimidation that His Majesty's Government have introduced into Ireland. The knowledge that intimidation is discouraged is of the greatest use, because this is not meant so much as punishment for the offender but as a warning to others, and if people in Ireland know that intimidation will be severely punished they will hesitate before they repeat it. I admit that the intimidation clauses are broadly worded, but in a country like Ireland, where intimidation has been brought to such a fine art, it is absolutely necessary that the regulations should be broadly worded. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will tell us that they intend to proceed with these regulations regarding intimidation entirely unaltered.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOAR) OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I feel sure I shall not be contradicted when I say that we have had a debate of a most interesting character, in the course of which we have been afforded an opportunity of hearing from representatives of various parts of Ireland their opinions with regard to the action of His Majesty's Government in initiating those regulations which, after all, have been the main topic of debate this evening. The noble Earl who raised this question never addresses himself, either in your Lordships' House or in the country, to questions connected with Ireland without being listened to with the greatest respect, for he occupies a very prominent position in the South of Ireland and has devoted himself now for many years to watching over the interests and the welfare of that part of the country with which he is so closely connected and in which he is so highly respected. Though there are points on which I differ most essentially

  711
  from my noble friend, still I yield to none in my admiration of the way in which he has identified himself with movements which have for their object the peace and prosperity of Ireland.
  My noble friend rather deviated from the original notice he placed on the Paper, which was to call attention to the ad interim Report of the Estates Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and has devoted himself to criticism of the regulations that have been recently issued by the Lord-Lieutenant under the direction of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. The first attack, if I may use the expression with all deference, of my noble friend was with regard to regulation No. 1, which insists that there shall be absolute equality of treatment between all vendors. He challenged that and seemed, as far as I could gather, to wish that there should be some differentiation made between the various classes of vendors and vendees. I confess I am utterly at a loss to understand the argument put forward by my noble friend. I always understood that the sum of money allocated annually for the purpose of promoting the transfer of land was to be given on the principle of first come, first served; in other words, that those applicants who had, directly the Act was passed, taken advantage of it were to receive the benefit of their foresight. The idea that any vendor or class of vendors should be given any undue preference over any other vendor or class of vendors was absolutely contrary to the desires and wishes of His Majesty's Government in passing the Act of 1903, and therefore an opportunity was taken by the Irish Executive to point out once and for all that there was to be no differentiation whatever, but that those who applied first would be the first when the money was paid out to derive benefit from the Act.
  The regulation most criticised by the noble Earl is the second, or "intimidation" regulation. My noble friend, who spoke so eloquently on this subject, declared that it was not the duty of the Commissioners to find out who were guilty of intimidation; but I did not gather from him whether he meant to convey that, if intimidation was proved, those who were guilty of it were to be
  712
  placed on the same footing as law-abiding citizens. My noble friend seemed to consider that the regulation debarring those who were guilty of intimidation from deriving the benefits under the Act which would otherwise accrue to them was a new idea of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. Let me say at once that this is not a new principle. As long ago as 1898 the Congested Districts Board issued the following resolution—
  " We do not, however, intend to permit our desire to assist one class to lead us to participate in, or countenance, an injustice to another class. If the financial obstacles which at present stand in the way are removed in the manner suggested, we shall be prepared to purchase, at what appears to us to be fair value, any property or tenants' interest that may be freely offered to us or may be for sale in the Land Judge's Court, provided we tan see our way to utilise them economically for the purposes under consideration. But we hope it will be clearly understood that any attempt to bring undue or unfair pressure to bear on landlords or tenants in order to induce them to sell their properties will only defeat its own object."
  This was signed by the various members of the Congested Districts Board, and amongst the names is that of the temporary member, Father O'Hara. I mention this to show my noble friend that this regulation is not a new one. It has been the policy of His Majesty's Government all along, in permitting the transfer of land, to insist as far as they could on the transfer being carried out in an amicable spirit. Then, again, I would remind my noble friend that in 1900 the late Chief Secretary. Mr. Wyndham, in a letter to Lord (lonbrock wrote—
  "You are quite right in believing that the Government have not the slightest intention of countenancing any form of intimidation practised for the purpose either of coercing persons to sell who are unwilling to do so, or of depreciating the value of property with a view to prospective sale."
  My noble friend will probably ask, why is this intimidation clause inserted in the regulations? If he will tell me there is no intimidation whatever I shall be very glad to argue the question with him; but I think I shall be able to show that there has been such intimidation that it was the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to give this instruction. My noble friend behind me, Lord clonbrock, has given a practical illustration of what is taking place in the

  713
  county of Galway, of which he is lieu-tenant, and the Earl of Arran has told your Lordships his experience in the county of Mayo. I do not think, therefore, that my noble friend can say that this regulation was unnecessary or uncalled for.
  As far as I could gather from the remarks that have been made, there seams to be some doubt as to what is intimidation and how it is to be brought home. Intimidation is defined in the Act of 1887 as—
  "Any words or acts intended or calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or any fear of injury to or loss of his property, business, or employment."
  I will quote to your Lordships a letter, written by the United Irish League, which, to my mind, proves beyond all doubt that it was the duty of His Majesty's Government to guard against intimidation. It is a letter written by a secretary of the United Irish League to the Estates Commissioners, in which he says—
  "We, the members of the above branch of the United Irish League, beg to request the Estates Commissioners to fully ascertain and investigate into all the circumstances before any agreements are entered into as between Lord—and his tenants; and we hereby warn you to be prepared to accept the responsibility of any unpleasantness that may arise should any portion of the outside lands be scheduled as demense land."
  I do not know whether my noble friend considers that intimidation.
  THR EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I never doubted for a moment that there was intimidation; nor did I use any argument against dealing with intimidation. My argument was that the Estates Commissioners were not the proper persons to deal with it.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: As the noble Earl says he does not think the Estates Commissioners are the people to deal with it, I would ask who are to decide what is intimidation? I have here a number of resolutions, which I do not think I need read to your Lordships, that have been passed by branches of the United Irish League, which I consider are of a most intimidat-
  714
  ing character. Does the noble Earl propose that this Act, which was carried through both House of Parliament in order to afford a satisfactory and amicable settlement of this question, should be made void owing to intimidatory notices? I do not suppose there is anyone in your Lordships House who has advocated more consistently than I have the transfer of land from owner to occupier on terms amicable to both as a solution of the Irish problem, and I say that if that process is to be carried out in. an amicable spirit it must be safeguarded against intimidation. I hold that it was the bounden duty of the Chief Secretary and of the Lord-Lieutenant to insist upon regulations such as these being passed in order to prevent the intimidation which they believe is taking place.
  Now I pass to the third regulation, which was dealt with at considerable length by my noble friend. It is the regulation which deals with the question of reinstating evicted tenants in their holdings. My noble friend does not recognise the difficult position in which these dupes of the Plan of Campaign are placed. What my noble friend seems to think is that an evicted tenant can be reinstated at a moment's notice. That is an absolute impossibility. The Act points out that the question of the reinstatement of an evicted tenant can only be considered by the Land Commissioners when that estate as a whole comes before them; consequently to contend that the evicted tenants have not been fairly dealt with is to state an argument that cannot hold water. Even if the landlords desire that the evicted tenants should be reinstated, there are no holdings for them to go back to. These farms have been taken by others in the meantime. As my noble friend Lord Clonbrock has stated, the evicted tenants desire to remain in the county in which they lived before eviction, and they would not wish to be taken from, say, Galway to Wexford: they wish to live where they were born and bred. But, as I have said, there are no holdings for them to go back to. That is a matter which I think my noble friend ought to consider before he

  715
  talks so glibly about the reinstatement of the evicted tenants.
  My noble friend went on to speak of the necessity of enlarging the various holdings, and seemed to think that if they were enlarged it would be possible to reinstate the evicted tenants in some of these holdings. I speak subject to correction, but I am informed that the amount of absolutely untenanted land in Ireland in districts where the men would care to be reinstated is very small. Then, again, if you are to get this land in order to reinstate the evicted tenants you must make it worth while for the tenants in possession to go out. Their only alternative is to migrate to some other part of the country or to go abroad, but they are not going to be such fools as to give up their farms without receiving ample compensation for their tenant rights. Again, who is going to pay that compensation in order to replace an evicted tenant, who, through his own shortcomings, is not still in possession of the farm. The action of the landowners has not been to deal harshly with these people. Their action has been, as far as lay in their power, to assist in the reinstatement of tenants where they thought it advisable. We are told they have not done this. My answer is to refer noble Lords to the ad interim Report of the Estates Commissioners, in which they say—
  "In those instances where the Commissioners have required the owners to sell to them untenanted land other than demesne land in their occupation for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings the owners have invariably complied with their request."
  When my noble friend says the Act has failed because it has not reinstated the evicted tenants, I should like him to tell me definitely how he would propose to reinstate these people after the arguments I have put forward.
  There is one other point to which I must allude. It is said that however well the Act may have worked in other parts of Ireland, it has not been working well in Connaught. I quite agree that my noble friend was justified in drawing this deduction from the fact that the amount advanced for the purchase of land in Connaught was considerably less than that for the other provinces. But
  716
  there are two reasons for that. One of the reasons has been alluded to by my noble friend behind me—I refer to the intimidation that has existed in the province of Connaught with regard to the great grazing lands. But the second and principal reason why the same amount of money has not been taken up in Connaught as in the other provinces is that already a great quantity of land has changed hands. The conclusions sought to be deduced from the Estates Commissioners' Report are to a certain extent defective. It is overlooked that the Congested Districts Board has also been operating in Connaught. That Board, between the years 1896 and 1903, bought estates of the value of £582,000 and under the Act of 1903 they have agreed to buy estates of the value of £884,940. Moreover, a great many of the estates in Connaught have been sold in recent years under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 and otherwise.
  Each noble Lord who has taken part in this debate has justly laid stress on the fact that there is a considerable block in the progress of the working of the Act of 1903, and this has been clearly attributed to want of funds. I cannot, however, allow that the Act has been a failure; nor can I allow that the action of the staff is in any way deserving of censure. On the other hand, I consider the staff worthy of the highest praise. For many years past you have had land sold under the various Acts, but never has so much land passed from owner to occupier as during the time that this Act has been in force. It has been the ardent desire of the Irish Executive to facilitate that transfer so far as their power allowed them, and it must be remembered that they are restricted to a certain amount of money annually. They have never hesitated, when it was necessary, to augment the staff requisite for the administration of the Act.
  Undoubtedly the main cause of the block is connected with the question of money. When the Act was introduced the late Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged themselves that for the first three years they would not demand more than £5,000,000 a year to be advanced to

  717
  Ireland for the purchase of land. I believe that my right hon. friend the late Chief Secretary stated that after three years he hoped to mend the pace. That was his expression, and I have no doubt that after the lapse of three years it may be possible for that to be done; but I cannot make any pledge or promise in the matter. My noble friend Lord Dunraven stated that he knew His Majesty's Government realised the difficulties and the block which at the present moment are doing injury both to owners who have agreed to sell and to tenants who have agreed to buy. I am here merely to explain the position, and I can inform noble Lords that the Government are considering the question from every point of view, and realise as much as anyone of your Lordships the difficulties and hardships under which both owners and occupiers of land who desire to come to an agreement are suffering at the present moment. The Chief Secretary is considering how this matter can be met, and I understand that early next week my right hon. friend proposes to make a statement in the House of Commons on the subject.
  *THE EARL OF WESTMEATH: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I sincerely congratulate my noble friend Lord Dunraven on the excellent speech he made, and on the very different tone he adopted from that which he displayed on the last occasion that he addressed your Lordships on Irish matters. It is a very good sign, I think, of the improved condition of the country under its new Administration that the noble Earl should take such a tone, and with the exception of his remarks upon regulation No. 2, I think he said very little I with which we cannot all agree. In fact, if his mental development continues to progress, I see no reason why he should not in time become a useful and valued member of the Landowners' Convention. My reason for rising tonight is to express my disappointment that the noble Marquess who has replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government has not been able to give us any encouragement with regard to the money question, which is really at the bottom of the whole
  718
  difficulty. Intimidation and other questions are all sufficienly serious, but at the bottom of the whole difficulty is this question of cash. If a landlord sells, he only gets 3½ per cent, interest on the purchase money, minus the bonus, and it is by no means certain that he always gets that. In the meantime, he may be paying, as I am paying, interest on heavy mortages at 5 or 4½ per cent. If that is to go on indefinitely, the position will be absolute ruination.
  The noble Marquess laid stress on the fact that an arrangement was made that only so much money was to be raised during the three years. That was made under a total misapprehension. The people responsible for the Bill did not think it would work in the way it has worked. I most sincerely think that it is the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to help us in this matter, even if it has to be done at a loss. We have been placed in this difficulty through no fault of our own. The Government have got us into it and they must get us out of it. The noble Earl alluded to taking pay me tit in stock instead of cash. The great inducement in the passing of the Land Act was that we should get actual payment in gold instead of land stock. I do not know whether any such scheme as that to which the noble Earl referred is in contemplation by the Government, but I think I can assure them that nothing will induce us to accept depreciated land stock in payment after the promises we have received. How could we possibly afford to do so? I speak strongly lest the Government, finding themselves in a difficulty, might possibly hit upon some such method as this and try to bring pressure upon us to accept it. I can say that nothing will induce us to do so, and we shall not submit tamely to such treatment as that. We were promised payment in cash, and we ought to get it. If it is true that the Chief Secretary is going to make a statement on this subject next week, I hope that he will realise that these are the views, so far as I have been able to gather them, of those who are entitled to speak as representatives of the Irish landlords.

CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY BILL. [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long by what I have to say about this very simple Bill. The matter is not new to your Lordships, and the provisions of the Bill are so obvious as not to call for very much explanation. The Bill has two quite simple and innocent purposes. It has been stated outside that this Bill is an instance of ecclesiastical assumption and arrogance, and an attempt to give new powers to the clergy as contrasted with the laity. The answer to that is perfectly obvious—read the Bill. It does not attempt to do anything of the kind. It gives no powers of practical action which Convocation does not now possess. What it does do is to give Convocation power to remove two obstacles which stand in the way of its doing its own internal work effectively. As regards the demand for the Bill, I may state that all circles of Churchmen who have made their voice heard on any of these matters have been, as far as I know, almost unanimous on the subject. The Houses of Laymen, bodies carefully chosen of representative laymen, as well as Diocesan Conferences lay and clerical, have with practical unanimity asked for it, and there is, as far as I know, no difference of opinion on the subject among men who take an interest in these matters.
  The Bill in its present form has already passed through this House. Four years ago it was introduced by my predecessor, Archbishop Temple, and the then Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, in advocating its Second Reading, said it might require further consideration at a later stage. It was accordingly considered most carefully, and was discussed clause by clause in Standing Committee, as may be seen by the verbal Amendment it received, and it subsequently passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House without difficulty. Convocation, whether we admire it or not, is an ancient factor
  720
  in English constitutional life. It has grown in usefulness during the last few years, partly for the reason that it has systematically devoted itself to the particular work which is its own special province, but its constitution is a little cumbrous and unsuited to present circumstances. In the first place, the Southern Convocation, the Convocation of Canterbury, is less representative than we would like it to be of the parochial clergy. We desire that there should be fewer ex officio members and more elected members; indeed, that as it is nominally a representative body it should be a little more thoroughly representative than it is at present. The Northern Convocation, perhaps, requires very little reform in this respect, but the Southern Convocation, still working on its ancient constitution, seems to require a good deal. At the present moment some lawyers are of opinion that there is uncertainty and possibly some technical legal difficulty about the Convocations sitting together to discuss matters in common. When the original system for the constitution of the Church of England, with its Convocations in York and in London, took shape, it was a matter of many days journey to pass from York to London, or from London to York. We now take a shorter number of hours than we then took days for the journey, and it is exceedingly desirable that occasionally these bodies should be able to sit officially together in order to discuss matters of clerical or ecclesiastical importance. That is practically all that the Bill sets itself to do. Let me make it perfectly clear that it does not claim for Convocation any power of action which Convocation does not possess now; no single power of any kind that it has not got today; and even for the process of the reforms I have mentioned in its own internal organisation the Bill ensures the most absolute recognition of the Royal supremacy in the matter. All that we ask in this Bill is that the House should declare that in case any doubt arises on the subject there should be power for the Convocations—with the Royal Assent to start with, and the Royal Assent to end with, and with all the steps carefully guarded—to take such, measures as are necessary to make its own internal organisation more workable. There are those in England.

  721
  who try to hamper the National Church in any reform of its system, because they dislike everything which promotes its efficiency. But that is not the kind of opposition which we have learned to look for in your Lordships' House. I can hardly suppose, therefore, that in this place anyone will take exception to a measure so moderate in its scope and so urgently demanded by those outside who have to deal with ecclesiastical affairs, and I would again remind the House that the Bill exactly as it now stands has already been agreed to by your Lordships.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  EARL SPENCER: I waited before rising to see whether the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would say anything on this Bill. I am afraid I cannot agree with the description of the Bill which was given by the most rev. Primate, though it may be the fact that the Bill is a very simple one brought in for a perfectly innocent purpose. It is quite true that the Bill passed through your Lordships' House some years ago, but there was hardly any debate upon it. There was. I believe, a slight alteration made in the Bill after it was introduced, but I think we may take it that this Bill and the other one are identical.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It was merely a verbal alteration, and was made in the House itself.
  EARL SPENCER: I quite agree; it did not alter the Bill in any sense. The Prime Minister of the day, Lord Salisbury, spoke on the Second Reading, stating that he thought it a harmless measure, and that, if there were any objections to it, it could be amended in Committee. It is quite true that that Bill eventually passed your Lordships' House. I have examined the Bill now before us, and I maintain that it is a very serious constitutional innovation. Under this Bill a Convocation which is strictly clerical may impose the law on the laity of the Church.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: No.
  EARL SPENCER: Well, that is an interpretation which has been put upon it by a legal friend of mine.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Will the noble Earl show me where the Bill does that?
  EARL SPENCER: It enables you to declare a new constitution, and the election of members to Convocation is to be regulated by Convocation itself. That imposes a new law on Convocation which indirectly affects the laity.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): It is clear that the canons of Convocation would not bind the laity.
  EARL SPENCER: But they have an important bearing on matters connected with the Church, and they, therefore, indirectly affect the laity. Another very serious matter is the proposal that if the King in Council approves a resolution of Convocation, then it should be as binding as an Act of Parliament. A material change in the law might thus be made without Parliament being consulted. There are a great many people in this country who hold strongly that if there is to be a material at alteration in the constitution of Convocation, that alteration should have the sanction and be directed by Parliament and not by Convocation itself. This is not such a very simple matter as the most rev. Primate thinks. It has been asserted that on occasions when the two Convocations have met together they have discussed very important matters, and on one occasion they came to the conclusion that there should be a complete reform of the law regulating ecclesiastical matters. There was one resolution passed, with only one dissentient, in which the opinion was expressed that the present tribunal which settles all the higher points of ecclesiastical law—namely, the Privy Council with Bishops added—should be altered, and that a Court should be constituted consisting of the Bishops of the land in which the lay element was very feebly represented. I cannot help thinking that this Bill looks like a step in the direction of making very serious changes in the law and giving Convocation greater power as against the laity

  723
  I feel strongly upon this matter, and I could not allow the Second Reading of the Bill to go through without raising this protest; and I am not at all sure that I shall not feel it necessary to divide against it.
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, it seems to me that there are grave objections to this Bill. It is not a very slight Bill, as the most rev. Primate described it. It is necessary to pass this Bill because otherwise Convocation cannot, owing to the statute of Henry VIII., alter its constitution; and, therefore, this Bill permits Convocation to do what is now contrary to the statute and custom law of the country. It may not be in this particular instance that any very large development of fresh powers is intended; but the principle is here and it is a priniciple which is capable of very formidable extension. We have had, of late years, too much legislation by Rules, Regulations, Orders in Council, and the like, and there is nothing, if this Bill becomes law, to stand between the passing of a new constitution which Convocation may frame for itself without any examination on the part of Parliament, nothing except the dissent of the Minister of the day. If the Minister of the day chooses to give his assent to the scheme, or to the power which is exercised under this Bill, then it becomes law without any investigation by, or authority of, Parliament. It may be that it is not a very important matter whether the Convocations of York and Canterbury meet together or not. Nothing very large would turn upon that. No one would desire to prevent the Convocations meeting together as, and when, they please, but the objection that I take to this Bill is that it introduces an absolutely new principle which is capable of far wider application. The most rev. Primate said the laity were not affected. That is partly true, but it is not wholly true. Let me give the most rev. Primate an instance. Convocation may, according to this Bill, reorganise itself, and in its newly reorganised state it can do things that certainly affect the laity. It can, for instance, dictate to the clergy at what hours they shall marry the laity.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: No, no.
  LORD COLERIDGE: The most rev. Primate may be accurate, but I do not think so. They could alter, so far as the clergy were concerned, the hours at which they could perform the matrimonial rite. At any rate, in whatever form the sit, their actions must have a bearing upon the laity. It may be that in many cases they may have very little bearing, but I can conceive cases in which they would have a great bearing; and therefore, we have in this Bill an attempt to enable Convocation to override the statute law of the country and reconstitute itself in a manner which has hitherto been impossible and which may vitally affect the laity. As I strongly object to the principle of the Bill, I hope the noble Earl will persist in his intention to divide against it.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, if I had the fears entertained by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition I should certainly be inclined to vote with him against the Bill, but it appears to me that the objections to the measure have been greatly exaggerated. I do not think it will have any of the fearful effects which the noble Earl appears to imagine. The Bill, so far as it goes, is in my humble opinion a good Bill. I am no great admirer of Convocation as it is, and if this Bill does anything it certainly will improve it. In the first place, it will give a better representation to the parochial clergy, which is very much to be desired; and, in the second place, Convocations will be allowed to meet together. I think it would be a good thing if, instead of talking miles apart, they were to meet together and discuss things in a practical way. The only direction in which the statute law can for one single moment be said to be over-ridden is that they may obtain leave by Order in Council that the two Convocations should meet together, and that is such a good thing that I shall support the Bill.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I can assure the most rev. Primate that I am not one of those who desire in

  725
  the slightest degree to hamper the action of the Church. I believe our Church as a State Church is a great blessing to this country, and anything I can do to strengthen it in its action for good I am only too willing to do. I am sorry, therefore, to have to criticise, the Bill the Second Reading of which has been moved today by the most rev. Primate. I have the utmost confidence in his broad view in respect of Church matters, and I am sure the interests of the Church and of the people are safe in his hands; but I have one or two objections to this Bill. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Coleridge, rather overstated the effect of the Bill. I do not think for one moment that any canon passed by Convocation under the Bill could alter anything approaching the doctrine of the Church. I understand that the Bill is confined simply to giving power to Convocation itself to effect alterations in its constitution and in the mode of election of its members, but, even with that moderate reading of the Bill, I take exception to it on broad principle. I believe there was no result of the Reformation so great as that which placed the Church in this country under the control of Parliament; and anything that is done to weaken the power of Parliament in controlling the Church will, in my opinion, be injurious to the Church itself, and lessen the support of the people of this country. We should not cast doubt upon the power of Parliament in any way, or lessen the power of Parliament in dealing with the Church.
  May I venture to suggest to the most rev. Primate that, if there is this evil existing in the constitution of Convocation, the representatives of Convocation should come to Parliament and ask for a remedy to be made. There would, I am sure, be no hostility. I believe there would be no attempt to hamper the passing of such a Bill, but, on the other hand, there would be a strong desire to enable full reform to be carried out where necessary. In such a case Parliament would be on its honour to do its duty, and would not refuse to grant the reform needed. I read this Bill in this way, that if it were passed and Convocation, ever so foolishly went wild in its views of
  726
  sacerdotalism and carried a measure which the country as a whole thought a great evil, the power of Parliament to remedy that would have been taken away. Whilst this is a very small measure as it is now drawn up, it raises the question which shall be supreme, the Church within itself or Parliament outside the Church.
  Convocation cannot act independently. There is, of course, the check of the King in Council; but what does that mean? It means simply the Minister of the day. At any rate, it is putting individual responsibility in place of the responsibility of Parliament, and I confess, without endeavouring to make too much of this Bill, I cannot help feeling that the importance of the measure has been much under-rated. There is this practical question, What course are your Lordships to take? I could not myself give support to this Bill, but I would deprecate any division on the Second Reading. I would, therefore, suggest to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, sharing with him the view he entertains, whether it would not be more fair, no notice having been given to the most rev. Primate that a division would be taken, that the Bill should be read a second time, and the further criticism reserved till another stage.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, this is a Bill which does involve an important principle, and I should like to ask the most rev. Primate for a further explanation of the phraseology of Clause 2, which is by no means clear. It may be that in each case the two Convocations would have to apply to the Crown for permission to meet together, but it seems to me that they might once for all ask leave to meet together whenever they pleased, and that that power, once granted, might be a continuing power to Convocations to combine whenever they liked. Is that intended?
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It has that intention.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: It is not intended that they should apply from time to time?
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: No.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Con vocations are little more than ecclesiastical debating societies, and this Bill would give them power only to make canons as to their mode of election and representation. It would not give them any power to mike general canons. But so long as you have an Established Church in England it is essential for the continuance of that Church that the power of the Crown and of Parliament should be effective. If you turn this ecclesiastical assembly into a body in which the democratic and ecclesiastical and sacerdotal elements are brought into greater contrast and possible conflict, the strain between the Church and the State is in danger of being very much accentuated. As I understand it, the idea is to have a synod of the National Church, a meeting of the whole Church, and not in provinces. If you do get leave from time to time to meet in what may be called by ecclesiastical organisations a synod of the Church, and if that synod does pass violent and extreme resolutions, we shall be told that they represent the living voice of the spiritual Church and must be taken as guidance to the faithful although they have not the force of canons, and ecclesiastical intimidation will be brought to bear against recalcitrant clergy. I have all along been an advocate of the separation of Church from State, and anything which accentuates the strain will to my mind quicken that result; but so long as we have an Established Church it is important that the absolute supremacy of the Crown, that is, of Parliament, should be maintained.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I acknowledge the very conciliatory language used in connection with this Bill by my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford. I noticed with pleasure one statement he made, that if hereafter it should be necessary to appeal to Parliament for specific powers to reform Convocation, that application would be considered in no hostile spirit. I hope it will not be necessary to appeal for such specific powers. If I am rightly advised, it is
  728
  questionable whether it is not possible for the Sovereign himself to give these powers to Convocation without the necessity of our coming to Parliament at all for the purpose. But it seems to me that the most rev. Primate, by the course which he has adopted, has desired to take Parliament completely into his confidence in this work of reforming the constitution of Convocation, and not to have recourse simply to the powers of the Throne alone.
  Your Lordships may have been impressed with the arguments from the other side of the House that this is a Bill for considerably increasing the powers of the clergy. On the contrary, it is a Bill which has been earnestly desired by the laity, and it is more from the point of view of the laity than that of the clergy that I desire to ask Your Lordships to support it today. It has been impossible in this House hitherto to refer to what the laity have already done by way of representation, but every effort has been made to bring the Houses of Laymen of the provinces of Canterbury and York into connection with the Convocations, so that the clergy and representatives of the laity may debate what is good for the Church. In the course of these discussions it has become clear that the Houses of Laymen are not yet adequately representative of the laity, and at the present moment a scheme is being carried through those Houses for the purpose of making them thoroughly representative. But the laymen turn to us, the clergy, and say, "If we are permitted to make our House more thoroughly representative of the laity, we ask you to see that your House of Convocation is made more thoroughly representative of the clergy." This is a reasonable demand. It is surely for the advantage of Parliament and the country that there should be a thoroughly representative body by which the mind of the Church can be authoritatively ascertained on any question. So far as the laity is concerned, no Parliamentary power is required. It is possible for the Houses of Laymen to be reformed in such a manner as I trust will make them thoroughly representative of the laity of the Church of England without Parliamentary power, but it is not apparently possible for

  729
  the Lower Houses of Convocation to be reformed without some kind of statutory recognition. It may be possible, but it is a legal point, and it is on the assumption that perhaps it is necessary to obtain some Parliamentary recognition that the most rev. Primate has introduced this Bill. If it is the case, therefore, that it is the laity who are really pressing for this reform, and not merely the clergy, then I venture to say it would not be a graceful act towards the laity to deny to them what they in such large numbers are asking.
  I myself, before I became a Bishop, was a Proctor of Convocation; I represented about 400 incumbents. When I became Bishop of Newcastle I found there were only 175 incumbents in that diocese, but they had four representatives, whilst I was the sole representative of 400 incumbents in the South. This is only a specimen of the anomalies which exist at the present time, and I venture to think it is not for the advantage of the Church that the anomalies should be allowed to continue. It is for the Church's advantage that there should be thoroughly efficient representation. This Bill confers no new powers whatever on Convocation. It is simply a Bill for the recognition of the right to reform Convocation and to permit the two Convocations to sit and confer together. I do not find one line in the Bill which confers fresh powers. The noble and learned Lord opposite spoke of the possibility of the clergy in Convocation altering the hours of marriage. The noble Lord must surely have forgotten that a special statute was needed to extend the legal hours of marriage from 12 to 3 and this is hardly consistent with the noble and learned Lord's contention that Convocation can fix the hours for marriage. The hours of marriage have been fixed by Parliament, and it seems to me that the view taken by the noble and learned Lord is altogether exaggerated. While there are points in the Bill which may require attention in Committee, I cannot but hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, surely the appeal of the right rev. Primate is the best possible proof that
  730
  further powers are being asked for in this Bill, because if there were no further powers asked for there would be no necessity for the passing of the Bill. I think the right rev. Prelate abundantly proved that Convocation required fresh I powers in order to enable them to do certain things. Convocation apparently desires to pass for itself a sort of Redistribution Bill in order that there may be better representation upon it. I think this is a very natural and a very desirable object; but the point we wish to make on this side of the House is that this is not a thing which should be given to Convocation to do. It would be an abrogation of the powers of Parliament. Parliament should itself exercise the powers demanded, and should take into its own hands the regulations and rules under which this redistribution should be made. It is not a question whether the powers are desirable or not. Most of us would agree that they are desirable; but we think they are powers which should be reserved to Parliament and should not be handed over to Convocation. I understand that the most rev. Primate did not expect a division to be taken, but on a Bill of this character I do not think notice of intention to divide the House should be expected. I do not think we should be doing anything unreasonable or unfair if we divide, and as we on this side of the House do feel somewhat strongly with regard to the Bill we shall be obliged to take a division upon it.
  *LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I should like to know whether my noble friend who has just sat down is aware of the fact that the existing constitution of Convocation is in no way due to Parliament. I speak under correction in the presence of so many noble and learned Lords, but I speak with absolute confidence when I say that I believe no single enactment can be found in the Statute book by which Parliament attempts to regulate the constitutional powers or action of Convocation. The two bodies are, and always have been, entirely separate and independent. But my object in rising was to appeal to the House to regard the question primarily from the practical point of view, although, of course, theoretical considerations cannot be altogether omitted. We have here an

  731
  admitted practical defect which this measure seeks to remedy. That evil is that the dignified clergy are over represented in Convocation—that the beneficed clergy are inadequately represented—and that the unbeneficed clergy are not represented at all. That is a practical evil. How do you propose to remedy it?
  Admitting the evil and the desirability of remedying it, what is the way in which that can be done? My noble friends Lord Tweedmouth and Lord James of Hereford have both appealed to Parliament to do it; but surely Parliament as at present constituted is one of the last bodies to which you would submit the details of a scheme for the reform of the constitution of Convocation. Is it to be debated in Parliament whether, curates are to have so many members or none, or in what proportions the dignified and beneficed clergy are to be represented? Is it to be supposed that, hard as it is to find time or its own work, Parliament would consent to frame a Clerical Constituencies Re-distribution Bill? I think everyone will admit that Convocation itself is better fitted to reform its own mode of election and representation than Parliament would be. Moreover, there is this objection to resort to on Act of Parliament, that it would be on the part of Convocation a surrender which you cannot expect from Convocation, and which Convocation ought not to make—a surrender of its claim to be a body entirely independent of Parliament. It is for that reason that this Act is formed in a declaratory manner. There are doubts whether Convocation has already the power to reform itself, but many able lawyers are of opinion that it has that power and might legally exercise it, and it is only ad majorem cautcham to make matters quite safe that it is thought desirable to bring in this Bill. I appeal to the House to look at the matter from the practical point of view rather than enter into theoretical considerations as to what might, in practically inconceivable circumstances, possibly result from it. If we are to have a division, do not allow it to be taken with a House such as that I see before me. Let the division be taken when there is a fair attendance, and when the decision may be
  732
  really representative of the views of the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it is desirable that I should call the attention of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition to the fact that in the present condition of the House, if there was a division and the Bill was rejected, I should, under the rules, have to declare that the question was not decided, and it would be adjourned until the next meeting of the House. No notice that the Bill was going to be opposed has been given. I do not say that that was absolutely necessary; but I am sure that if the most rev. Primate had supposed that there was to be a division he would have been supported by more than one right rev. Prelate. A division taken in the present condition of the House would be rather in the nature of a snap division. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  EARL SPENCER:I cannot agree to the second Reading, but I am prepared to consent to the adjournment of the debate.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Earl prefers that course, well and good; but I think it would be discourteous to insist on a division now.
  EARL SPENCER: I may say that I have no wish to do anything that is unusual or unfair, but I think I had a perfect right to move the rejection of the Bill. I did not consider myself bound to give notice to the most rev. Primate that I was going to oppose the Bill, but I shall be prepared, as I have said, to consent to the adjournment of the debate.
  Amendment moved—
  "That the debate stand adjourned."— (The Earl of feversham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to and further debate adjourned sine die.

DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, this Bill has passed through the House of Commons by a large majority. It was also committed to, and passed by, the Standing Committee on Law. The principal object of the Bill is to extend to Ireland the powers to the protection of persons and property against drankards which were given to England by the Licensing Act of 1902. I understand that there will be one or two Amendments put down when the Bill is in Committee, and I think it better, therefore, that I should postpone dealing with these points until we reach the Committee stage, which I hope your Lordships will allow me to take on Monday next.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBUKY): My Lords I have no objection to the substance of the Bill, but I think it right to inform the noble Earl that there are two provisions which I shall think it my duty to refer to in Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I wish to express my satisfaction that His Majesty's Government have not given any support to this Bill. I do not propose, in the present condition of the House, to move its rejection, but I protest strongly against the Bill. The noble Lord in charge of it did not state any grievance on the part of any particular individual on the ground of permission
  734
  not being given for public meetings, and we know, as a matter of practice, that it is usual to give leave for public meeting to be held in these schools; but it is a very different thing, in the case of schools which are erected and carried on by private individuals and managers, to make it compulsory that they should be available for public meetings. Those who promote this Bill think more about political agitation than they do about the interests of parochial schools, and I, for one, cannot believe that it is in the interests of the education of the people that these schools should be at the disposal of political agitators, who are empowered by it to go into a parish and say whether the managers of the school like it or not, that they must allow their school to be made the arena of political discussion. I did not like the Third Reading of the Bill to pass without making this protest.
  On Question, Bill read 3a. Drafting Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till Monday next, a. quarter before Eleven o'clock.