Sitting of 1 August 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [Lords]; Ordered, That, in the case of the Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into Consideration.— (The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill, as amended, accordingly considered: —
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London Squares and Enclosures Bill [Lords]; Ordered, That, in the case of the London Squares and Enclosures Hill [Lords], Standing Orders 84. 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into Consideration.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill, as amended, accordingly considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(King's
1024
Consent signified.)—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Rutherglen Burgh Order Confirmation Bill; Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
They have agreed to—Amendments to: Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords]; Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill [Lords]; Nettle-bed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [Lords]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.

THE LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Mr. Speaker, May I be allowed to use this, the only public opportunity we have had of thanking the owners of London squares and gardens who have come within the terms of this Bill for their kindly, I generous, public-spirited, and neighbourly attitude in connection with this matter. I wish to thank them for the generous manner in which they have agreed to permit their squares and gardens to be used in the way proposed by this Bill.

PETITIONS.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.
  Petitions for legislation; from Barry; Chorley; and Middle Claydon; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Sale, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Latimer Road, London; and, Llanfabon; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 30th July] to be printed. [No. 297.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Copy presented, of Draft Ballot Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District Council of Portadown, and confirmed by the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland, closing shops on certain days within the Urban District of Portadown [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 9, 1906.)
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and China, respecting Tibet. Signed at Peking, 27th April, 1906 (to which is annexed the Convention between the United Kingdom and Tibet, signed at Lhasa, 7th September, 1904). Ratifications exchanged at London, 23rd July, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented of first Report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, for the year ending,31st March, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the City of Bath, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for Barbers' and Hairdressers' Shops within the city [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAY ORDERS.
  Copy presented of Report of the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under the Tramways Act, 1870, during the session of 1906 [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 construction of Light Railways in the parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln, from Wintering-ham to Barton-upon-Humber and from Whitton to Alkborough, in extension of the North Lindsey Light Railways (North Lindsey Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the Urban District Council of Barking Town to take lauds for the purpose of widening a road on which a Light Railway, authorised by the Barking Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1903, will be laid in the Urban District of Barking Town, in the county of Essex (Barking Light Railways (Lands) Order, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (FOREIGN LABOUR STATISTICS).
  Copy presented of Third Abstract of Foreign Labour Statistics by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 5th April; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 298.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts.) Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 299.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 300.]
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative county of Devon). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 301.]

  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF KENT).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of Inclosures of common land made under the Inclosure Acts from 1845 to 1899 in the county of Kent; (2) list of parishes within which such lands are wholly or partly situate; (3) total acreage of such Inclosures; (4) average acreage of such Inclosuros."— (Mr. Rowlands.)
  EAST INDIA.
  Address for "Return for the five years 1898–1892, showing the number of Native States of India having an area of more than 100 square miles each, which were, during the above period, under the administrative control of political agents on account of the infancy or incapacity of their chiefs; and what has been the increase in their number during the five years covered by the Return."—(Mr. Morton.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Gourock Town Council and the Ratepayers.
  MR. TORRANCE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in March last the town council of £rourock bought half an acre of ground at a cost of £6,750; that the resolution, under Section 99 of The Town Councils Act, 1900, authorising the purchase, and also the subsequent resolutions of the council approving the action of the committee, are headed in the minutes, sites for burgh purposes; that on March 22nd last an official statement was made by the council that the ground had been bought for the erection of a court hall, burgh offices, and a town hall; and will he say whether, before making the purchase, the town council complied with Sections 306 and 315 of The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and gave the ratepayers an opportunity of voting on the question of the purchase; and whether, seeing that expenditure on ground for a court hall, etc., falls to be borne by the general improvement assess-
  1028
  ment; that that assessment is in Gourock within ½d. per £ of the statutory maximum and is unable to bear the cost of the purchase; that the town council have paid the cost by borrowing under The Public Parks Act, 1878, the rate under that Act being unlimited; and that Section 44 of The Burgh Police Act, 1903, allows the erection in public parks of temporary buildings only, such as pavilions and shelters, he will say, in view of the statutory provisions in favour of ratepayers contained in Sections 306 and 315 of The Burgh Police Act, 1892, what stops he proposes to take to prevent a permanent stone building, such as a court hall and burgh offices, being erected on ground paid for with money borrowed under the Public Parks Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) As advised, I understand there is recourse for any ratepayer who considers himself aggrieved provided by the 96th section of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, and also at common law by way of interdict. As the matter may, therefore, come before the law courts, I am precluded from expressing an opinion in regard to the legality of the action taken by the town council.

  Grievances of Belfast Post Office Clerical Staff.
  MR. SLOAN; To ask the Postmaster-General if he can say when a reply will be made to the communication sent to him from the clerical staff at Belfast; and if it has been definitely decided to remove the Belfast headquarters to Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Before arriving at a final decision in regard to the proposed removal of the superintending engineer from Belfast to Dublin, I am considering the memorial from his clerical staff.

  Refusal of Gun Licences for Mr. Edmond Power of Dungarvan.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Orr, R.M., Dungarvan, has refused to issue a gun licence to Mr. Edmond Power, who is farmer and manager of a co-operative creamery; whether the refusal is based on the fact that the applicant was convicted some

  1029
  time ago for trespass in pursuit of game; and whether, seeing that the duty of a resident magistrate, under the Peace Preservation Act, is confined to the consideration as to whether the applicant may or may not use the gun for offences which have no concern with the preservation of game, he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the several cases in which Mr. Orr has refused applications for gun licences, on the ground that the applicants, in his view, would be likely to shoot game without having previously obtained a game licence.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that it is the fact that Mr. Orr has declined to grant to Mr. Power a licence to carry firearms. The power of issuing such licences is vested in the resident magistrate of the district. It would be contrary to practice and undesirable to state grounds for refusal in a particular case. Mr. Orr, however, informs me that he has never refused an application upon the ground that the applicant would be likely to shoot game without having previously obtained a game licence. I am not aware of any reason for bringing the matter to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

  Parcels Post Arrangement for Adare and Rathkeale.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can say when the regulations were made that parcels sent from Adare and Rathkeale by the afternoon train and reaching Limerick at 3.30 p.m. are to be despatched in a direct parcel mail to Dublin at 3.55 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays, and on other days at 11 p.m. on same day.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The arrangements mentioned in reference to parcels sent from Rathkeale and Adare have, I understand, been in operation for a great number of years.

  Case of Timothy Fitzgerald, 'Rural Postman at Athen, County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can say what has been the result of his inquiries into the case of Timothy Fitzgerald, rural postman in the district of Athen, county of Limerick, whose wages were reduced from 11s. per week to 6s. 6d. per week,
  1030
  and 1s. per week for cleaning bicycle, since the date of change from a walking to a cycling route; and whether he will allow him to use a bicycle of his own and fix his wages on a fair basis.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My inquiries in this matter are not yet quite complete. I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject at an early date.

  Inspector of Sheep Dipping for County Donegal.
  MR. T. L. COEBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture has been called to the appointment, by the Diseases of Animals Committee of the Donegal County Council, of an inspector for the compulsory dipping of sheep in the rural district of Glenties; will he say how many suitable men, with, long experience of sheep-dipping, applied for the position; has the person appointed any knowledge of sheep-dipping; what was his former occupation; whether he is aware that his brother is a county councillor and a member of the Diseases of Animals Committee which made the appointment; and will he say what action does the Department intend to take in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture have approved of the temporary appointment by the local authority under the Diseases of Animals Acts for county Donegal of inspectors of sheep-dipping for the various rural districts in the county, Glenties included. In the case of Glenties district the information before the Department does not show that there was more than one candidate for the appointment. The Department have not felt called upon to inquire into the qualifications or connections of any of the persons appointed. They do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Donegal local authority in regard to appointments of this kind.

  Board of Education and Eden Grove School, Holloway.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the President of the Hoard of Education whether his attention has been called to

  1031
  the correspondence between the Education Committee of the London County Council and the Rev. T. Carey, of Eden Grove, Holloway; was the permission of the Board of Education sought before the letter, dated July 12th, 1906, was sent by the London County Council; can he explain how the removal of one of the partitions contributes to the efficient working of the school, and, if so, why would not the removal of a like partition in the other room also contribute to its efficient working; and whether, in view of the expense caused by the changes required to be made, he will say who is to indemnify the managers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have made inquiries as to the circumstances referred to, and I find that the apparent inconsistency of the local education authority was duo to a misunderstanding. Their letter of July 12th was written to the managers in ignorance of the fact that the partition in question had already been erected, and with the object of relieving the managers of expenditure which it was not absolutely necessary for them to incur. I understand that in the circumstances the local education authority will not press for the removal of the partition.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the President of the Board of Education with reference to the correspondence between the London County Council and the Rev. T. Carey, of Eden Grove, Holloway, if he can say how it comes that sixty children on one floor divided into two classes of thirty each, separated by a partition, can be efficiently taught, whereas sixty children on the next floor cannot be effectively taught if they are so divided and accommodated; if the sixty children on one floor in one largo undivided room were transferred to the next floor and divided into two classes, and if the other sixty children were transferred so as to take the place of these sixty children, how comes it that the teaching would be still effective; and can he say what steps he proposes to take so that managers of schools may not be subjected to harassing and contradictory requirements.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The somewhat abstruse problems to which the hon. Member asks for replies raise ques-
  1032
  tions of educational administration into which the occasion of Question and Answer in this House does not appear to offer a suitable opportunity to enter. I think the essential purpose of the Question is met by the Answer I have given to the hon. Member's previous Question.

  Provision for Survivors of the Balaclava Charge.
  MR. DOBSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that appeals are being continually made in the Press for charitable assistance on behalf of twenty-nine needy survivors of the Balaclava light brigade charge; and whether he will consider the advisability of making sufficient provision from public funds for their maintenance in order that they may no longer be dependent upon any form of public charity.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Provision is already made for the award from Army funds of special campaign pensions up to 1s. a day to all necessitous survivors of the Balaclava Charge. In addition, grants are made from a fund administered by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Application should be made to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital in the case of any necessitous survivor who is not in receipt of any Army pension.

  Cleansing of the Royal Canal.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Royal Canal requires to be cleansed, and that boat owners using the canal complain of its condition; and whether he will arrange with the responsible parties that the canal shall be cleansed at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Board of Works that the ordinary maintenance of this canal, including cleansing, is being carried on. The Board are prepared to consider and inquire into any specific complaints which may be made to them by boat owners.

  Erection of Glass Houses in Phœnix Park, Dublin—Scottish Contractors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland

  1033
  whether he can state under what circumstances contracts for the erection of glass houses in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, were given to a Scottish firm; and whether Irish firms were invited to tender for the erection of these houses.
  (Answered by Mr. M'Kenna.) The Board of Works have informed me that these houses were urgently required and that the work is of a special character, both as regards the design, the details of construction, and the arrangements for ventilation. In these circumstances the Board gave the contract, after being satisfied that the terms were reasonable, to a firm of well-known specialists in this kind of work, who had executed contracts in the past to the Board's entire satisfaction. There are considerable building works in connection with the erection of the glass houses, and these, I understand, have been carried out either by Dublin contractors after tender or by the Board's workmen.

  Reinstatement of James and Geoffrey Ring of Lacka, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the Hungerford and Clorahn estate, Lacka, County Cork; whether the Estates Commissioners will state why they cannot take any action in respect to the application of James and Geoffrey Ring, evicted tenants, for reinstatement in their holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that after careful inquiry and consideration of the cases of James and Geoffrey Ring, they came to the conclusion that these applicants were unsuitable for restoration as tenant purchasers, and accordingly decided not to take any steps towards their restoration.

  Education of Blind Children in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a measure to afford the same facilities with regard to the education of the blind children in Ireland as exists in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It appears to have escaped the hon. Member's notice that I have already introduced a measure
  1034
  upon this subject. I refer to the Irish Education (Afflicted Children) Bill, which has been road a second time. The Committee stage stands on the Paper for 23rd October.

  Disappearance of Game from Ireland.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the injury likely to result to Ireland by the disappearance of game from a great part of the country; and whether, with a view to preventing the destruction of this national asset, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to ensure more careful attention to game licences, and game dealers' licences, and of compelling game dealers to obey the laws as to recording in their books the names of persons from whom they buy game.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The enforcement of the game laws is not a matter which falls within the province of the Irish Government. The police are directly prohibited by statute from enforcing the laws relating to the preservation of game. The matter of game licences concerns the Inland Revenue, and any question on the subject should be addressed to my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who answers for that Department.

  Punishment of the Ghaffirs of Denshawi.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Ghaffirs of Denshawi who protected the wounded British officers and took care of them until relief came have been punished.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I have no further information than that contained in the Papers already laid before Parliament.

  The Denshawi Affair and the Ombashi of Egyptian Police.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ombashi of Egyptian police, who accompanied the English officers on the day of the affray at Denshawi, gave evidence at the trial of the villagers of Denshawi; and, if so, by whom he was called on to give evidence; whether he has since been put on trial himself; and, if so,

  1035
  what are the charges against him; and before what tribunal is he to be tried.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Ombashi was called upon by the prosecution to give evidence before the court. I am not aware that he has himself since been placed on trial.

  The Anhui Mining Contract.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of his statement that the Wai-wu-Pu are endeavouring to overcome the hostility of the local gentry in connection with the Anhui mining contract, he would consider the expediency of affording effectual assistance to the Central Government to enable them to carry out the concessions and obligations into which they have entered in the past: and, if not, by what other method does he expect to secure the legal rights of British subjects in China.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Answer to the first Question is in the negative. I have nothing to add to the statement already made in regard to this concession to the effect that the efforts of His Majesty's Legation have been and are being directed to obtaining, by means of representations to the Central Government, permission for the promoters of the scheme to commence operations.

  Compensation for Injuries by Railway Accident to Mr. Winskil—Letter Sorter.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if the Post Office paid any part of the £700 recently awarded by the Caledonian Railway Company to Mr. Winskil as compensation for injuries received in a railway accident while engaged as a travelling letter sorter; and, if so, how much.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Postal Arrangements at Tollcross.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received representations with regard to the inconvenience of the postal arrangements in parts of Tollcross; and whether he will endeavour to give such increased
  1036
  facilities that it may be possible to reply to English letters on the day of receipt.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have the question of the improvement of the postal arrangements at Tollcross now under consideration, and I will communicate further with the hon. Member when the inquiries are completed.

  Publication of Report of Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state when the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis will be issued; and whether it is intended to make a definite statement regarding the communicability of bovine tuberculosis to man.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Royal Commission hoped that the Report which they propose to issue would have been published before the adjournment, but they now find that it will not be practicable to issue it before October. They think it necessary to include in the Appendix a larger amount of experimental detail than they anticipated, and to confirm certain important facts by-additional experiments, which are still under observation. I understand that a definite statement on the communicability of bovine tuberculosis to man will be made in the Report.

  Alcoholic Beverage to inmates of Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. WILES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Report of the joint Committee of the Throe Counties Asylum, near Arlesey, shows that 32,800 gallons of beer were brewed in the institution last year for the use of the inmates and staff at a cost of £933; and whether, seeing that the experience of the London County Council Asylums Committee has proved the percentage of recoveries to be greater where no beer is given, he will consider the advisability of recommending the joint Committee to abandon the practice of giving alcoholic beverages to lunatics, except under direct medical orders.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I am informed

  1037
  by the Lunacy Commissioners that the beer used at the Three Counties Asylum is given to the patients generally on Sundays only, when each patient has half a pint at dinner. On week days patients are encouraged to work by an. allowance of beer to those who work. As, however, the use of beer has been discontinued in most asylums, I will make further inquiry into the matter.

  London County Council Parliamentary Expenses.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will grant a Return showing the expenses incurred by the London County Council in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament during the last six years, stating in each case the title of the Bill and whether or not it became law.
  (Answered by Air. John Burns.) I would draw the hon. Member's attention to a Return made to an Order of the House of Lords in 1903 (No. 214), which gives particulars of the expenses incurred by the London County Council in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament in each session up to and including that for the year 1902. This return will perhaps be sufficient for his purpose.

  Holding of Fairs at Ballina.
  MR. FETIIERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any steps have been taken with reference to granting a new patent for the holding of fairs to the Ballina Urban District Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Urban District Council of Ballina, county Mayo, recently expressed a desire to obtain a patent to hold monthly fairs at Ballina. The Lord-Lieutenant caused them to be informed that this could be effected only on an application by the owners of the existing patent of which the district council are lessees, the council as lessees to join in the application. No such application has since been received.

  The Kent Hop Industry and Foreign Competition.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the
  1038
  Board has received representations from the Canterbury Farmers' Club and East Kent Chamber of Agriculture with reference to the position of the hop industry in East Kent; and whether it is proposed to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have received a resolution from the body named calling attention to the serious position of the hop industry owing to the unfair competition from foreign countries, but they do not make any suggestions as to action which might be taken by the Government. If, however they refer to the proposal that foreign hops should be marked or that an import duty should be imposed, the Government cannot take action in either direction.

  Commander of Portsmouth Naval Barracks and the Canteen Committee.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give an authoritative denial to the report that the newly appointed commander of Portsmouth naval barracks had intimated to the canteen committee his intention to override their considered and unanimous decision in regard to a matter intimately connected with the canteen funds; and whether this officer merely intimated to the canteen committee that he reserved to himself the right to submit a report to his superior officer on a decision of the Committee which appeared to him against the financial interests of the canteen.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) There is no foundation whatever for the report that any attempt has been made to override the decision of the Portsmouth Canteen Committee in any respect.

  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Inland Revenue have frequently urged the establishment of the clerks to surveyors of taxes, and that the Treasury officials refuse all such schemes submitted to them, he will state his reasons for refusing to order an independent inquiry into the case of these clerks, especially in view of the fact

  1039
  that the surveyors recently petitioned the Board of Inland Revenue praying for their clerks establishment in the interests of the Revenue and the public.
  (Answered by Mr. M'Kenna.) I have already stated, in answer to a Question on the 26th ultimo of the hon. Member for South Down, the reasons for this refusal. They are "That all the facts are fully known, that they have been carefully examined and considered both by the Treasury and by the Board on more than one occasion in recent years, and that there is no reason to suppose that further inquiry would affect the judgment of the Treasury or of the Board of Inland Revenue."
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Inland Revenue consulted the chief inspector and his assistants, on the surveyor's memorial last year, praying for the establishment of clerks to surveyors of taxes, he will state how many inspectors are employed by such Board; whether he is aware that the majority of the inspectors strongly urge the establishment of these clerks; whether he will state how many of such inspectors are in favour of such establishment; and whether the Board of Inland Revenue acted upon the advice of such inspectors in refusing the surveyor's prayer; and, if not, will he explain upon what grounds the Board based their refusal, seeing that not one of the members of such Board ever worked in a surveyor's office.
  (Answered by Mr. M'Kenna.) There are altogether six superintending inspectors and sixteen inspectors. I am not prepared to enter into any question as to the individual opinions of the several inspectors. The surveyors were informed of the grounds of refusal in a Minute of the Board of Inland Revenue, dated July 28th, 1905. As I stated in reply to an unstarred Question of the hon. Member for South Down on June 21st last, the present system is preferred, not only as being more economical, but also as more convenient for adaptation of the staff to the requirements of the localities.

  Return of Intercepted Public Revenue.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant, as
  1040
  an unopposed Return, a statement of the Intercepted Public Revenue for the years 1904–5, 1905–6, 1906–7, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 223, of 1905; whether he will grant in the same way a continuation of Return No. 243, of 1905 (Gross Departmental Expenditure), for the years 1895–6, 1905–6, and 1906–7; and, if not, upon what grounds it is considered necessary now for the first time to withhold this information from the House.
  (Answered by Mr. M'Kenna.) A Return of Public Revenue (Interception) will be given for the three years in question, if the hon. Member will move for it. The Return of Gross Departmental Expenditure has only once been furnished, namely, in 1905, when it was allowed experimentally. It is merely a recasting of the figures of expenditure, as ordinarily published, under a different classification. Such variations tend to confusion, and are to be deprecated unless they serve some really useful purpose. I do not think there is such justification in this instance, and I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to incur the trouble and expense which its publication would entail.

  Extension of the Avon and Stour Conservancies.
  MR. W. D. WARD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, whether a Report has been received from the Board's inspector, who held an inquiry as to the extension of the Avon and Stour Conservancy to other Hampshire rivers; and whether such Report will be laid upon the Table.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Report to which my hon. friend refers has been received, but it is made solely for the guidance and information of the Board, and it would be contrary to practice for it to be laid on the Table.

  Evicted Ryots in the Bombay Presidency.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many ryots have been evicted in the Bombay Presidency in default of payment of land revenue in each of the last five years; and what sum has been realised in each year through the sale of land previously in the occupation of evicted ryots.

  1041
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) According to the annual land revenue reports of the Bombay Presidency the number of cases in which the occupancy right was forfeited to Government on

  Number of cases of forfeiture.

  Amount realised by sale of forfeited land to the public.

  Rupees.

  1899–1900

  2,173

  4,057 (£270)

  1900–1901

  6,386

  4,425 (£295)

  1901–1902

  9,462

  1,221 (£81)

  1902–1903

  4,210

  1,746 (£116)

  1903–1904

  15,575

  10,031 (£668)

  In many cases the forfeited land is eventually returned to the ryot. Only a small portion of the forfeited land in any year is sold to the public.

  Contract for Conveyance of Military Stores from Dublin to Kilbride—Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Fair Wages Resolution clause has been inserted in the contract for the conveyance of military stores from Dublin to Kilbride; and if he is aware that the wages paid to the carters on this work is 2s. a week less than the wages paid by the contractor having the contract for conveyance of other military stores.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The contract contains the current rate clause. Some of the carters receive more and some less than the carters employed by the other contractor referred to, but no evidence has been produced to show that the minimum wages paid by the contractor are less than the wages usually paid in the district to carters of the same skill and experience.

  Lodging Allowance to Sergeants and Buglers on Permanent Staff of Militia.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably consider the granting of the same fuel, light, and lodging allowance to sergeants and buglers serving on the permanent staff Militia on Militia
  account of arrears of land revenue, and the amount realised by sale of forfeited land to the public, were as follow in the last five years for which figures have been received:—
  engagement as is granted to the same ranks on Army engagement.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This proposal has been considered on previous occasions and has been rejected. I am not aware of any reasons for departing from the decisions of my predecessors.

  The War Office and Case of Mr. Bremner.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the promised inquiries into Bremner's case have been made; and, if so, what course it is proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This Question is still under consideration.

  Poor Law Commission—Irish Medical Representative.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Prime Minister, what are the reasons why he declines to recommend the appointment of an Irish medical man on the Royal Commission on the Poor Law to fill the vacancy created by the death of The O'Conor Don; and whether, as the Irish medical profession is vitally concerned in the investigations of the Royal Commission so far as regards Ireland, he will reconsider the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) I do not see my way to reconsider this matter in the sense desired

  1043
  by the hon. Member. The selection of members of Royal Commissions is governed by general considerations, and in any fresh appointment that may be made to the Royal Commission on the Poor Law the hon. Member may be sure that regard will be had to the Commissioner's qualifications for dealing with the Poor Law as it is administered in Ireland. It does not follow that, because Irish Poor Law medical officers are interested in the inquiry, the appointment of an Irish medical gentleman would necessarily be the most fitting to make.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The "Renown."
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Renown" is included in the number of first-class battleships appearing in the recently issued Return of Fleets; and whether the work of reconverting the vessel into a battleship has been commenced, and when it may be expected to be completed.
  HE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The work of restoring the "Renown"To her original condition has not yet been commenced, but it could, if necessary, be carried out in a very short space of time.

  Disbanded Scots Guards.
  R. AINSWORTHI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the non-commissioned officers and men in the 3rd Battalion of Scots Guards, and in other battalions to be disbanded the opportunity of re-engaging for extended terms of service, so as to enable them to qualify for subsequent employment with the auxiliary forces.
  HE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)These non-commissioned officers and men will be granted the opportunity of reengaging mentioned in the Question.

  Zulu Rebellion.
  R. BYLESI beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the
  1044
  Colonies whether the Zulu rebellion is now at an end, and whether the Militia and irregular troops will be immediately recalled; what will be done with the 3,000 prisoners; and what steps will be taken to remove the conditions which produced disaffection among the hitherto loyal native population of the Colony.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Governor does not anticipate further operations, and states that all districts are reported quiet. The Natal Government has given orders for the demobilisation of the active Militia, retaining about 600 men for further services, if required. The Secretary of State is not officially informed as to what will be done with the prisoners. The Natal Government proposes to appoint a Commission to investigate the question of native administration.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under - Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech made at a public banquet in Pretoria, by Brigadier-General Jeffreys, in which he defended the military policy of giving no quarter and accepting no surrender in the recent operations against the Zulus; will he say whether General Jeffreys holds his commission from His Majesty; and whether the Colonial Secretary will take any notice of the speech.
  MR. CHURCHILL: From a newspaper report which I have seen it appears to be stated that Brigadier-General Jeffreys, who is an officer upon the staff in South Africa, said in the course of a speech largely devoted to historical references to bygone methods of warfare, that in the course of a "drive" through impenetrable bush it was impossible to accept surrenders. I do not know whether the report is correct; but even if it were, it does not seem to me to afford any grounds for the supposition that a British officer would defend the killing of unresisting men. I hope my hon. friend will endeavour to extend to the speeches of soldiers the benefits of that most favourable construction to which speeches in this House are in constitutional practice entitled, and of which they may sometimes stand in need. The Secretary

  1045
  of State does not consider that the matter calls for his interference.
  MR. BYLES: I am not quite sure whether I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that a "drive through impenetrable bush" was an historic reference; if that is so, I am only too glad to accept the Answer, but I take it to mean—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is not now asking a Question.

  Repatriation of Coolies.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to state whether the republication of the Repatriation Ordinance has been any more successful than the original publication in inducing the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal to realise that they wish to be sent back to China; what was the date of the republication; and has the Government no information, by telegram or otherwise, as to the number of coolies who have since required to be repatriated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The new notice was posted in the compounds on July 18th. No information has yet been received as to the number of applications made.

  Mining Operations in the Reserved Area of the Transvaal
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bewaarplaatzen is still in the possession of the Transvaal State to the same extent as before the war; and whether any mining operations are now being carried on under these reserved areas.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor has not yet replied to an inquiry on the subject addressed to him. His attention is again being called to the matter.

  Remission of Stamp Duties on Letters Patent.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, having regard to the fact.that a sum of £150 12s. is placed on
  1046
  the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, under Class VII., for repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund, in respect of stamp duties payable on Letters Patent, creating Sir Thomas Sanderson, G.C.B, K.C.M.G., I.S.O., a baron of the United Kingdom, will he explain why the recipient of this honour is not required to pay the stamp duties.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The long and distinguished career in the public service of the recipient of the honour was held, following precedent, to justify the remission of the charges.
  MR. WEIR: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether those charges are remitted on account of long service, and whether Members of this House after serving here for many years will be entitled to anything?

  Civil Service Estimates.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can hold out hopes of substantial reductions and economies being carried out in the administration of the Civil Services Estimates for 1906–7, on somewhat similar lines to those effected on the Army and Navy Estimates.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Civil expenditure of the State applies to a large number of services which are independent of one another and governed by entirely different considerations. It is not possible therefore by any general determination of policy to affect the Civil expenditure as the Naval or Military expenditure may be affected. It is, however, the hope and intention of His Majesty's Government to secure that the Civil Services shall be conducted with the strictest regard to economy.

  King's Park, Stirling.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the town council of Stirling had the option of acquiring the ground adjoining the King's Park and King's Knot, part of the King's Park; if so, at what price; whether the said ground has been sold to private parties; and, if so, will he say why this has been done.
  MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Crown land contiguous to the King's Park at Stirling is being feued for building purposes; whether applications for feus on this land have hitherto been refused on the ground that buildings placed upon the site would destroy one of the finest views in Scotland; and whether, having regard to the interests of the town, and the public dissatisfaction caused by the present action, he will reconsider any decision that may have been taken.
  MR. MCKENNA: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs at the same time. I am informed that the land referred to is an arable field containing about four acres to which the public have never had the privilege of access. The Commissioner of Woods is not aware that previous applications for feus have been refused for the reason stated. I understand, moreover, that adjoining land on the same side of the Dumbarton Road belonging to the town council of Stirling has been built over. It has been arranged that the field shall be feued for the erection only of private residences of a style and character to be approved by the Commissioner, and the buildings are to be kept on the lower part of the field next the public road, where they will not be visible from the park or interfere with the amenities of it. The town council were, given the first opportunity of acquiring the land, but did not desire to avail themselves of it, nor, when the proposals for feuing were submitted to them as a matter of courtesy, did they intimate any objection to the land being feued to others provided the restrictions mentioned were enforced. In these circumstances I see no sufficient reason for interfering with the decision which has been arrived at.

  Insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement on page 57 of the Annual Report on Factories and Workshops that cases continue in which charges are made for insurance under the Work-
  1048
  men's Compensation Act and the amount deducted more than covers the premium; and whether the promise made by his predecessor on August 4th, 1903, is to be redeemed.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am aware of the statement to which my right hon. friend alludes. In accordance with the promise given in August, 1903, the question of these deductions was brought by the Home Office before the Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation who reported that "if the practice were shown to be other than very exceptional it might be a question worthy of consideration whether the provisions of the Truck Acts should not be extended to check the evil." I agree with the Committee in the view that the matter is one to be dealt with rather by an Amendment of the Truck Acts than of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I am informed that the Truck Committee now sitting has it in mind and has already heard evidence with regard to it.

  Additional Factory Inspectors.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received communications from workmen's organisations asking for an increase in the factory laws inspectorate, by the appointment of more working class inspectors; and whether he can see-his way to accede to this demand.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: This Question was pressed on my notice by the deputation from the Trades Union Congress in February last. I shall have an opportunity of dealing with it in the Estimates this afternoon.

  The Inter-Parliamentary Conference.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will give the details composing the sum of £5,000 to be granted towards the expenses of receiving the Inter-Parliamentary Conference.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I have not yet received the information in the form of vouchers and. accounts, and therefore am unable to give

  1049
  particulars. They will be presented, however, in due course to Parliament and the balance-sheet will show how the money has generally been expended in fitting up the Royal Gallery for the conference, for the luncheon in Westminster Hall, the banquet at the Crystal Palace, for the striking of a medal, locomotion, postage, and stationery, and other matters. The expenses for the luncheon falling on the the public charge will only be the sum for our foreign guests, the cost of their own entertainment being paid by the British delegates. The total amount required will not be so much as has been voted by Parliament owing to the admirable management of the English committee here.

  Dining Arrangements in the House of Commons.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Derby, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons, in view of the late sittings of the House during the past few weeks, whether he will state how many staff's of waiters there are for the dining rooms, the number of hours they work, their starting time, and rate of pay; and whether any, and, if so, how many receive any payment when Parliament is not sitting.
  MR. JACOBY: A similar Question was asked last Monday. I would refer the hon. Member to my written reply.†

  Educational Grants.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will give the items and particulars forming the sum of £200,000 to be allotted to certain local education.authorities; and when these grants will be paid.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): The sum named is an estimate of the maximum sum likely to be needed to carry out the Regulations recently issued for the Special Grant which is payable this year, and this year only. I can give no accurate list of individual authorities or amounts until the audited Financial Statements of the Local Education Authority
  † See Col. 433.
  1050
  concerned have reached the Board of Education and been investigated there. The grants will, as a rule, be paid before the close of this year.

  Foreign Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the decision of the High Court at Edinburgh confirming the decision of Sheriff Guthrie in regard to foreign trawling in the Moray Firth, will he state whether the commanders of Scottish Fishery Board cruisers have been instructed as to the action to be taken in respect of foreign trawlers found fishing in the Firth; and, if not, will he state when instructions will be issued.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLALD (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Argyllshire on July 25th. †
  MR. WEIR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am to understand that the cruisers have captured one of these foreign trawlers not within the three-mile limit but in any part of the Moray Firth?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, the hon. Member is not to understand anything further than what I stated in my answer.
  *MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Arising out of that Answer might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us what the Government are inquiring into?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That was not the Question put to me. The Question put to me was whether the Commanders of the Scottish Fishery Board had been instructed as to the action to be taken in respect of foreign trawlers found fishing in the Firth, and, if not, when instnictions will be issued. That matter is now receiving the attention of the Government.
  MR. MORTON: May the Members of this House go round with the cruisers to see how they are doing their duty.
  † See (4), Debates, clxi., 1197.

  Sutherland Main Roads.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will take means to get a grant of money for the improvement of the main roads in the county of Sutherland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Answer is in the negative. I can add nothing now to previous answers to my hon. friend.

  Small Holdings in Scotland.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of Scotland what is the number and total acreage of agricultural holdings in Scotland below £50 annual value.
  MR. SINCLAIR: So far as I am ware, there are no precise figures available. In 1890–91, the latest year for which figures are available, the number of persons assessed for Poor Rate in respect of the occupation of farms and paying rental not exceeding £50 as per Valuation Roll, was 46,828. Table VI. of the Annual Returns of acreage in the Agricultural Statistics, 1905, gives the total number of Agricultural Holdings in Scotland above one acre and not exceeding fifty acres as 53,358.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I suppose we shall have accurate information before we deal with the Bill in the Autumn?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope so, Sir, but accurate information is exceedingly difficult to obtain.

  Cost of Land Commission in Scotland
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the new Scottish Land Commission, including the sums now devoted to the Crofters Commission and the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I must ask the hon. Member to await the issue of the Bill.

  Beggars in Dunblane.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to take any action to enable the police in the town of Dunblane to deal with loiterers and beggars; whether Section 420 of the
  1052
  Act of 1892, as to retailers of coals, is in force in that town; and, if so, will he explain why offences of that nature are not reported to the borough prosecutor.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): Dunblane is not. excepted from the operation of the Burgh Police Act, 1892. If, under that Act, or in any other manner, there is a failure of duty upon the part of the police, or in the reporting of the offences, the proper course is for any persons or authorities aggrieved to report the matter to the sheriff of the county. In view, however, of the inquiries by my hon. friend, such as the present and that on the Paper for to-morrow, I have adopted the course of sending the whole correspondence and documents to the Crown Agent in Edinburgh for report.

  Increased Value of Irish Land.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Congested Districts Board paid eighteen years' purchase of first term rents for lands bought in 1906, compared with fifteen years' purchase in 1902, and twenty-one and a quarter years' purchase of second term rent in 1906,compared with eighteen and three-quarter years' purchase in 1902, they can now explain what circumstances have arisen to justify the increase of three years' purchase and of two and a half years' respectively.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Congested Districts Board purchased land in 1906, as in other years since the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1903, at the lowest price at which they could obtain it. The price of land has risen since 1903.
  MR. FLYNN: Arising out of that, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any increase in the agricultural value of the land to justify paying this enhanced price?
  MR. BRYCE: The causes which affect the price of land are very numerous, and this increase I suggest is largely due to causes other than that suggested by the hon. Member.

  Mr. O'Callaghan and the Newman Estate.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet arrived at any decision in regard to the case of Mr. Timothy C. O'Callaghan, Dromore, Mallow, who was excluded from the purchase arrangement on the Newman estate, though willing to purchase his holding on the same terms as the other tenants, and who has since been evicted from his holding; are the Commissioners aware that the landlord procured the exclusion of this tenant from the general scheme by a false representation, to the effect that he was entitled to the resumption of C. O'Callaghan's holding, on the ground of its being demesne land; and whether the Commissioners will take steps to procure his reinstatement.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet arrived at a decision in this case. The matter is still under consideration.

  The Irish Butter Trade and the Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Mr. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the council of the Irish Butter Trade Association at which the relationship of the Irish Department of Agriculture with the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society was discussed; will he say if the Department subsidised the society to the extent of £5,700 within the past two years; and whether, in view of the complaints of this trade society against the subsidising of an organisation which is in direct competition with private traders in the Irish butter trade, more especially in regard to the creameries industry, the Department will decline to subsidise the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society in future by withholding further financial assistance.
  MR. BRYCE: I have seen a newspaper report of the recent proceedings of the council of the Irish Butter Trade Association. The purposes of organisation for which grants in aid of a sum of £2,000 for the year ended February 28th last, and of a sum not exceeding £3,700 for the year ending 28th February next, were made by the Department of Agriculture, with the concurrence of the
  1054
  Agricultural Board, have already been explained in my answers to the questions of the hon. Member for East Mayo on May 21st and 29th.† The question of the continuance of the existing provisional arrangement for any period subsequent to the twelve months ending February 28th next, was discussed at the meeting of the Council of Agriculture in May last, and was postponed for further consideration to their next meeting, which will be held in the autumn of the present year. The result of the further deliberations of the Council will be a guide to the Agricultural Board and the Department as regards future action in the matter.
  MR. FLYNN: I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he himself aware that this Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is in direct competition with private traders in the Irish butter trade.
  MR. BRYCE: I think if the hon. Member will refer to what I said to the hon. Member for East Mayo on May 21st and 29th he will find that I have answered that.

  Cattle-Maiming in South Derry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have been able to trace the perpetrators of the cattle-maiming outrage on Mr. Bailey, in South Derry.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the police have made every effort to discover the offender or offenders in this case, but up to the present have not succeeded in doing so. They are still pursuing their investigations.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he not aware that this is the third attack to which this gentleman has been subjected: that during the general election he was violently assaulted himself and that now his cattle are maimed; and whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that is rather a high price to pay for his voting Liberal.
  MR. BRYCE: I have no power in the matter. I can only say that every possible
  † See (4), Debates, clvii., 902; clvii., 257.

  1055
  effort will be made to trace the perpetrators of this outrage, but hon. Members must remember that these outrages were committed at night and it is extremely difficult to trace a thing of that sort.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Could not the right hon. Gentleman supply North Derry with the same government which is supplied to South Tipperary in cases of the same kind?
  MR. MACVEAGH: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Member for the Division has denounced these cruel outrages, and, if not, whether he may be deemed to be in favour of them.
  MR. BRYCE: That Question could hardly be answered by me.

  The Board of Works and the Burtonport Railway.
  MR. MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the inefficient working of and delay to the travelling public on the Burtonport Railway on the 19th and 21st instant; whether he is aware that whatever improvement has taken place in the working of the line is due to the Lough Swilly Company procuring at its own expense new engines to replace those supplied by the Board of Works; and whether, seeing that all the public bodies in the districts through which the line runs have passed Resolutions asking for something to be done, he will take steps to have an inquiry made by the Board of Trade as to the defects and safety of the line, and the inefficiency of its rolling stock.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the delay on the 19th ultimo to the traffic on the Burtonport line arose through an accident to an engine on the Lough Swilly Company's own line near Londonderry, the effect of which was felt throughout the Burtonport system. The delays on the 21st ultimo were due partly to causes which arose on the Lough Swilly Company's own line and partly to the failure of the injectors of one of that company's engines at Owenarrow viaduct on the Burtonport line The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative. The engines referred
  1056
  to are not, it is understood, now working on the Burtonport line, the traffic on which is being worked by the original engines. I see no sufficient reason in the circumstances which I have described for altering the view which I expressed in answer to the hon. Member's Question of Juno 25th last.†

  National Education Commissioners and School Managers of Munster.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what action the Commissioners of National Education propose to take in view of the action of school managers in Munster and elsewhere in declining to appoint assistant mistresses in boys' schools; and whether, in view of the generally expressed opinions of the managers, the rule will be altered so as to enable the managers to appoint junior assistant masters in such schools.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have received a resolution urging the appointment of junior assistant masters instead of assistant mistresses in boys' schools under masters, but for the reasons which have already been fully stated the Commissioners do not propose to take any action on the Resolution. The Commissioners state that they continue to receive from clerical managers in all parts of Ireland, including Munster, applications for the appointment of junior assistant mistresses in boys' schools.

  The Case of Patrick McGloin.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the holding of Patrick McGloin (Gilbert), of Aghanlish, Largy-donnell, county Leitrim, the Estates Commissioners have now appealed from the decision of the county court judge fixing the tenant's second-term fair rent at £5; that that appeal is solely on the question of the jurisdiction of the county court judge to fix the rent; that no appeal on the question of value has been taken; that that appeal is to the Land Commision, who are thus appellants and judges in the same case; and whether, seeing that the only effect of that appeal, if successful, would be to compel the tenant to buy at
  † See (4) Debates clix., 591.

  1057
  thirty-eight and a half years purchase of the rent fixed by the county court judge, and in view of the comments of the county court judge on the action of the Land Commission towards this tenant, and of the expense incurred by the tenant in defending proceedings brought against him by the Estates Commissioners, he will say what steps he intends to take to protect the tenant from having to purchase on the said terms.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the Estates Commissioners have appealed from the decision of the county court judge upon the question of his jurisdiction to fix a fair rent in the case, having regard to the fact that the Commissioners had already issued an order under Section 19 of the Act, declaring McGloin to be the purchaser of the holding. Until this question of law has been decided, the Commissioners are unable to say how they may eventually deal with the case, and in the meantime they do not think it desirable to enter into the facts alleged in the Question.

  The Department of Agriculture and Experimental Farms.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Veterinary Branch of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has a laboratory and an experimental farm, as has the similar branch of the English Department of Agriculture, for the purposes of Identifying disease and of research work, and, if not, if he will consider the desirability of furnishing the Irish Department with similar facilities as the English in this respect; if the Treasury has received a memorial from the staff of the Irish Veterinary Department asking to be placed on an equal footing regarding pay with their English confreres; and what was the reply to this request.
  MR. BRYCE: The Answer to the first part of this Question is in the negative. The provision of a laboratory for the diagnosis of disease is engaging attention. There is no present intention of establishing an experimental farm in connection with the Department's Veterinary Branch. A memorial in the sense mentioned has been addressed to the Vice-President of the Department by.a number of Veterinary Inspectors
  1058
  employed in the Veterinary Branch. The Treasury have not as yet been communicated with in the matter, which is under the consideration of the Department.

  Castleblakeney Estate (Ballinasloe).
  MR. MACVEAGH: On behalf of my hon. friend the Member for Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the grass lands of the Castle-blakeney Estate, near Ballinasloe, will be divided amongst the tenantry before next November.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to identify the grass lands referred to from the information furnished in the Question. If the name of the owner should be furnished to them they will make further inquiries.

  Harbour Works at Arklow.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Harbour Board have now submitted plans and estimates for the proposed works at Arklow, provision for which was made in the Vote for the Ireland Development Grant of 1905–6.
  MR. BRYCE: The Harbour Board have not yet submitted plans and estimates for the proposed works at Arklow. It is desirable that they should do so forthwith in order that the work may be begun. As to the general position, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my reply to the Question of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford on Thursday last.†
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Arising out of that Answer, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will use his influence to expedite matters?
  MR. BRYCE: I will do all I can, as it is very desirable that the work should be done at the earliest possible moment.

  Proposed Railway between Mullaranny and Belmullet.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a
  † See (4), Debates, clxi., 1421.

  1059
  position to make any statement with respect to the intention of the Government as to the construction of a line of railway between Mullaranny and Belmullet; and, if not, whether he can undertake that the proposal will receive his personal consideration during the Parliamentary Recess.
  MR. BRYCE: I have lately visited both Mullaranny and Belmullet, and have quite recently received a Report from the Board of Works on the subject of the proposed railway. Inasmuch as there are four competing schemes for lines of railway to Belmullet, even the cheapest of which will involve large expenditure, the subject requires much consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement regarding it. It will, however, continue to engage the attention of the Irish Government.

  Portovogie Harbour Works.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter addressed, on July 3rd, to the Irish Government by the Down County Council respecting the construction of improvement works at Portavogie Harbour; and whether, with a view to the settlement of plans for carrying out these works, for which funds have been voted by Parliament, but as to the details of which there is a difference of opinion between the county conncil and the Commissioners of Public Works, he will arrange that the Commissioners shall send down their engineer to confer at Portavogie with the committee of the county council.
  MR. BRYCE: I am aware of the correspondence which has taken place in this matter. The difference which has arisen can hardly be described as one respecting details, seeing that the scheme now proposed by the county council is entirely different from that originally put forward by them and accepted by the Government when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. It seems, therefore, to be doubtful whether the case is one for such a conference as is suggested. If the county council are prepared to abide by the arrangement agreed upon, there will be no difficulty in carrying out the works. I understand
  1060
  that the Board of Works do not approve of the change of plans now put forward.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Arising out of that Answer, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Board of Works would inform the local officials as to the local inquiry?
  MR. BRYCE: I presume that either the county council or the Irish Government would, but I do not know that anything would be cleared up by bringing in the officials at this stage.

  Wicklow Sea Defences.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask; the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether work has yet commenced in the construction of sea defences at Wicklow, if not, what are the reasons for delay, and will he be good enough to undertake that every effort, will be made to commence the work before further serious damage is caused by the depredations of the sea; and if he will also state what is the present condition of the negotiations with respect to the proposed harbour works at Wicklow.
  MR. BRYCE: I understand that work-has not yet begun on these sea defences. The commencement and prosecution of the works rest entirely with the Wicklow Harbour Board, at whoso disposal a sum of £10,000 was placed by the Government for the purpose at the beginning of this year. The Government are disappointed that the works have not yet been commenced, and so far as the Government are concerned, there is no need for further negotiations. They have done all they can to enable the work to be begun forthwith. The Government conditions are well known to the Harbour Board and the other persons locally interested. The plans and estimates of the works have been submitted to the Government by the Harbour Board within the last few days, and are now with the consulting engineer for examination.

  Future Tenants and Fair Rents.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under existing conditions it is impossible for future tenants in Ireland to avail of the Land Courts to have a fair rent fixed; and whether, in view of the fact that

  1061
  many of them are paying rents 100 per cent, in excess of the values of their holdings, he will take steps to have the alleged grievances of future tenants remedied.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for South Leitrim on April 3rd, † in which I stated that I was not prepared, in reply to a Question, to discuss the possibility of legislation in regard to future tenants.
  MR. CULLINAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the recess he will inquire into these cases very closely and see for himself the justice of these claims?

  Irish Fisheries.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that during the past six months the total take in sea fishing has gained by 218,000 cwt. in weight and £150,000 in England, whereas for Ireland the increase is only 2,600 cwt. and £6,000, including shellfish; and will he state whether he can ascertain the reason for the difference in the rates of increase for England and Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: From the returns at present available it appears that during the first six months of the present year the quantity of fish, excluding shellfish, brought to land in England and Wales has decreased in quantity by 386,796 cwts. or about 8½ per cent., as compared with the corresponding period of last year; while in Ireland the quantity has, during the same period, increased by 2,655 cwts., or ¾ per cent. Including shellfish, the value of the fish brought to land in England and Wales has increased by £149,694, or 4½ per cent.; while in Ireland the increase in value has been £5,947, or 4 per cent. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that, as regards fish properly so-called, there has been a decrease in England and Wales and a small increase in Ireland; while if shellfish is included, there has been an increase at practically the same rate in both countries.

  Disturbances in Dungannon
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  † See (4) Debates clv., 363.
  1062
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of the declaration of the poll in the East Tyrone election serious disturbances were caused in Dungannon by crowds of Nationalists, who paraded the streets smashing the windows of many houses in Thomas Street and Market Square; that the police were finally compelled to charge the mob; and that many of the police were hit by stones and other missiles; and what arrests have been made in connection with the disturbance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Thursday night, July 26th, at Dungannon, a band of Nationalists attempted to invade a Protestant quarter, where they broke a number of windows and did serious damage to the property of Unionists; whether he is aware that the police were pelted with stones and shot at with revolvers, several officers being badly beaten; and what steps are being taken in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I will answer these two Questions together. The facts stated in the first Question appear to be substantially correct. It is not the fact that the crowd attempted to invade a Protestant quarter, because that part was strongly guarded by the police; but volleys of stones were thrown and some windows broken. Some revolver shots appear to have been fired, but whether charged with bullets cannot be ascertained. No one appears to have been hit. Owing to the darkness—the lamps appear not to have been lit—it was found impossible to identifiy the offenders. The magistrates, in order to prevent any further disturbances, issued a proclamation forbidding band-playing and processions in Dungannon yesterday and to-day, these being occasions on which Party processions are usually in the town.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Arising out of that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the disturbance was not commenced by a shower of missiles being thrown at the Nationalists from a house owned by an Orangeman as they were returning to their own quarters?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information.

  Dublin Councillors and a Carting Contract.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation at their meeting on June 11th, when they adopted the Report of a committee of the whole House, dated March 30th, which met to investigate the conduct of Councillor Anthony Madden, High Sheriff of the City of Dublin, and Councillor Thomas O'Reilly, in regard to a carting contract; whether he is aware that the Committee arrived unanimously at the conclusion that the circumstances disclosed were discreditable to the two councillors named; and whether any action is contemplated with a view to relieving them from their present responsibilities.
  MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have no information concerning the proceedings of the Corporation in this matter beyond that which has appeared in the Dublin newspaper. The Board have no power to intervene in the matter.

  Superintendent Talbot and a Dublin Reporter
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaint has reached his office in Dublin as to the action of Superintendent Talbot, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, in interfering on the 25th June last with the discharge of his duties, in the Kingstown Police Court, by Mr. Hawe, a reporter on one of the Dublin daily newspapers, by ordering him out of a seat at the table in the Court in question; if so, has any action been taken, or is it intended to take any action on the complaint; and whether any policeman has any authority of his own to order any representative of the Press or any member of the public to sit or not to sit in any particular place in any Court.
  MR. BRYCE: A complaint to the effect stated has been received, and the matter has been inquired into by the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The Chief Commissioner is satisfied that Superintendent Talbot's action on the occasion in question was taken with the object of preserving the usual arrangements which prevail
  1064
  in the Kingstown Police Court. It appears that Mr. Hawe was sitting at the table reserved for solicitors, and the superintendent indicated to him the usual seat occupied by reporters. The general arrangements of the Court are made- by the magistrates, and the police on duty carry them out. The Chief Commissioner is of opinion that it would have been wiser for the superintendent to have left the matter in the hands of the court sergeant, whose duty it is to see that the magistrate's arrangements are carried out. No incivility, however, appears to have been intended by the superintendent, who subsequently expressed to Mr. Hawe his regret that that gentleman had misunderstood his remarks.
  MR. CLANCY: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's Answer that the superintendent admitted that he had acted wrongly on this occasion. Has the superintendent apologised to the gentleman whom he insulted?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think it is a case of insult. It was mentioned to the superintendent and he expressed his regret. It is not an incident of very great moment, and I think it might now be regarded as closed.

  Appointments to the Magistracy in County Antrim.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the recent appointments by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the magistracy in the county of Antrim were made with the concurrence of His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant, or if he had been consulted beforehand; whether they were made with the concurrence of His Majesty's Lieutenant of the county; if not, was the Lord Chancellor informed by him that there was no public need for any additional justices; on what considerations did the Lord Chancellor act in making the appointments; who is responsible for the status and respectability of the gentlemen so appointed by the Lord Chancellor where the Lieutenant of the county declines to concur; and what number of justices were available in the Ballymoney, Ballymena, and Larne districts respectively, before the recent appointments.
  An HON. MEMBER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question may I put to him a Question of which I had given him private notice, whether he is aware that the magisterial bench has been and is at present composed almost entirely of Tories and Orangemen, and that with one exception the Lieutenants of the counties are all Tories and Orangemen; whether he is aware that Catholics and liberals are over 85 per cent, of the country, and whether he will appoint to the Commission of the Peace a number of Nationalists and Liberals in proportion to the population.
  MR. BRYCE: The notice to which the hon. Gentleman has referred has not reached me. I did not know this Question would be put to me to-day, and I am not prepared to answer it. I may say the appointment of magistrates does not rest with me, but with the Lord Chancellor. As to the Question on the Paper, I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, who has favoured me with the following observations:—The appointment of county magistrates rests with the Lord Chancellor, as Keeper of the Great Seal. The Lord-Lieutenant's concurrence in such appointments is not necessary, nor is His Excellency consulted in the matter. The recent appointments to the magistracy for county Antrim were made by the Lord Chancellor upon his own responsibility, and without the concurrence of His Majesty's Lieutenant of the county. The Lord Chancellor had carefully inquired into the suitability for the magistracy of the gentlemen in question, whose names he communicated to the Lieutenant of the county; but having waited for what he considered a sufficient time without receiving any reply from the Lieutenant, he considered it his duty, without further delay, to take upon himself the entire responsibility for the appointments. In so doing, he acted within his undoubted right. He considered the gentlemen whom he appointed to be fit and proper persons for the magistracy, and he deemed their appointment to be desirable. In considering the appointment of magistrates, the Lord Chancellor has always been desirous of securing the co-operation, and assistance of His Majesty's Lieutenant in each county, and he has been fortunate enough to receive such co-operation in nearly every case. It has, however, never been obligatory on
  1066
  the Lord Chancellor to confine the scope of his inquiries to any one source, or to limit his information to that which the Lieutenant of a county may afford him; and the Lord Chancellor reserves to himself the liberty to determine whether additional appointments may be desirable in any particular place. In making the appointments for county Antrim, in what the Lord Chancellor considered to be the public interest, he had before him the number of magistrates and the composition of the Benches in the particular district referred to in the Question.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it not a fact that 90 per cent, belonged to one political and religious Party?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to that.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I know it.
  AN HON. MEMBER: This Question appeared on the Paper for another day and I sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary giving him private notice both to his house and to his office.
  MR. BRYCE: I did not understand that the Question was going to be put as a supplementary Question to-day. I probably looked at it as a matter I should have to answer in due course, but not as a matter I should have to answer to-day.

  Dr Starkie and Kerry School Managers.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a Resolution of the Kerry Catholic school managers asking for the removal of Dr. Starkie from connection with the administration of primary education in Ireland; whether he is aware that similar Resolutions have been passed by many other representative bodies in Ireland; and whether he intends to take any steps to comply with the wishes of a large number of the Irish people in this matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I have seen the Resolution referred to. It is not within my knowledge that similar Resolutions have been passed by many other bodies, as stated in the Question. The Government do not propose to dispense with the services of an official whose capacity and

  1067
  energy they value so highly as they do those of the Resident Commissioner.
  MR. MURPHY: Arising out of that Answer might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is conciliatory to Irish opinion that he should proceed by Answers in this House to load this Gentleman with excessive praise?
  MR. BRYCE: I speak of what I know, and I believe Dr. Starkie to be a gentleman of very high integrity.
  MR. MURPHY: Might I ask, having regard to the fact that every Catholic in Ireland is opposed to Dr. Starkie, whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of transferring him elsewhere?
  MR. BRYCE: It has never been brought to my knowledge that every Catholic in Ireland is opposed to him.
  MR. SLOAN: Is it not a fact that Dr. Starkie is a Roman Catholic himself?
  MR. BRYCE: I believe that is so.

  Appointment of County Magistrates.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if the recent appointments by the Lord Chancellor to the magistracy in the counties were made on the suggestion of the Lords Lieutenant; and how far the Chancellor is prepared to act on the Resolution of the House of Commons of May 5th, 1893.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): Some of the recent appointments in the counties were made on the suggestion of the Lords-Lieutenant in the usual way. Many were made on the suggestion of other persons after communication with the Lords-Lieutenant. I stated early in this session that the policy embodied in the Resolution referred to was approved by His Majesty's Government and it has been continuously acted on since the present Government came into power. If my hon. friend will explain what it is in particular that he wishes to see done and ask a Question.
  1068
  there will be no difficulty in telling him whether it will be done or not.

  The Limited Partnerships Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will allow the Limited Partnerships Bill to be starred, so that it may be considered in the autumn session, seeing that it has already passed through the House of Lords and has the undivided support of the banking and commercial interests of the country.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government are very well disposed towards this Bill, but I cannot give any pledge of facilities at this stage.

  THE AUTUMN SITTINGS.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It would be convenient if the right hon Gentleman the Prime Minister would now give us the terms of the Resolution that he will move on Saturday for the rising of the House, giving us first the date of the reassembling and telling us whether the Resolution will provide for the taking of the whole of the time of the House by the Government and what business the Government intend to put down on the first day the House reassembles.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The date of the reassembling of the House will be October 23rd. The Motion which I shall propose for suspending the sittings until that date will include the Resolution to give all the time of the autumn sittings to Government business. The business on the first day will be the Merchant Shipping Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability for leaving a part of the first day upon which we reassemble for private Members' Motions. The reason I ask the Question is that owing to a misunderstanding with reference to Irish Estimates we were prevented from raising most important questions with regard to Irish education which could under the circumstances be taken as a private Member's Motion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think I can make any exception for any individual case.
  MR. WALTER LONG: On the reassembling of the House, will the eleven o'clock rule be suspended all through the sittings?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know what we may come to, but we certainly shall not start with the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule. All that will be done will be to give precedence to and limit the sittings to Government business.
  MR. MORTON: May I ask at what hour this House will meet on Saturday morning?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think on such occasions it usually meets at ten o'clock.
  *MR. MORTON: I beg to give notice that at an early date I intend to call attention to the appointment of magistrates in the counties of Scotland, and to move a Resolution thereon.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Revenue Bill; Post Office Sites Bill; Post Office (Literature for the Blind) Bill; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill; Dean Forest Bill; Deanery of Manchester Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to:—Gas and Water 'Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords]; Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill [Lords]; Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [Lords]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.

GROUND GAME BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
OPEN SPACES BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Thomas Michael Kettle, esquire, for the County of Tyrone (East Tyrone Division).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
SUPPLY [20TH ALLOTTED DAY] [31ST JULY]-REPORT.
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [20TH ALLOTTED DAY] [31ST JULY]-REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
    CLASS II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £29,050, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."

    CLASS I.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £707,580, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Expenditure on the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

    £

    5.

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    34,800

    6.

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    45,800

    10.

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    124,578

    11.

    Harbours under the Board of Trade

    14,606

    12.

    Peterhead Harbour

    22,000

    13.

    Rates on Government Property

    340,656

    14.

    Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    96,477

    15.

    Railways, Ireland

    28,663

    £707,580"

    CLASS II.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,203,002, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1907, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

    £

    1.

    House of Lords Offices

    10,210

    2.

    House of Commons Offices

    17,900

    3.

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    59,911

    4.

    Home Office

    124,085

    8.

    Board of Trade

    160,379

    9.

    Mercantile Marine Services

    69,873

    10.

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    5

    12.

    Charity Commission

    16,079

    16.

    Local Government Board

    147,470

    17.

    Lunacy Commission, England

    10,736

    22.

    Registrar-General's Office, England

    25,412

    23.

    Stationery and Printing

    401,480

    24.

    Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, etc., Office

    12,756

    25.

    Works and Public Buildings Office

    45,278

    26.

    Secret Service

    10,000

    SCOTLAND.

    27.

    Secretary for Scotland's Office

    9,750

    28.

    Fishery Board

    13,691

    29.

    Lunacy Commission

    3,731

    30.

    Registrar-General's Office

    3,241

    31.

    Local Government Board for Scotland

    10,470

    IRELAND.

    32.

    Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,672

    35.

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    1,049

    37.

    Public Record Office, Ireland

    3,484

    38.

    Public Works Office

    23,938

    39.

    Registrar General's Office

    7,132

    40.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000).

    12,276

    £1,203,002"

    CLASS III.
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,077,936, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    31,954

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    21,914

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature

    179,066

    4.

    Land Registry

    25,602

    5.

    Country Courts

    2

    7.

    Prisons, England and the Colonies

    394,255

    8.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

    113,977

    9.

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    27,121

    SCOTLAND.

    10.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    50,828

    11.

    Register House, Edinburgh

    27,745

    12.

    Crofters' Commission

    2,445

    13.

    Prisons

    52,600

    IRELAND.

    14.

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    32,652

    15.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

    59,586

    16.

    Irish Land Commission

    124,215

    17.

    County Court Officers, etc.

    66,088

    18.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    35,721

    19.

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    710,038

    20.

    Prisons

    62,556.

    21.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    55,995

    22.

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    3,576

    £2,077,936"

    CLASS IV.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,387,882, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come

    1073
    in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907 for Expenditure in respect of the Services, included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.: —

    £

    1.

    Board of Education (including a Supplementary Sum of £200,000)

    6,339,600

    2.

    British Museum

    99,998

    3.

    National Gallery

    7,038

    4.

    National Portrait Gallery

    2,619

    5.

    Wallace Collection

    3,821

    6.

    Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

    33,650

    7.

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

    140,400

    8.

    Public Education, Scotland

    1,122,128

    9.

    National Gallery etc., Scotland

    768

    IRELAND.

    10.

    Public Education

    633,223

    11.

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    510

    12.

    National Gallery

    1,766

    13.

    Queen's Colleges

    2,361

    £8,387,882"

    CLASS V.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,196,905, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Expenditure on the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

    £

    1.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    303,856

    2.

    Colonial Services

    827,952

    3.

    Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

    49,497

    4.

    Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

    1,000

    5.

    Treasury Chest Fund

    14,600

    £1,196,905"

    CLASS VI.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £582, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
    1074
    Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

    £

    3.

    Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances

    383

    4.

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    199

    £582"

    CLASS VII.
    8. "Thai a sum, not exceeding £350,759, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

    £

    1.

    Temporary Commissions

    27,000

    2.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    10,743

    3.

    Repayments to the Local loans Fund

    58

    4.

    Ireland Development Grant

    85,000

    5.

    Repayments to Civil Contingencies Fund

    22,958

    6.

    Inter - Parliamentary Conference

    5,000

    7.

    Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act,1905

    200,000

    £350,759"

    ARMY ESTIMATES 1906–7.
    9 "That a sum, not exceeding £1,803,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Expenditure on the Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), viz.:—

    £

    5.

    Volunteer Corps, Pay and Allowances

    1,244,000

    13.

    War Office and Army Accounts Department

    559,000

    Ordnance Factories

    100

    £1,803,100 "

    Resolutions read a second time:
    First Two Resolutions postponed.
    Third Resolution: —
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid upon this Vote an opportunity was given for raising certain questions which were of greater importance than was generally recognised. But on this occasion, when one saw so many new Members of the House who had a personal acquaintance with them in a degree more marked than that which previously existed in the House, there would be an opportunity of dividing this question between a larger number than was usually the case. While in past years the miners had been well represented on this Vote, there had been a great absence of those concerned with other trades. There were now present in the House a much larger number of Members who had a personal and more detailed knowledge of the working of the great trades though less of those which were most helped by inspection by Government departments. The great organised trades were, to some extent, able to protect themselves, and the miners, working under special rules, were closely regulated by law, and did not have to depend on the Department. The great textile trades were now represented by three Members in whom they had full confidence, but nevertheless there was one class of workers, especially women workers, whoso fate depended in a great degree on legislation and the enforcement of the law. Therefore there was one subject which always occupied the attention of the Committee on this Vote, namely, the efficiency of the law and inspection as regards those trades. It was only with the administration that the Committee could deal on this Vote, and year by year they had always called attention to the smallness of the number of women inspectors. On the woman inspectors especially fell the duty of enforcing the law in cases where inspection was most necessary. Early in the session questions were addressed to the Secretary of State as to the necessity of increasing the staff of women inspectors, and certain promises were made, and he understood there was to be an immediate increase of three. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what was the state of affairs with regard to the women inspectors. They were still,
    1076
    he understood, engaged in clerical duties and special inquires which took them off their regular work. The nominal staff, therefore, was much larger than the real staff. The increase in the number of working places was more rapid every year, and in the present year the increase of work-places under inspection was 28,000; and for all the work there were in all 154 inspectors, and inspectors' assistants, male and female, including all those detached for medical and other departments, etc. for special duty. The dangerous trades carried on under special regulations were increasing, and required more inspection. The result of the shortness of staff was seen in the Report. Miss Anderson, the principal lady inspector, reported "a representative case," Involving a long series of visits. The underground departments of a "world-famed provision manufacturer" were concerned, and "the firm had opposed every suggestion of improvement." But the manager ultimately promised to persuade the firm to remedy the "glaring defects" which had been pointed out. Miss Anderson added in her Report—
    "It remains to note the results when a visit is possible."
    That was the result of the smallness of the staff of women inspectors. Not only were the numbers of complaints increasing, but the arrears were increasing also, so that a large number of complaints had to be set aside because there was no one to deal with them. A subject closely connected with that of the increase of the inspectorate was the extension of the principle of "particulars" to all piecework trades. As to some trades where the necessity was admitted — such as the paper bag and paper box trades—the "particulars" order had hung fire for many years. Three new industries were reported on as long ago as 1902, and yet the order had not been made in respect of them. How many such cases had the Home Office now under consideration? If it was impossible to get the extension of "particulars" To all piecework trades, the orders should be granted at once where the Inquiry was complete and the report had been received. In 1895 a Grand Committee considered a factory Bill, and some proposals were made to introduce a new

    1077
    system. In regard to the sweated industries, one of the proposals made in 1895 was the introduction of the New Zealand license system, but objection was taken to it on the ground that it would throw such work on the Department as would cause a breakdown of the whole system. A good deal of work under the Factory Act of 1901 was thrown on the local authorities, but the statement made by himself and others at that time that the duty would not be performed by some local authorities had been borne out. The Report now before the House stated that there was no provision by which the enforcement of the law by the local authorities in regard to "particulars" was possible. To his own knowledge there were within ten miles of this House medical officers of health of the local authorities, with all their staffs of sanitary inspectors behind them, who were absolutely unacquainted with the law on this subject, and who did not know what "particulars" were. On the other hand the Home Office inspectors, feeling that the local authorities were responsible for the enforcement of the other provisions of the law in those cases, had but rare opportunities of visiting the homes in which this work was carried on. The result was that the grant of "particulars" In those cases was illusory. He would suggest that something must be done to overcome this great difficulty by means of the issue of a circular to sanitary inspectors and medical officers calling attention to the fact that they might call in the inspectors of factories. As regarded the feebler trades, of which the greatest complaints had been made in the past, they were able to see some slight improvement, due partly to the Report laid annually before the House and the publicity which was given to that Report, and partly in some trades to the excellent results accomplished by social unions, and partly to the debates in this House. But the progress was not sufficient. The public had recently been startled by extracts from the factory inspectors' reports on the jam trade. It was bad enough now, but that trade was infinitely better than it was some years ago. The same thing might be said with regard to the fish-curing industry.
    1078
    During the discussions on the Bill of 1901 an optional clause was inserted by which the owners of jam factories were to make special provisions in regard to the standard weights carried by the employees. But still we were infinitely behind France in regard to the carrying of weights by women and children. On page 296 of the Report one of the women inspectors said—
    "the heavy weights carried by young persons—equally striking in textile factories— whenever there is a fairly abundant supply of young, cheap labour The carrying, pushing or pulling of heavy weights was one of the duties of the apprentice in almost every trade."
    She went on to describe having found a child carrying a bundle which was proved to weigh 44 lbs, and that it was "pitiful to see the twisted little figures of the children doing their best to accomplish more than they were physically fit for." Miss Martindale, another lady inspector, said that she was "unable to give as much attention as formerly to the carrying of heavy weights by women and children." But in visiting one factory she had seen a boy "carrying a piece of clay weighing 69 lbs., his own weight being 77 lbs." She re-visited that factory two years afterwards and found that the boy was hardly grown, and only weighed" 81 lbs., an increase of only 4 lbs. "In two years. She added that the" undersized condition of many of the pottery workers was owing to the excessive physical strain to which they had been subjected in their early years."there were many other trades on which that remark could be made. All these matters brought them back to the point as to the necessity for increasing the number of competent skilled inspectors. Just as there had been an improvement in the fruit-preserving industry, and in the fish-curing industry, so there had been an improvement in the lead industry compared with three or four years ago; but still there was immense room for progress. At page 291 of the Report, the inspector made this significant comment—
    " It is disappointing to find that the number of cases of plumbism amongst the women workers in the potteries has not decidedly decreased."
    And then she went on to say on page 292 that—
    " A great deal of the ill-health and low vitality among the pottery workers."

    1079
    would not be decreased until the Special Rules were more strictly enforced.
    The words were—
    " Until the standard of carrying out the Special Rules has been raised throughout the potteries the amount of ill-health amongst the workers will not be lessened to any considerable extent. There was a lack of interest in taking any further precautions than those required by the exact text of the Special Rules, and this was illustrated in one factory where during two and a half years eleven cases of plumbism amongst women had been reported, and nine cases of other ill-health, probably due to the employment. On investigation it was found that although there was fair compliance with the Special Rules, the workers had been engaged in processes which, although not prohibited, were still highly undesirable employment for women and girls, owing to the quantity of lead with which they came in contact."
    Another inspector reported that—
    " Although some manufacturers were doubtless doing their utmost to comply with the regulations, the most striking feature to be observed in the inspection of the potteries was the absolute failure of the occupiers and managers to realise their responsibility with reference to the carrying out of the Special Rules."
    This was another case of insufficiency of inspection, because these Special Rules were highly technical and required highly trained and competent inspectors. Under this Vote they could not deal with legislation; but two or three Departmental Committees had been appointed to make suggestions in regard to future legislation. His right hon. friend the Lord Advocate was Chairman of the Committee on Truck, and he was sure that they would all be anxious to receive the full Report of that Committee with a view to legislation as soon as possible. There was another Committee as to which he wished to make some inquiry, and that was the Committee to deal with the pressing matter of insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The House would remember that when the Bill was discussed he had put forward an Amendment raising this question of insurance in a general form. In the debate which followed his right hon. friend made a promise for the appointment of a Committee, and, being satisfied with that promise, he withdrew his Amendment. That promise was somewhat toned down on the
    1080
    following day by the Under-Secretary, but it was afterwards renewed in the same terms in which it was originally made. He would like the Home Secretary to State clearly the nature of the promise, because the subject was becoming more and more pressing. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    *MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD, in seconding the Motion, said that the difficulty which Members experienced in taking part in a discussion on the Home Office Vote was the enormous width of the subjects which lay before them. For instance, there were the many problems which had been raised by the Sweating Exhibition in the Queen's Hall. There was also the question to which his right hon. friend had referred, of the relations between the Home Office and the local sanitary authorities. Personally he considered that to be one of the most important questions which the Home Office would have to face. A Return which had been presented upon his Motion showing how certain.sections of the Factories and Workshops Act were supposed to be administered, was really appalling in the facts which it disclosed, and the evidence which it afforded of that working. He never believed that these sections were being well administered, but he never thought that they were so badly administered as that Return disclosed. He refrained, however, from entering into that question, because there was one important matter which he wished to refer to, which was, he thought, fundamental to everything, and that was not so much the increase as the organisation of the staff of factory inspectors. He did not wish to dissociate himself from the proposals which were being made for a substantial increase of the inspectorate, and he himself desired an increase of that body. But they Wanted not only numbers, but quality, and it was a question not only of increasing the staff, but of increasing their efficiency. Some months ago he drew the attention of the House to the syllabus which had been issued in regard to the appointment of factory inspectors. All he could then do was to draw the attention of the House to the character of the preparation required, and he pointed out

    1081
    that the practical part of the examination had been dropped, that the examinations had become theoretical, and that its theory was of such a character that nobody who had not been to a University could hope to pass. He was now in a position to put before the House one or two questions which had been set at the recent examination under this syllabus. It must be remembered that these questions were put to the men who were to inspect machinery and see if it was properly guarded and whether there was any danger in the manner in which factories were carried on. The first question in English history was—
    " How did William the Conqueror deal with the lands of the conquered? Is he correctly described as introducing the ' feudal system ' into England? "
    Another question was—
    " Give an account of the relations between England and Scotland from the time of William I. to the death of Edward I"
    Question number 7 was—
    " Describe the process of confiscation of Church lands under Henry VIII. and Edward VI."
    Another question was—
    "Describe briefly the relations between Elizabeth and her Parliament. Do you consider that she was more or less despotic than Henry VIII.?"
    Question 10 ran—
    " Describe the treatment of the Roman Catholics throughout the 17th century."
    And Question 15 was as follows:
    " Compare the extent of the British Empire in the 16th century with its extent in the 19th, and show the difference between the old Colonial policy or system of the 18th century and that of to-day."
    Finally, and he supposed the reason for this question was that the Labour Party had sailed into the political horizon, candidates were asked—:
    " Show historically how the participation of the democracy in the Government of the country in the 19th century has broadened the power and humanized the policy of England both at home and abroad."
    That was the sort of questions in regard to history which were set to gentlemen who had to administer the Factory Laws and protect the lives and limbs of our people and see that the industrial law was properly administered. Taking the syllabus in regard to Economics it also contained extraordinary questions to
    1082
    be answered by this class of men. One was—
    " Enumerate the essential points in the economic conception of a perfect market. To what extent are these conditions realised in the special conditions of the retail and wholesale markets, the money market, and the Stock Exchange? What conditions limit the development of the markets."
    Another question was—
    " What is meant by the mobility of labour? How far is labour mobile to-day? Is its mobility implied in the theory of wages? "
    A further question ran—
    "the Ricardian theory of rent is true, perhaps, of a particular time and place; it does not, however, apply in general to India," or in places in which the system of 'Metayage' prevails. Examine this view."
    The candidate also had this put before him—
    " Unless we are prepared to say that machinery is an evil, we cannot on economic grounds condemn as an evil the importation of cheap labour; whether it should be condemned on social grounds is another question. Examine and discuss."
    These were the nonsensical questions addressed to a candidate in order to establish his competence as a factory inspector. There was absolutely nothing on the practical side except that which was contained in Question 3. He gave this as an illustration on the other side, lest he should be unfair. That question was—
    " Examine critically the arguments that are commonly used in support of Factory Legislation. What were the most important features of the Act of 1884?"
    The point he wanted to emphasise was that so far as men of practical experience were concerned that syllabus was a clear and decisive notice that they were not wanted by the Home Office at all. Twenty-one nominations were made for seven vacancies, but not one of the assistant inspectors were nominated for examination. There was one nomination given to a clerk at the Home Office who had been a clerk in the Inspector's office, and that was the nearest approach to the nomination of a practical man. Mr. Daly, the organising secretary of the Amalgamated Tailors, wrote an article in which he discussed factory inspection from his point of view, in which he condemned the present system. A public inquiry, he declared, would disclose at the Home Office the same

    1083
    absence of administrative ability, the same power of social influence in the matter of promotion, and the same incompetence generally as was revealed as the result of the War Office Commission. His point was made still stronger by the sort of playing at inspection that took place. Two iron founders were appointed assistant inspectors because of their special ability, but they were employed not to inspect iron foundries but to look after dressmakers' assistants. The chairman of the Building Trades Federation was so disgusted to find that the duty assigned to him was to walk about certain districts at 11 o'clock at night to see whether the law was being observed in milliners' establishments that he threw up his post of assistant inspector. Two engineers and a cotton spinner had for thirteen years been looking after the dressmakers of South London. These men were appointed to do practical work, but were compelled to waste their time and the public money in this pettifogging tomfoolery. In a case of lead poisoning reported recently in the newspapers the case was discovered by the assistant inspector, but no sooner did he discover it than he had to drop it and report to a superior. He had to drop the whole thing although he had been reporting that the washing apparatus was inadequate and likely to result in disease. That was the rule of the department. No assistant inspector was allowed to deal with these dangerous poisoning cases. In the case of anthrax, too, these assistant inspectors went into the places where it is bred, but could do nothing when the disease appeared. Then in regard to the particulars clause. The moment an assistant inspector discovered in a work-room that the particulars had been imperfectly supplied and that the work came from a factory they could go no further, but had to report to a higher official, who had himself to go and make up his mind as to whether it was a case for a prosecution. He understood that the hon. Member for Bolton was going to raise the question of overtime cribbing, and he would say nothing about that except that he understood they were going to ask the police to assist in putting a stop to that, but they had not asked the assistance of the assistant inspector. The Truck Act also it was almost impossible
    1084
    to administer owing to the difficulty of tracing goods back. As showing the way the assistant inspectors were treated, he would point out that a monthly circular was issued from the Home Office giving information of everything that had happened during the month in the administration of the work of the Office, the legal decisions, changes in the law, changes in the responsible heads and so on. Although on the average half the circular dealt with things which assistant inspectors were concerned with, not a single copy was sent to any one of them, and when on one occasion by accident a copy was addressed to all the assistant inspectors, within twenty-four hours they were requested by letter to return it, as it had been sent by mistake. Was not the whole system of inspection absolute tomfoolery? Plain speaking was necessary in this matter. Those outside who had been watching carefully the inspection work of the Home Office had felt for a long time that matters instead of improving had been going from bad to worse. It was high time that this system which had grown up piecemeal, and which had never been adapted to the new conditions, should be made the subject of careful inquiry. The Home Office should make up its mind whether the assistant inspectors were worth keeping on. The time had come for the Home Office to consider what the organisation of the Factory Inspection Department was going to be. He challenged the Department to lay itself open to an inquiry. He challenged it to come before the public and give evidence to justify itself in drawing this clearly marked line between the full and the assistant inspectors, to justify the tendency that has gone so far towards divorcing the inspectors from the class with which they had to deal. This was a question of reorganising the staff, of increasing the efficiency. If he had to put it strongly and say they were not going to rest content with the present state of things it was because he was speaking for the wage-earning people of this country.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out '£1,203,002,' and insert '£1,202,902.' "— (Sir Charles Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That '£1,203,002' stand part of the said Resolution."
    MR. TENNANTsaid the most salient feature in connection with the issue of the new Blue-book was the interest almost amounting to excitement at the sudden discovery that all our food manufactories were not all that they ought to be. Why this new interest ! There was certainly no new fact. The British public were a truly apathetic body. It seemed to require at least two members of one family to be boiled alive at Chicago before interest could be aroused. Any time these last ten years past cases had been brought before this House of intense dirtiness of jam factories, fish-curing places, chocolate manufactories and others, and the public had been not perturbed. And yet, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had said, these places had been improved. Take any of the old reports. He took that for 1898 at random, and he found that both Miss Deane and Miss Paterson spoke of indescribable dirt, dilapidation and disorder.
    "the impression sometimes carried away from inspection of one of these places was that a building too insanitary for any other purpose was considered fit for the manufacture of jam and pickles."
    In another Report, that for 1902, Miss Paterson had said:—
    "In a new fruit preserving factory where considerable use was made of the exception which permits unlimited hours of work in order that fruit may be preserved in as fresh a condition as possible, I found the cleansing of the fruit being done in the hot and steamy boiling room. Built into the same room and ventilating directly into it was the sanitary accommodation. This had been primarily intended for a cloakroom, but its possibilities as a place to store fruit had been realised, and I found it in use for that purpose. Even the lavatory basin was piled high with fresh fruit."
    These cases had been brought forward year after year, and no one had paid any attention. Only a handful of interested and informed Gentlemen, such as he saw present now, and two bewildered and embarrassed Members of the late Administration were there to listen. It was only when they heard at their backs the grunting of the hogs of Chicago that they were able to get any attention given to the subject. Perhaps now they might
    1086
    hope for better things. Closely allied with the jam trade was the preserving of fish. Anybody who studied this Report, especially the very interesting Report from Miss Paterson as to the conditions prevailing in the North of Scotland, particularly Shetland, would feel how instinct that Report was with the anxiety and desire to improve the lot of those fisher-girls, an anxiety and desire it seemed very difficult to put into effect. The conditions of the fish-curing industry were very bad, and there was a very high death-rate. Miss Paterson spoke of a great lack of sanitary accommodation, and she particularly dwelt on the shy and sensitive feelings of these Highland girls, to whom the common obligations of decency seemed to be denied. This absence of sanitary accommodation not only produced grave risks to the girls, but to the public health as well. A very common excuse made by employers in this industry was that these girls were only there between three and five week's at the outside and, therefore, it was not' worth while spending money on sanitary conveniences and effecting other desirable improvements. It was, one curer expressed it, in the nature of a summer outing. But with the exception of the Shetlanders, practically all the women in the industry worked at it for six months in the year. Kipperers worked the whole year round. The irregular hours of work made it all the more necessary that the conditions of work should be satisfactory. Another extraordinary fact was that drinking water was almost impossible to be obtained in many cases, and one of the lairds charged 1s. a barrel for it. What was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do with regard to the appalling conditions of employment of girls who worked in foreign ships at British ports? The Report said —
    " We found the complaint fully justified and the conditions so bad that it was amazing to us that women could be found to accept work under them.…It is difficult to write moderately about the living and the sleeping quarters provided for these women. Down in the hold of the ship boards were laid on the top of the herring barrels, and on these, with some tarpaulin laid on them, the women slept, and not only slept hut cooked their food; the hatch above the hold, if open, would admit some light, and would also of course, admit the rain. There was no attempt at either cleanliness or comfort; indeed we had

    1087
    felt some indignation when we saw, on our way north, some Shetland cattle lowered for one night into similar quarters to those in which these women live for long periods."
    It was a disgraceful state of things, and he hoped his right hon. friend would communicate with the proper authorities to see if they could not have improvement in these conditions. He came to an old subject of his, namely, that of means of escape in case of fire. The Report showed numerous instances in which narrow wooden and, in many cases, steep staircases were the only outlets. His right, hon. friend might say that this was the business of the local authority, and that they ought to have put their powers in force. That was quite true, but where less than forty persons were employed the Home Office had no compulsory powers over the local authority as it ought to have. There again he trusted his right hon. friend was fully impressed with the urgency of the question. The Report showed that even in new factories the means of escape in the event of fire were very inadequate. For example, in one factory visited by Miss Martindale, which had been built as recently as eighteen months ago, she found 160 workers employed on the top floor from which there was no exit except one staircase. Miss Squire reported that a chief officer of a Fire Brigade told her he had himself in vain reported to the corporation that a factory was very unsafe years ago. She had written to the local authority and had received a reply that the Committee were of opinion that no additional means of escape could be provided at a "reasonable expense." Were they going to wait to provide real means of escape from fire until it could be provided at a reasonable expense? The whole of this subject required investigation, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would re-appoint the Select Committee on Fire, appointed last session, at the earliest opportunity, and that it would go thoroughly into the matter and report what ought to be done. He now came to such questions as precaution for life and limb in electrical generating works. It was an extremely dangerous trade, the workers being struck down without anything in the nature of a warning.
    1088
    There was in the inspector's Report in all eighteen deaths from this cause in the year. He did not say they were all electrical deaths, but they were all due to shocks or falls or other accidents on account of shocks. Five of the eighteen were on railways, four in mines, three in consumers' premises, and six under the Factory Act. Of course there were in addition a large number of injuries. Special regulations were recommended for this trade seven years ago, but none existed at the present day. The Home Office had pursued a policy of reliance upon voluntaryism. He objected to voluntaryism for two reasons; one was that they might get one employer to fall in with their ideas and not the other, in which case unfair competition arose; and, in the second place, the management of a place might change, and with it the methods. There was no power of compulsion. There were two new trades reported upon in the Chief Inspector's report, both of extraordinary interest. One was the aniline dyeing trade and the other the trade of making shuttles of West African wood. In the aniline dyeing trade illness had been so rife that out of sixty persons employed in seven factories examined by the medical inspector twenty-eight persons, or 47 per cent., showed pale grey or blue colour of the lips; thirty-four persons, or 57 per cent., characteristic pallor, and five scars, the result of previous work in chrome or of injury to the skin, showing that the whole of these persons had suffered in one manner or another and seven of them had suffered doubly. Again, among eighty-two persons employed in the chroming, washing, drying and other processes, twenty-eight (34 per cent.) showed the game conditions of the lips, sixteen (20 per cent.) the pallor, and eleven (14 per cent.) present or past effects of chrome. He would give one illustration in the shuttle-making trade in which West African wood was used. There was a case reported of a man working in that trade who had not been previously ill; very soon after commencing work he began to run at the eyes and nose, and his breathing rapidly became so difficult that he could neither speak nor swallow. After one severe attack he

    1089
    was three weeks at home, and then three weeks at a convalescent home, after which he felt better, but the day he resumed his work he was as bad as ever. He used a respirator, and this case was a good example of the danger of placing reliance upon respirators. What was the Home Secretary going to do? In this trade manufacturers in conference recommended the use of exhaust ventilation, and he should like to know what the Home Office was going to do, because this West African wood was very dangerous indeed. He trusted he would not rely upon his powers of "peaceful persuasion." With regard to the regulation of the wall-paper trade, the Home Office appeared to be relying upon those powers. They were also relying upon peaceful persuasion in regard to the iron and steel trade for the protection of workers upon Bessemer steel, and also in regard to lithographic processes in which bronze was used. With regard to Institution laundries, the voluntary system had failed, and the Reports of the lady inspectors showed that in the cases he quoted no improvements had been achieved in regard to the fencing of machinery or the ventilation of wash-houses. Their Reports also showed a lamentable want of care in regard to children employed in such laundries. The inspectors were very emphatic in their reports as to the unreliability of the statements furnished to them by those who were in authority. They report—
    "In only a few places do we feel that we have been met with complete frankness, even where the courtesy with which we have been received has also been the most marked."… "We have no meats whatever of checking these statements, as we had no opportunity of speaking to the workers or visiting at unusual hours."…. "We were constantly assured that no accident could occur in a wash-house crowded with machinery and in which numbers of persons are employed because a man was in the room ! We feel strongly that the information received with regard to accidents was entirely unreliable, and whenever we had the means of checking it we found that it was not upheld."
    He thought the Home Secretary would see that this system of voluntary inspection had entirely broken down, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman - to put an end to it.
    1090
    He wished to remind the House of the enormous importance of the subject with which they were dealing. As the hon. Member for Leicester had said, that the great difficulty of dealing with this question was the enormous amount of ground one had to traverse and the difficulty of choosing any particular part of the subject. On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman rebuked him for urging the Home Office to do more, because he said they had a number of very important matters in hand, such as the Workmen's Compensation Bill, the Truck Acts Committee, and the Committee dealing with the police, not to speak of the preparation of a Licensing Bill for next year. He should be the last person in the world to minimise the great responsibility which attached to the right hon. Gentleman's high office. But although he had great responsibilities he had also stupendous opportunities. He had be hind him at the Home Office an able body of energetic, active, and sagacious members of the Civil Service. He had also in that House a large number of hon. Members keen and eager, almost spoiling for reform, and in these circumstances he appealed to him, and he did not think his appeal would fall upon deaf ears: he appealed to him to use in the best possible manner all those great powers which the wisdom of Parliament had entrusted to him in order to bring an increased measure of happiness, of light, and of hope, into the lives of thousands of our workers.
    MR. GILLsaid the subject he wished to bring before the attention of the House was time-cribbing. The number of hours worked in cotton mills per week was fixed at fifty-five and a-half hours. The operatives commenced work at 6 o'clock in the morning and stopped at 8 for half-an-hour for meals. They then worked on from 8.30 to 12.30, and from 1.30 to 5.30. At the end of the week the machinery was stopped at 11.30 and work ceased altogether at 12 o'clock. A large number of the workpeople were paid day wages in the texile factories which were calculated on the basis of fifty-five and a-half hours per week. The time-cribbing of which he complained was done at the stopping and the starting of the work. It was a common thing for many of the workpeople to

    1091
    go to work five or ten minutes before the proper time, and they found the engines running, and frequently at noon on Saturdays during the period which had been set aside for cleaning, they found the time encroached upon by the manufacturing process being carried on at twenty minutes or a quarter to 12, whereas it ought to cease at 11.30. He had been furnished with the returns in some instances of the amount of time which had been worked over the proper number of hours. He had in his possession a letter from one of the branch secretaries of the Employees Association which gave the figures for five different mills upon which observations had been kept for a week. In the first mill three hours thirty-five minutes were worked over the proper time, in the second mill two hours sixteen minutes, in the third three hours forty-five minutes, in the fourth three hours forty-one minutes, and in the last case two hours forty-nine minutes. In each of those cases the workpeople had not been paid one penny extra. The House would realise the extent of this practice when he stated that in Lancashire there were close upon 50,000,000 spindles. There were a considerable number of employers who did not carry out the requirements of the Act in a satisfactory way. He believed he understated the fact when he said that the owners of 30,000,000 spindles were getting their employees to work overtime in the way he had described to the extent of fully two hours per week. If this was worked out it would be found that each employer of 120 persons, taking the wages at 4d. per hour, was putting into his pocket £4 per week to which he was not entitled. This meant that £60,000 per year represented labour given by the operatives for which they were not paid. This was unfair not only to the operatives themselves, but also to the good employers. Many of the employers would scorn to take a penny which the operatives had earned, but the fact that others did as he had described meant that the good employers who observed the law were subjected to unfair competition with the bad employers in whose case the cost of production was so much cheaper. There was another aspect of the question. The President of the Local Government Board was
    1092
    anxious to find a remedy for unemployment. A reduction in the hours of labour was a remedy which was favoured by many people. In this particular case he had made a calculation which showed that, taking two hours per week on 30.000,000 spindles, if the law was kept as the good employers kept it, there would be employment found for 2,500 additional workpeople if the same amount of work was turned out. That was in connection with the spinning department; but there was also the weaving section, where things had gone on the same lines. This system had been going on for a long series of years, and it did not seem to mend. He did not blame the inspectors. There was not a sufficient number of them. They were trying to do their duty manfully, but it was utterly impossible for them to see that all employers carried out the law. The Home Office desired the law to be carried out, but the staff at its disposal was unequal to the work. He found that the last Reports of the Inspectors of Factories and Workshops were generally to the effect that the practice of time-cribbing showed no sign of diminution. The deputation which waited upon the Home Secretary suggested that the police should be called upon to assist in this matter. The Home Secretary consulted nineteen Watch Committees, and of these sixteen reported unfavourably and three favourably. They never expected any favourable replies at all. He had obtained the constitution of these Committees in twelve towns, and his information showed that of 136 members no less than ninety-three were employers, and fifty-one were engaged in the cotton trade. Two of the towns which reported favourably were Hyde and Blackburn. In Hyde there were no cotton employers on the Committee and in Blackburn there were four labour members on the Committee. That seemed to prove that in the bulk of the cases the employers were looking after their own interests. The fact that most of the Watch Committees had reported unfavourably should not, he thought, deter the Home Secretary from taking action in the matter. He held that the police should be employed to give information to the inspector, who would bring the cases before the Court. The police were

    1093
    used for administering the Shop Hours Act and they prevented time-cribbing in public houses, and why should they not be employed in doing the same thing in factories? He asked too that all the inspectors and inspectors' assistants at the Home Secretary's disposal in textile districts should be employed in combating this evil. If this were done there would be a sensible improvement in the present condition of affairs. The penalties should be increased so that it would not pay an employer to break the law. A determined attempt should be made to stop this growing evil, to see that the women and children were protected, and to prevent honest employers being handicapped in competition with dishonest employers. It was for the Home Secretary to see that the Factory Acts were administered in such a way that there would be no cause for complaint.
    *MR. JOWETTsaid he desired to acknowledge the trouble which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had always taken in regard to questions affecting labour. The hon. Member for Berwickshire had referred to aniline and chrome poisoning. He would ask the Home Secretary to give special attention to this matter, not so much because of the number of fatal cases, but on account of the large number of cases where the sufferers lingered on, were rendered unhappy and uncomfortable by reason of its effects, and who still had to go on struggling in order to get their living. It seemed to him that it was not right or fair that a section of the population like the workers amongst wool should be put in the conditions in which they now had to labour. Therefore, he asked the Home Secretary to consider very carefully the representations that had been made to him, and to see whether nothing could be done to arrest the ravages of anthrax. He made no imputation against the Home Office as to the way in which the officials were performing their duties. He quite agreed that the rules which they tried to carry into effect were good, so far as they went, and perhaps effected all that they were expected to do; but he respectfully submitted that the line of action taken
    1094
    by the Home Office Department in regard to this disease of anthrax started at the wrong end. It started when the disease entered the factory, instead of preventing it entering the factory. He asked the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the President of he Local Government Board, to take action under the Public Health Act to deal with his disease. Last year there were not fewer than twenty cases of anthrax recorded in the town with which he was immediately connected, and of these ten were fatal. There were no signs of any permanent diminution in the disease in that area from the fact that there was no diminution in the quantity of infected material which the men had to handle. Most of that material was ditty, low grade wool which came from Persia and other Eastern countries. A large amount of it was worked up into what was called "oil-backing" In which cotton-seed and linseed oil was pressed to extract the oil from the seed. Most of the low-grade wools from which the mischief had arisen during the last few years was made into that kind of fabric. He asked the attention of the Secretary for Home Affairs particularly to the fact that there was one firm which had for the last fifty years made this fabric without having a single case of anthrax in their factory, although they were in competition with all the other great manufacturers in Yorkshire. Therefore, he maintained that no harm could be done to the wool and cloth industry of Yorkshire if this matter of dealing with the prevention of anthrax was undertaken seriously and effectively. He suggested that the Home Secretary should make careful inquiry as to what kinds of wool were infected, and having got that information he should not allow that wool to come into the country except under conditions in which it would be safe for the workers to deal with it. Dr. Bell, of Bradford, who was perhaps the greatest authority in this country on the disease of anthrax, had said that in nearly all cases the disease was derived in men from the handling of wool or hair from animals which had been diseased. The countries from which the wool and hair from these diseased animals came were well known

    1095
    It was all very well to issue regulations from the Home Office that the men who were handling these wools should wash their hands and so forth; but if the disease was in the material there was the potential risk of contracting the disease offered to all who handled it or inhaled the dust which came from it. The downward draft imposed by the regulations when the men were handling the wool did not remove, it only diminished, the risk of infection. He, therefore, asked the Home Secretary to get into communication with the Local Government Board with a view to action being taken under the Public Health Acts to prevent these disease-engendering wools from entering the country.
    *MR. BYLESsaid that the House of Commons might be congratulated on the fact that there were men in this Parliament who had expert knowledge derived from their own experience of the conditions of labour which they wished to see ameliorated. A large amount of the legislation passed by Parliament was not operative. That often might be the fault of the local authorities who administered these Acts of Parliament; or it might be largely due to the want of anxiety on the part of officials to insist upon the provisions of the Acts of Parliament being enforced. It should be the business of Parliament to see that the public got the full benefit of every Act of Parliament passed for public advantage and safety. In 1895 it was agreed that there was a great improvement in the administration of the Home Office when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer held the portfolio of Home Secretary. He hoped that the present occupant of the Home Office would show equal energy and give a momentum to the administration of his department. Only that day he had had an interview with a deputation who desired that the working classes should have representation on the inspectorate. That only confirmed what had been said by the hon. Member for Leicester, that great improvements might be made in regard to the work of inspection. The matter which had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in asking for an
    1096
    extension of the "Particulars" Clause to all piece-workers deserved the attention of the Home Office. In the borough which he represented he had been astonished to find the number of piece-workers —many of them ignorant and un instructed—who were unable to ascertain the proper amount which they earned. When one went to an hotel one got a bill of what was due, and he thought in the same way that the worker who went into a factory and did piece-work ought to be entitled to a note showing what work he had done and what money he was entitled to, so that he might go away satisfied that he was not underpaid, as well as the employers being satisfied that he was not overpaid. Upon the subject of "time-cribbing," he had been amazed at the figures given by the hon. Member for Bolton. If it was going on to the extent stated it must be characterised as robbery—robbery of the poor by the rich, some of whom were thus fattening on the earnings stolen from their workpeople. The suggestion had been made that the police might be employed o carry out a system of detection of these frauds upon workers. He did not see what objection there could be to a proposal of that kind [Mr. JOWETT: There is only one objection to it; it would be successful.]. Quite so, and he really did not see why such a course should not be followed. Last night they were engaged in passing a Musical Copyright Bill for the protection of another class of property under which the police had power to in erven, and when an employer deliberately and persistently robbed his workpeople he did not see why the police should not step in and protect the persons who were being robbed. He commended that idea to the Home Secretary, and he thought that until the inspectorate had been largely reinforced the police should look after the thieves. That was their business.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,said the Home Office had no statutory power in the matter.
    *MR. BYLESsaid the House ought to give the Home Office statutory power. In regard to anthrax, having lived in Bradford for years he knew the prevalence of

    1097
    the disease amongst those who worked in wool and also the terrible nature of the disorder. It was a terrible disease, and if a man contracted it two days sufficed to kill him. A man went to work perfectly well and came home with a headache and in forty-eight hours he was dead, although previously he was a strong, healthy man. He had seen that happen time after time. Efforts were made thirteen years ago and orders issued in regard to certain precautions, but they had that evening heard upon the high authority of his hon. friend, who was the highest authority obtainable, that there was no improvement or reduction in the number of cases. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to do what was necessary to prevent the spread of this terrible scourge which afflicted his own town, and pass more legislation if it was necessary. It had been argued that the wool should be excluded at the port of entry, and he might point out that, with a view to precluding the importation of disease, we already excluded foreign and even Canadian cattle. If steps of that sort were taken in regard to cattle why not in the case of wool? Another subject he wished to call attention to was the conditions under which girls worked in factories. In Salford where he had resided for many years he had been shocked at the conditions under which girls worked. There, as in many large towns, the growth and physical development of the young women suffered, and this must involve injury to the race when they become mothers. Many of these girls worked under most unhealthy and insanitary conditions. The factories and workshops were not properly inspected by the inspectors. He had promised his constituents that he would raise his voice upon this question, and he now did so. Their best hope was in the Home Office and in the earnest and vigorous administration of the factory and workshop legislation which this House had passed. He believed that the men who now formed His Majesty's Government were in full sympathy with the workers of this country, and were determined to do justice as between rich and poor; to relieve those who were helpless and cast down and those who were ill able
    1098
    to help themselves, and to give them all the advantages which Parliament had placed at their disposal. He hoped His Majesty's Government would see that the great and beneficent Acts which had been passed from time to time would not be allowed to remain inoperative, but would be allowed to fructify for the benefit of the poor.
    *MR. O'GRADYsaid he wished to call attention to the general question of factory inspection, and to remind the Home Office that those interested in labour were still clamouring for more factory inspection. At the present moment there were in London thousands of small factories and workshops in the East End that had never been seen by an inspector, and in these places men were being done to death for want of ventilation and sanitation. When a factory inspector put in an appearance the most beneficent results followed, and usually his requirements were so costly that it was found impossible to carry on a sweated industry under which men were done to death. He would like to take hon. Members to some of those premises, and he was sure that if he did so they would come back and make a considerable noise in this House over what they had seen. Then with regard to the dock labourers. Those who knew anything about shipping knew that the dock labourer was subjected to all kinds of risks every moment he was working. But most of the accidents occurred from defective gear. In regard to the dock labourers there should be special inspectors, acquainted, not only with all the rules of factory inspectorship, but having a special knowledge of the gear used in unloading vessels. As regards the cabinet makers he might point out that recently in cabinet making certain peculiar woods had come into use from the Congo and South Africa, and he asserted that 27 percent. of the deaths of the members of the Society of Cabinet Makers were due to the poisonous substances exuded from these woods and absorbed through the skin of the workers. They had even to go to the length of striking as a protest against the employment of these kinds of timber in the trade. The shuttle makers had protested in this way time after time against the same

    1099
    thing, The Wood was not essential for making shuttles and was only used because it was cheaper than the ordinary boxwood that ought to be used. The Report stated at page 382 that the remedy for this evil was the use of exhaust ventilation. It might minimise, but it would in no sense remedy it. Quite apart from the dust, the men absorbed the poison through their skin, and the only remedy was to prohibit the use of the wood. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter. It was felt that many of these disasters could be minimised if not altogether remedied if the right hon. Gentleman would give broader and more definite instructions to the factory inspectors. £20,000 a year expended in additional inspectors would mean the saving of hundreds of lives and the prevention of many of the accidents that desolated the homes of the people engaged in workshops and factories. In this new Parliament was a new spirit which recognised that the most valuable thing on God's earth was the life of the workers, and its safety and well-being should have primary codsideration; he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would put the effective machine which he had in his hand into operation towads that end.
    MR. BRACEsaid he almost sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman who had been asked to do so much. He rose to ask him not to do one thing which he had commenced to do. Yesterday a Committee was appointed to inquire into the economic results which would follow an eight hour day if put into operation in the mines of the country. He objected to the Committee. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain, which represented every coalfield in the country except those of Durham, and Northumberland, felt they had not been treated as they ought to have been. For twenty years they had agitated for an eight hour day from bank to bank by Act of Parliament. They had spent thousands of pounds to advance their cause, and when in this Parliament they saw a large number of Members pledged to give this reform that the miners had sought for twenty years they were given a Departmental Committee and they were expected to be satisfied. There was
    1100
    upon the records of this House all the information that Parliament needed in order to determine whether there ought to be an eight hour day or not. In face of the fact that there had been twenty years of agitation and that the majority of the Members of this House were pledged to the people it was not treating them as they had a right to expect, to create this Departmental Committee, How could it assist them? So strongly did they feel upon this point that he was authorised to say that they would be no parties to this Committee. They felt so strongly that they would carry this Vote to a division; they would not recognise the Departmental Committee, and they would not prejudice the cause of this great reform for which they had agitated for twenty years and for which they had spent thousands of pounds.
    *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he very much regretted that his hon. friend should have committed himself to a view which was so much at variance with the facts. The Departmental Committee was appointed to help the Government in legislating for the purpose of carrying out the unanimous decision which the House arrived at a few months ago on the Second Reading of the Eight Hours Bill. He wished to remind hon. Members that no Government had ever brought in a Bill dealing with a question great enough to affect the whole country, dealing with difficult relations between employers and employed, and also suggesting many points of economic doubt and difficulty, without fortifying themselves for the task with full, careful, and impartial information. His hon. friend said they would not accept this Committee; they would not give evidence. Would his hon. friend allow him to point out what a Departmental Committee really was? It was a Committee appointed by the head of a department to help him in a particular task. It was not to help the House of Commons, or to retard the House of Commons or to deal with any political movement in the country. It was appointed for a certain purpose which the head of a department might have in view in order to assist him to deal with whatever task might be put upon him. They had no authoritative, skilled, authentic, information. He could imagine himself

    1101
    bringing in a Bill and hon. Gentlemen opposite putting questions to him as to the effects of this Bill with regard to economic questions of output, foreign competition, and so forth, and all he would be able to say would be, "these are matters of mere speculation. Some way one thing and some another." If the hon. Member for South Glamorgan had sat in this House for twenty-six years, as he himself had, he would not so misconceive the nature of a Departmental Committee. He had on a previous occasion stated that he would be guided in the nature of the inquiry by the opinion of those most concerned. To begin with, this Committee was suggested to him by his hon. friend representing the mines of Durham and Northumberland. The hon. Gentleman said that Northumberland had changed its opinion on the question. That had nothing to do with this Committee, and, if he might say so, the objection of his hon. friend was very irrelevant to the purpose. They asked for the Committee, and it was clear to him that his hon. friends honestly wished to find some way of getting general assent with regard to the eight hours. It was not only in their interests, but in the interests of all concerned in the rapid and future progress of the question that this inquiry should be held, and that the Government should be armed with the information necessary to its task. He was not depending on that altogether. He had had a frank talk with his hon. friends about it and expessed the hope that they would not come to any Resolution. He explained to them that the Committee was appointed in a spirit of friendliness, and in no sense in a spirit of hostility to the eight hours question, and that it would accelerate progress and not retard it.
    MR. BRACEsaid he made his speech after consultation with his hon. friend the Member for Hanley, and he ventured to think he had fairly put his views as well as his own before the House.
    *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that in that case his hon. friend the Member for Hanley was under as great a misapprehension as his hon. friend the Member for South Glamorgan. His hon. friend had said they wanted to hurry the matter up. France, he said,
    1102
    had gone ahead of this country, and we stood where we were. He agreed that France had shown progressiveness on this question, but when his hon. friend said that France did not need an inquiry, he would ask, Was that true? What was the nature of the Bill adopted by the French Government? He was not aware that this debate was coming on, and so he did not arm himself with exact information but, speaking from recollection, in the first place it was not what was called a bank to bank Bill at all. It was an Act by which hours from nine or nine and a half came down in half hour stages to eight, but the time was not reckoned from bank to bank, and the Act only affected the hewers of coal; further, if it was found that the Act worked harshly upon a poor man or a poor mineral district, that it really did reduce employment, restrict output, or play into the hands of the foreigner, then there were powers under that Act to suspend its operation. That might be one effective method of action, but was that the method his hon. friend would throw upon this country? Was that the method which the hon. Gentleman and his friends were ready to adopt? His hon. friend had said "follow France."
    MR. BRACE: Follow France in the principle of progress.
    *MR. GLADSTONEsaid they should follow everyone in the principle of progress. He really did appeal to his hon. friend not to act hastily in this matter. He could assure him, as one who had voted on every occasion in favour of the Eight Hours Bill, that they had taken up and committed themselves to the principle. His hon. friend and his colleagues were so conscious of the difficulties he had indicated to the House that they themselves had had reluctantly to take the Bill based partly on the French system. What was the nature of the difficulties? He did not know, nor did his hon. friends know. They existed in the air. The hon. Gentleman and his friends proposed a plan, but he did not know that this plan was necessary at all. The result of a skilled and impartial Committee might be that they could have an

    1103
    Eight Hours Bill forthwith over the whole country. If that were so and his hon. friend took up the position the had indicated to the House what would then be his position? He would have done his best to impose a less perfect Bill upon the House, the country, and those he represented. He did appeal to his hon. friend to hold his hand. He was sure he had spoken under a misconception, and he begged him to, confer again with his hon. friend the Member for Hanley, and, at any rate, not to commit those for whom he acted to any action which was absolutely hostile to this inquiry. The inquiry was quite removed from the principle of eight hours. They wanted to find out exactly, as far as they could, the true economic value of the question as between one district and another and one class and another, and in the interests of the miners themselves he hoped his hon. friend would hold his hand. He passed on to the questions which had been brought to his notice this afternoon. His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had surveyed the general question with all his great knowledge, and he confessed that on the whole he felt reassured from the character of the speech and the nature of the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman made. He would answer one or two of his points at once. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the non-textile industries. He was paid he could not give the right hon. Gentleman the details, but he would by to ascertain them and send them to him. Certain trades, namely, brush-making, net making, indiarubber balloon making, boot and shoe manufacture, umbrella making, fustian cutting, certain branches of food manufacture, paper box making, and others were being considered and, he hoped, would be included in a comprehensive order. With regard to home work the recent sweating exhibition, for which the Daily News deserved great credit, had made a great impression on the public mind. It was of great importance that this question of sweating should be kept in full view of the public, and it ought to be pulled out continually from the holes and corners where it existed and shown in the quarters of the well-to-do and well-fed, who little knew under what conditions these people worked.
    1104
    His right hon. friend had dwelt upon the importance of the fusion of the duties of sanitary and factory inspectors That was a matter to which he would give his attention. In 1894, when they first dealt with the question of outworkers, hey found very great difficulty in bringing about any fusion of duties between the two classes of inspectors, but he would certainly consider the matter and see if anything could be done. He was sure that in this matter he could rely upon the co-operation of the President of the Local Government Board. The Member for Berwick had dealt with various important matters, including factories in which food was made, jam factories and the fish curing trade. So far as the protection of the general public was concerned that was a matter more for other authorities than the factory inspectors. Of course cleanliness bore upon that question, and he had called the attention of the Chief Inspector to the reports upon this subject, and special inquiries were being made during the busy season with a view to a special r port upon the whole subject. As to accidents arising from the use of electricity, electricity was a comparatively new power applied to industrial life, and one of the difficulties of the Home Office naturally arose from the fact that the present staff were not electricians, and a knowledge of electricity was not required in the original equipment of the present staff of inspectors. But an electrical expert had recently been appointed an inspector to pay attention to this subject. With regard to what had been said about aniline dyes, he would give the subject special consideration, and he would call the attention f the Chief Inspector to the matter. The question of the use of poisonous wood in the making of shuttles and cabinet-making had been referred to by his hon. friend the member for East Leeds, and he agreed that that was a matter which ought to be closely examined. Some safeguards had recently been adopted and the Home Office had asked or a report on the subject. He would undertake to have a special report made in regard to any woods used for industrial purpose which endangered life. The hon. Member for East Leeds aid there were thousands of workshops which Were never

    1105
    visited by an inspector, but because they were not visited in one particular year it should not be assumed that they were never visited at all. There were places inspected which were found so satisfactory that they were often written off for a time in order that other places might be visited. The Hon. Member had referred to the dangers of dock labour. He would take note of what had been said, particularly in reference to defective gear. He was proposing a special increase of the staff for this work by appointing four inspectors' assistants for London, Newcastle, Liverpool, and Glasgow, whose duty it would be to look after the safety of those employed in the docks. The hon. Member for West Bradford had made an interesting speech on the subject of anthrax. The hon. Member for Salford had also referred to the great outbreak of this deadly disease. The figures showed that in 1899 the fatalities were fifty-five; in 1900, they were thirty-seven; 1901, thirty-nine; 1902, thirty-eight; 1903, forty-seven; 1904, fifty; and 1905, fifty-nine. That progressive rise in the statistics necessitated a very close and careful inquiry, and it was obviously a matter for very grave consideration. He agreed with everything that had been said as to the unfortunate extent of this disease. It had been suggested that the imported wool which was supposed to harbour the germs of this disease should be dealt with at the port of entry. That sounded a very good suggestion if it could be carried out. It was, however, somewhat difficult, because the wool was imported in large quantities, made up in bales, and to have it unpacked on landing would mean the placing of a very heavy tax on the trade. If no other way of dealing with the matter could be found, and if this way could be made effectual, he granted that it ought to be done. The question at the present moment was whether it would be possible. It was a complicated question, and there were great difficulties when they came to differentiate in matters of this kind in connection with imports. The question was whether the material could be subjected to any process which would really effect a cure for the evil. The difficulty was to find something which would sterilise those spores without injuring the material. That was the problem,

    1106
    and it had been engaging the serious attention of the Home Office for some time past. A Committee had been appointed in Bradford, with a Government subsidy, for the special purpose of experimenting in regard to the disease He was informed by a friend of his of much experience in the Bradford trade that there were real hopes of a remedy being found by means of some process involving the submersion of the wool, or whatever the material might be, in a vessel containing chemical ingredients. He would not say more about that at the present time. There was no use of being over-sanguine about remedies, but in this matter he had good reason for believing that there might be something done at no distant date.
    MR. JOWETTsaid his suggestion was that wools which were actually dangerous might be excluded, though he did believe that steam pressure at 230 degrees Fahrenheit would prevent the danger.
    *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that if the wool, or whatever the material might be which contained these spores in dangerous quantity did not yield to treatment, the only remedy would be to exclude the wool altogether. No doubt that could be done, but though they might get rid of the worst part of the evil by excluding wool which came from certain parts of the world the anthrax evil would always be with them, as wool was necessary in our textile industries. He would do everything in his power to further the investigation which was now going on. Information and instruction on the subject would be issued by his Department to those engaged in the industries concerned, so that when the disease was found to exist prompt action might be taken, in which case probably no harm would arise. On the subject of laundry inspection he had expressed his views over and over again. It was one of the questions with which they would be obliged to deal, and he would only say that he hoped to bring in a Bill next year. With regard to time-cribbing, he was perfectly ready to cooperate with his hon. friends or anyone in order to put down this evil. The time had come when employers should be formally warned that this infringement

    1107
    of the law for their personal gain was wrong, and that they had better put their house in order lest some drastic reforms might be found to be necessary. He hoped employers would be wise in time. It was fair, however, to say that some responsibility attached to the workpeople who gained [An HON. MEMBER: No], or thought they gained by the working of overtime, and he claimed their cooperation in putting a stop to a practice which was thoroughly bad. He had omitted to deal with one question of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. As soon as they got clear of the Workmen's Compensation Bill the subject of insurance should be taken up, and the Government would consider the best form of inquiry into the whole matter. Turning to the question of factory inspection, he said that with the manifold duties of his Department it had been wholly out of their power this session to devote themselves entirely to any one line of inquiry and investigation. He doubted whether the Home Office had ever been more severely pressed. In addition to the Workmen's Compensation Bill, the Department had been responsible for no less than ten small Bills. There had been heavy work on the criminal side, which had put a heavy strain upon the Department; they had had to deal with special difficulties in the administration of the London police, of the Aliens Act, of the Licensing Act of 1904, and of the Employment of Children Act and the bye-laws made under it. Then they had had heavy work in connection with lunacy and vagrancy; vaccination had been hurled at his head almost every Parliamentary day; and there was also vivisection, on which he had been tormented perhaps more in private than in public. They had had to deal with the question of criminal appeal and the big question of London traffic; and further, they had had to consider arrangements for the International Conference at Berne, at which this country for the first time would be officially represented. The hon. Member for Leicester had brought a somewhat menacing charge against the administration of the Factory Department. What he maintained was that the efficiency of the Factory Department of the Home Office had increased, was
    1108
    increasing, and would increase. He did not claim that it was perfect or that it had not its weak spots. All that he claimed was that as a Department it contained a large number of extremely competent and self-sacrificing men who were keen in the public interest to do their duty. He wished, in passing, to pay a tribute to the work of Sir Hamilton P. Freer-Smith, to whom on his retirement a word of public acknowledgment was due for his great and meritorious services in connection with the work of the Factory Department. He admitted that the Department might be open to attack in regard to the number of miles travelled by the officers when engaged in inspection duties. Comparing the number of miles travelled last year with the number of miles travelled in 1895, which he believed amounted to 94,400 miles as against 32,700 miles, he found that there had been an increase out of all proportion to the number of additional factory inspectors appointed. Obviously, when a man was travelling he could not be inspecting, and it would be his endeavour to see whether the high figure of miles travelled could not be reduced by a better system of organisation so as to concentrate the staff more directly on the factories and workshops under their charge. As to the attack made on the new examination syllabus, there was nothing sinister behind the scheme. The idea underlying the system introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite during his last year of office was to have an examination on a fairly wide range of subjects of general knowledge, and then, after a probationary period of two years, a qualifying examination in the special subjects of Factory Law and Sanitary Science, which were really better learnt during a period of actual work in the Factory Department than they could be from books alone. The object was to throw open the door as widely as possible to the best candidates from all quarters. As the syllabus stood, however, it was possible for a candidate to qualify by simply confining himself to history, French, German, or Italian. But the idea was not to stop there. There was the period of probation to consider, and after that there was the qualifying examination, so that the

    1109
    inspector would have time and opportunity to acquire the technical and practical knowledge necessary for the discharge of his duty and to show his aptitude for that work, such as appearing in Court and conducting a case, as well as in the practical and technical work he had to undertake. He did not object to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms as to examinations, but he did to the suggestion that there was undue predominance given to what was called social influence.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he did not know he had gone so far as th t.
    *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he wanted to get quite clear from his hon. friend what he really meant. He was therefore glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman had made no such charge. As to inspectors' assistants, he admitted that the system was open to his hon. friend's criticisms, and he had prepared a scheme which would go before the Treasury. At present the average age of these assistants was about thirty-eight, and a large number of them had arrived at the maximum salary of £150. They had therefore in prospect 27 years of public service without any advance in pay or in duty. He agreed that assistant inspectors had but a shadowy chance of getting into the inspectorate. But both as to their status and as to their duties he hoped to make a change which he trusted would be viewed by hon. Gentlemen as satisfactory. In many parts of the country and especially in Lancashire, workshops were being turned into factories owing to the application of electrical power. There were nearly 600 new factories in Lancashire alone, and under these circumstances the anomaly of the assistant inspectors' position could not be maintained. The system must be overhauled and expanded, and he hoped that more responsible duties would be given to the assistant inspectors under the new classification which would be set up, but he could not say more at present. He wished to say a word about the nominations of the full inspectors. The question was not quite so easy a one as it appeared at first sight. The only alternative to the present system of selection and nomination before examin-
    1110
    ation was to accept all applications and cause the Civil Service Commissioners to hold an open competitive examination for the whole mass of candidates. There were hundreds of Candidates, some well qualified to show up in an examination, but who were not necessarily fitted to make the best inspectors. That was the alternative to the present system. What happened under the system which had hitherto prevailed? The practice which had grown up in the department was at the least based on the honest wish to get the best men available, and it included personal interviews with the candidates, a very necessary precaution, in order to see whether certain personal qualities were possessed by them which one could only judge of by conversation with the men themselves. He did not make any charge against that practice or throw any blame upon anyone, but it seemed to him that they wanted something more. He had therefore set on foot a small Committee, with the Under-Secretary as chairman, to go through the papers of those who applied for the position of inspector, inspector's assistant, or lady inspector, and that Committee reported to him on the whole case and, having been so assisted, his final selection for nomination was made. Recently they gave twenty-one nominations for seven places, and he would request the House to listen to the qualifications of those who were nominated. Here was the fifth of the successful candidates, a Cambridge man who took honours in the history school and was placed in this competition in consequence of his general knowledge on the subject. Here was another of the successful men, who was trained at the Manchester Technical School, was a Whitworth scholar, had been apprenticed to an engineering firm, had been employed for some five years by a Birmingham firm of mechanical engineers, was with Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. engaged in special work from 1897 to 1899, when he became foreman fitter. He was the manager of another firm in 1901. That he thought was a pretty good qualification for the post of factory inspector. Here was another, who gained an open studentship at Liverpool University, was a Bachelor of Science

    1111
    of the first class of the Liverpool University, and had passed an examination in electrical engineering. From 1898 to 1901 he was pupil teacher at a grammar school. In 1904 he was science master at another school, and although he did not know what he would turn out to he in after life, it did not seem necessary for his hon. friend to use his imagination in conjuring up in the case of such a man the defects of those who might come under this scheme of nomination. Another was educated at Bromley Board School and made himself. He had obtained a scholarship at University College, had obtained exhibitions and a County Council scholarship at the South London Technical College. He had matriculated at the London University, and had passed the intermediate examination. A man who had raised himself like that and was qualifying himself still further was surely a man who was suitable to be a factory inspector. Another was educated at the Manchester School of Technology, and had obtained various scholarships and held various certificates from the Board of Education in regard to his attainments on various technical subjects, including steam, heat, light, and sound. He held many qualifications, and that was the sort of man that his hon. friend wished to exclude from the inspectorate. He would have romped in in any examination, and was equipped in every point, the alleged absence of which formed the staple criticism of his hon. friend. Another again won an exhibition at the Royal College of science, London, a Whitworth Scholarship, and was at present taking an advanced course in electrical science at the Technical College, South Kensington. The remaining one of the seven successful candidates held a certificate as a sanitary inspector and a first class certificate in hygiene. He was employed by a firm of sanitary engineers from 1894 to 1901, employed by similar firms in 1902, in which year he was appointed sanitary inspector for the Hampstead Borough Council. It seemed to him that these were the right class of men to nominate and the very men that were wanted. He could not agree that an amalgamation of the inspectors and assistant inspectors would be desirable. The demands on the inspectors were such
    1112
    as to require men to devote themselves for years to preparing for the satisfactory discharge of the duties of inspection. Whatever was done, however, the factory inspectors' assistants ought to have the opportunity of advancement. Possibly places among the inspectorate should be reserved for them, and they ought to rise in grades to positions for which their powers and capacities fitted them. The hon. Member for Leicester had made out no case which would justify an open public inquiry, but he would promise to give careful consideration to the question of the organisation of the factory department. If he had thought that public confidence in that department had been shaken or that anything was to be gained from a departmental inquiry he would be the first to seek it. But he did not think there were any dark places in the Home Office. There should not be so long as he had anything to do with it, and there was no subject connected with the Home Office which interested him more than that side of it which dealt with factories and workshops. With regard to recent appointments of inspectors, he had nominated three lady inspectors, and the total number, if those three passed the examination, would be fifteen. They had also appointed four additional factory inspectors' assistants and four junior assistants. As to the reorganisation of the inspectors' assistants department, his wish and hope was not only to improve the condition of the assistants financially, but to add to the duties in amount and in importance.
    MR. T. RICHARDSsaid that after there had been so much criticism of the Home Secretary he thought it was only right that he should give his tribute of praise and commendation to the right hon. Gentleman for the promptness with which on his taking over the duties of his office he had considered the interests of the mining population. Labour Members had for years been urging upon the late Government the necessity of doing something by way of research and investigation into the means of preventing a great number of the accidents which occurred in mines. The mining population generally of the country were much gratified at

    1113
    the appointment of the Commission, at its composition, and at the terms of its reference. There was only one point in connection with the terms of reference to which he wished to call attention. He was not quite sure that the reference permitted the Commission to inquire into the efficiency or adequacy of the mining inspectors. The present system of mine inspection was totally inadequate. In one case he could cite there was only one chief inspector with two assistants to supervise 100,000 workmen. Inspection under such conditions was of course a sham. The last coal mine disaster in South Wales in which a number of men lost their lives was in consequence of the inundation of water. It was said that the manager omitted to take the proper precautions. But, as a matter of fact, a short time before the water broke in, the mine inspector had himself been to examine the colliery and its plans, and if the precautions had not been taken he ought to have known. They congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on appointing the Commission. The chief thing he desired to say was that he was himself surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have expressed surprise at the passionate speech of the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire in regard to the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the eight hours day, having regard to the history of the question, and to the fact that the Prime Minister and nearly every Member of the House had repeatedly voted in favour of an eight hours day. Nearly every Liberal had repeatedly given pledges at their election in favour of an eight hours day for miners. The miners of Wales had a stronger case than those in other parts of the country, because the Welsh Party as a whole, notwithstanding any difference there might be between them on other matters, were unanimous upon this subject. Had he spoken before his hon. friend he would have been quite as passionate as he on the question of the appointment of this Committee. His hon. friend at all events was to be congratulated in having drawn an equally passionate speech from the right hon. Gentleman. It was absolutely ludicrous to say that the reduction of the hours of a few thousand boys from ten to eight was going to upset the
    1114
    conditions of this country. He did not wish to labour this point, and after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, as far as he was personally concerned, he did not wish to force the House to a division on the question. He hoped the Committee referred to would get to work, and; he trusted that next session the Government would be able to take up an Eight Hours Bill for miners.
    MR. FENWICKsaid he was glad that his hon. friends opposite did not intend to take up the extreme attitude suggested by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. Throughout this controversy for over twenty years the Northumberland and Durham representatives had been quite as anxious as anyone else to see a satisfactory solution of the eight hours question. The reason why they suggested that an inquiry should be instituted was in order that the Committee might have an opportunity of guiding them along right and proper lines. Some of the promoters of this measure had declared that they had a perfect solution of the question which would not impose any additional injury upon the districts of Durham and Northumberland. As far as he was concerned he had been calling for that solution for the last twenty years, and it had never yet been forthcoming. With regard to the ballot upon this question which had been mentioned, 18,000 out of 22,000 voting papers were returned, and yet that only gave a majority of 465 in favour of the proposal. What he would like to see was a similar vote taken throughout the whole of the Federation area. There was scarcely a case where a ballot had been taken in the Federation area in the same way as it had been taken in the county of Northumberland.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked leave to withdraw his Motion for reduction.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the, Committee in the said Resolution."
    *MR. STUARTsaid he desired to refer to the question of the

    1115
    qualification of factory inspectors. He had listened with much interest to the series of qualifications of the seven successful candidates who had been nominated, but it was rather remarkable that there was only one of those inspectors who had had direct personal acquaintance with practical work in any factory. They required on the inspectorate men who had a great amount of such experience, which could only be gained by those who had themselves worked in the actual processes in the factories. No doubt the men appointed would develop excellent qualities and most of them had had an excellent training, but the one element that was wanting was their actual experience of practical daily life and work in the factory, and he thought that that element could be easily introduced without any diminution of value and character of the inspectors. The object was of course the safety and the security of the workers, and personally he believed there was no one so capable of finding out what was dangerous to workpeople as the man who had been through the mill himself. He hoped that in future a certain amount of extra consideration would be given to those candidates who had had actual practical experience, and if this suggestion was adopted it would tend not only to the benefit of the workmen, but also to the benefit of employers, who liked nothing worse than interference in their businesses by persons who did not understand the thing practically.
    MR. PICKERSGILLasked what had been done to strengthen the staff of the Home Office on its criminal side.
    *MR. GLADSTONEsaid it had been strengthened by the appointment of an additional assistant Under-Secretary.
    MR. SHACKLETONsaid that vigorous measures should be taken to put down time-cribbing in textile factories, which was not only injurious to the workers, but competitively unfair to honest manufacturers. More summonses should be issued and heavier fines imposed. He cordially
    1116
    agreed with the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean in withdrawing this Amendment. The answer they had received from the Home Secretary was fairly satisfactory and gave them encouragement to hope that before another year came round the right hon. Gentleman would have achieved something in the direction which he honestly desired to go. With regard to the use of dangerous wood, some of his constituents were anxious to know whether there was any bad effect upon the weavers who had to use the shuttles made from that particular kind of wood. The weavers frequently had to put these shuttles to their mouth and suck them in order to get the thread to go through. He did not know whether there was any danger attending that, and perhaps the Home Secretary would include that in the promised inquiry. With regard to time-cribbing he thought the right hon. Gentleman was mixing up two questions, time-cribbing and meal hour work. They had encouraged the people not to persist in meal-hour work, but in regard to time-cribbing the operatives had no choice, because if the engines were running they were bound to be there. They could not leave until the engines were stopped, because they would have to run the risk of having a sudden stopping of machinery which might result in a breakdown in the mill. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had two remedies which he might apply. In the first place there was the question of the police, which required legislation, but he believed that so far as administration was concerned the Home Office had power to take more cases. There was very little danger of getting wrong in regard to the evidence if they found the mill running and persons under eighteen years of age were working them, because that was illegal. If the police went into a weaving shed and found 600 persons working, an action in every one of those cases could be taken against the employer. An inspector recently took proceedings in thirty-nine cases against an habitual offender, and he was fined nearly £30. Those men who competed so unfairly with other employers ought to be made to pay very heavily. After all, it was merely a question of money, and a fine of 5s. and costs was a mere bagatelle

    1117
    to the employers. If the Home Office meant to put the practice down they must issue a summons in every case, and the only way to deal effectively with it was to make the fines amount to a few hundreds of pounds. Let the Home Office issue instructions to the inspectors to take up more cases. With regard to the qualifications for inspectors he was not in a position to judge whether the various questions put before the candidates were necessary or not from an educational point of view, but he had no hesitation in saying that they were not required from a practical point of view.
    *DR. COOPERurged that the number of paid Lunacy Commissioners should be increased. They were required by the Lunacy Act to see every lunatic detained in an asylum at least once a year. The Board as at present constituted was unable properly to discharge its duties. There were six Commissioners, three barristers and three doctors. On the work of inspecting lunatic asylums they went in pairs, a legal member always accompanying a medical member. If all the lunatics in the asylums were examined each pair of Commissioners would have to examine 39,943 in the year. It was physically impossible that they could do so and determine whether anyone was wrongly detained in an asylum. He had been associated with the administration of the Asylums Committee of the London County Council, and he found that instead of the Lunacy Commissioners taking three days to visit an asylum containing 2,000 inmates, it was a very rare thing to find that they took longer than two days, and he had known them visit the whole of the people in a large asylum in one day. He did not think anyone could say that that was efficient inspection. As a rule these Commissioners took round with them the Medical Superintendent of the Asylum, who explained the cases. He did not think this method was contemplated when the Commissioners were first appointed, and it was intended the Commissioners should be absolutely free to go round the asylum without the superintendent. He thought this was necessary for the safety of the people who ought to have the privilege
    1118
    once a year of being seen by an independent person who was not interested in their detention. He believed that the legal Commissioner was a valuable man in the Committee room, but he could not conceive of what use he was in going round an asylum. An important point to which he wished to call attention was the practice of the Commissioners in regard to the examination and passing of plans for new asylums and for alterations on existing buildings.
    And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

    LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL (BY ORDER).
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY [31ST JULY] REPORT.
    Postponed Proceeding on Consideration of Third Resolution resumed.
    Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    *DR.COOPER,resuming his speech, said the Commissioners had placed upon them the duty of inspecting the plans for new asylums and for alterations of existing buildings. In connection with that work they had an architectural adviser. He had not the slightest personal knowledge of that gentleman, and it was the system which had grown up in connection with plans to which he objected. The architectural adviser of the Commissioners was a gentleman whose own professional work was very largely, almost exclusively, confined to the erection of asylums. The general complaint had been that unless the asylums committees of county councils engaged either the architectural adviser of the Commissioners, or an architect whose name appeared on a small list kept by them, great delay took place in the passing of the plans, and that the plans were unduly criticised. Not only

    1119
    was that the case, but if an asylums committee engaged the architect who was adviser to the Commissioners, or an architect whose name appeared on the Commissioners' list, he invariably tried to select the contractor. County councils all over England complained that they were in this way deprived of competition in obtaining both architects and contractors. In support of this statement he read an extract from speeches delivered at the annual meeting of the County Councils Association in May last year. This was a very serious matter, and he thought the Home Secretary should consider whether the time had not arrived when the architectural adviser of the Commissioners should be an architect who would devote his whole time to the duties of the office. His own experience as a Member of the Special Committee of the London County Council appointed to prepare plans for its new asylums brought him into close connection with the Lunacy Commissioners, and he could testify that a great deal of what he regarded as unnecessary delay was caused through plans being sent back time after time with inquiries and suggestions as to trifling details. The County Council had just finished the asylum at Epsom, when the Commissioners all of a sudden said that if they did not at once build another asylum, the replica of an asylum recently built by the Commissioners' architect, the Council would be reported for default to the Home Secretary. They had a rather weak-kneed chairman at the time, and unfortunately he gave way to the demands of the Commissioners, and this put several thousand pounds into the pocket of the architectural adviser of the Commissioners. He had known the Commissioners' architect have three or four asylums on his hands at the same time. He complained of the growing tendency to send aged people into asylums. The figures in regard to this were extremely startling. In 1903–4 there were 1,445 people over seventy years of age sent into asylums as lunatics, though suffering from senile degeneration and nothing more. There were 18 per cent. of the men and 24 per cent. of the women over eighty. He thought this was one of the things confined to the poor. The whole of these people ought
    1120
    to have been kept in workhouses. There was one woman on the verge of 100 years of age included in the number to which he had referred, and it was a scandal that she should have been sent to die in an asylum. There ought to be some inquiry into the increase of lunacy, and also into the way in which old people were treated. He was dining recently with an eminent lunacy expert who, in an after-dinner speech, said that if rich men were treated in exactly the same way as many of the poor people a third of the Members of another House would die in lunatic asylums. The percentage of discharges of recoveries was entirely in favour of the wealthy. It was, therefore, his desire to press upon the Home Secretary the appointment of a Commission to investigate into the condition of things. During the last fifty years great advances had been made in the science of medicine and of surgery which had been to the great advantage of mankind; but no improvement had been made in the treatment of lunacy; and until an inquiry into the present treatment of lunatics and the whole conditions under which these poor people were maintained at the cost of £3,000,000 per annum had been instituted there would be no improvement in the treatment of lunacy. He admitted that under the Asylums Committees of the County Councils matters had been much improved; the treatment was better, and the attendants were of a better type. But still, the percentage of cures had gone down, and the knowledge of the essential nature of insanity and its causes or its prevention was no better to-day than it was a hundred years ago. Until a more scientific investigation was made into the cause of brain disease there would be no better means of cure forthcoming. The London County Council had asked for Parliamentary powers to establish receiving houses from which they removed patients after observation to the asylums and Parliament had rejected their Bill. He invited the Home Secretary to place England more on the level with the Scottish system of Lunacy Commissioners which was infinitely better than that in this country. Another thing which he desired was that provision should be made for a visiting staff from.

    1121
    the outside. Wherever that had been recognised it had been found to be of the greatest value; and, as a matter of fact, the principle of a visiting staff from the outside had received the support of the Local Government Board, of the Lunacy Commission, and even of the late Lord Chancellor—which was something extraordinary ! When the New York Board of Lunacy heard of the scheme for receiving houses they had sent over to this country a Commission to make inquiry as to the methods suggested here, and they were so impressed with the scheme of the London County Council that they had adopted it in New York with great success. Glasgow also sent their medical officer, who has adopted it there successfully. While London after spending years to develop a scheme which met with the approval of the most eminent members of the medical profession was yet without its municipal mental hospital. What he pressed for was inquiry by a Commission or Committee—an inquiry which had not been made for fifty years. The lunatic asylums statistics were valueless in many respects, because they were not uniform. Every asylum sent in its figures in a different shape and form; and it was impossible to arrive at a consideration of the reasons for the very serious increase of lunatics in the country.
    *MR. REMNANTsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had been very unfair to the Home Secretary when he accused him of wanting interest in the matter which he was discussing. He did not think that anyone who had listened to the excellent speech of the Home Secretary could accuse him of any lack of interest in any of the subjects which had been touched upon. There was, however, one point which had been omitted by the right hon. Gentleman in his review. It was a matter in regard to which every Member in the House would, he believed, be in agreement with him, and that was the desirability of giving the members of the Metropolitan Police Force one day's rest in seven, instead of only one in a fort-night. Several questions had been asked upon the point, and the right hon. Gentleman had given sympathetic answers. Sympathy was all very well, but unless
    1122
    it was followed up by action it was not of much value in this case. What was the present position of affairs in regard to the Metropolitan Police Force? New demands were made upon them every day, but these had been accompanied by no increase in pay. It was true that some house allowance had been made, but it was very partial in its application. For instance, one policeman living on one side of the street, might get a house allowance while another policeman living on the other side of the street did not get it. It had been said that the concession of one day's rest in seven would involve a cost of £150,000, equal to the extra employment of 2,000 members of the force; but, in the opinion of competent advisers whom he had consulted one quarter of that number would meet the demand. Nobody in the House would deny that the members of the Metropolitan Police Force were deserving of every consideration. They were a body of men with difficult duties to discharge, which they performed with great ability and with every consideration for those with whom they were brought in contact. He did not believe that the cost of granting one day's rest in seven to the force would be anything like £150,000; he thought that £50,000 would more than cover the additional expense incurred, and no one would grudge that expenditure owing to the benefits that would be conferred on the force. If the right hon. Gentleman was uncertain about the cost he asked him to appoint a Committee which would investigate the matter thoroughly, and find out what the exact amount would be. If the right hon. Gentleman took this step it would be one which he was sure he would never regret.
    *MR. REESsaid that the electors in the district which he represented were very much interested in the question of the appointment of factory inspectors, because many of them had houses in the Montgomery boroughs, and worked in South Wales, and he urged the absolute necessity of the appointment of such factory inspectors in Welsh mines as possessed a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language. There was a solidarity

    1123

    of sentiment on this subject between South, North and Central Wales. His constituents, though they seldom approached the Home Secretary, were all worthy of his attention, and he was very sure he was representing their opinion when he said that every Government Inspector in Wales should speak the Welsh language. Indeed, his constituents made it a condition of his own election that he should learn it himself, and he was doing his best to carry out their wishes. He hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman replied to the speech of the hon. Member for Bermondsey, he would realise that some notice should be taken of the great expense of maintaining lunatics, as he thought that the pockets of the ratepayers ought to he considered quite as much as the comfort of the lunatics, though the latter subject only had been brought under his notice. In the county of Montgomeryshire, which was conspicuously well administered, he was aware that the heavy charges under this head gave the county council no little occasion for thought, though it was anxious that everything in reason should be done to alleviate the lot of the unfortunate.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDSsaid the failure of the factory inspector was often due to the fact that he had not been a practical man. In the boot and shoe industry, in which he was engaged, he had known instances in which large deductions were made from the wages of those employed owing to the fact that the factory inspector was not acquainted with the life of those employed in the district, and especially he did not know anything about the lives of the outworkers. He ought to visit the outworker and see the conditions of his employment. He was glad that some improvement was being made in this respect, but it seemed rather a peculiar thing so far as he was concerned that some gentleman who had held the position of the manager of a particular kind of works should take a berth at £150 a year to inspect factories. It reminded him of the time when they were inspected by Army officers. Men who received less than they considered they were entitled to did not take that interest in their work that
    1124
    the workers ought to do, and it was important that the workers should be protected against these exactions. In regard to those who worked in the forge, the mill and the mine, he did not think that sufficient attention was given by the inspectors to the dangerous side of their work, and therefore the men did not get the protection which the law provided. He thought upon all these grounds that an inspector should have some experience as a worker. He should like to add a word with respect to female inspectors. He noticed that we had nine for the whole of the country.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: It will be fifteen this year.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDSsaid no doubt that was a better condition of things than had prevailed hitherto, but he still thought that the number was insufficient. Fifteen lady inspectors could not perform the work and cover the whole country. He came from the town of Leicester, in which he had spent his whole life, and they had only one female inspector for 220,000 people. Very insanitary conditions prevailed in the factories, and he was satisfied that in that town alone they could find work for half-a-dozen lady inspectors.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid he echoed what the last speaker had said and agreed that the number of lady inspectors was very small indeed. He also appreciated the friendly criticism of his hon. friend who had insisted upon the fact that inspectors should be able to speak the Welsh language. He was aware that it was desirable that they should do so, and he spoke from an experience both of North and Central Wales. As a matter of fact the Home Office had paid and was paying special attention to the qualifications of factory inspectors for the work which they had to do. Extraordinary chaos now prevailed in regard to the responsibility for the management and control of lunatic asylums. In regard to them he had a mere shred of responsibility. He passed the plans and sanctioned the estimates. The county councils built the asylums, the Local Government Board sanctioned the loans, and the Lord

    1125
    Chancellor appointed the Lunacy Commissioners. At one time the Home Secretary appointed the Commissioners, but some seventy or eighty years ago a change was made and a Bill was brought into the House of Commons and sent up to another place and became law under which the Home Secretary was deprived of the charge of the Lunacy Commissioners and the Lord Chancellor was substituted for the Home Office. Consequently the responsible functions of the Home Secretary were taken away and vested in the Lord Chancellor, and he had been left with this shred of authority. He was not in the least satisfied with the position. He was not responsible for the management of the asylums and all he had to do was to pass plans which had been pretty well settled before they came up to him. He was all in favour of an examination into the whole system of inspection and the organisation of inspection. Under the present system they had six paid Commissioners, three legal and three lay, and they had to go all over the country in pairs inspecting the lunatic asylums. It seemed to him that that system was both antiquated and absurd. The Government appointed half a dozen highly qualified gentlemen at high salaries and then they said that they were to go over the country in pairs and inspect lunatic asylums. What was the result? The result was that there was a totally in-sufficient inspection and the Department had not got the handy man who was ready at their beck and call to go and inspect a particular asylum when inspection was necessary. Instead of a system of that sort they had to arrange that two of these stately Commissioners should go down and inspect. No doubt the system was instituted when the demands on the attention of the Commissioners were not what they were now, and the knowledge on the subject was not what it was now. It seemed to him that they ought to have a qualified staff of inspectors who could be told off to do their duty at any time that was required. The Commission on the Feeble-minded was on the point of reporting, and its Report would deal largely with lunatic asylums. When that Report had been received the Government would consider what action was desirable. He had already been in communication with the
    1126
    Lord Chancellor on the subject. As to the cost of giving the police one day's rest in seven, he had no reason to believe that the estimate of £150,000 was inaccurate, but he would go into the matter further. He was entirely in sympathy with the proposal, but he might point out that it involved expenditure and would lead to a corresponding increase of expenditure throughout all the provincial areas. Comparing Scotland, he found that they got one Sunday off in three in Glasgow and Edinburgh. he believed there were differences in practice among the Scottish County forces, but that usually on Sunday they gave the police time off in order to attend divine service and in some cases they made it compulsory for the men to attend. If the ball was started rolling in London it would have to run all over the country, and that meant a very serious question. He had drawn the attention of the police authorities to this matter. There was a strong desire on the part of the House that progress should be made towards realising what was in the minds of hon. Members with regard to this question.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he would like to refer to the sympathetic terms in which the right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of inspection of women workers. The returns made during the last Parliament showed that no fewer than 144,000 women and girls were left entirely outside the protection of the Factory Acts, while 88,000 only were protected by the Acts. That in itself ought to be a sufficient appeal even to anybody less sympathetic than the right, hon. Gentleman, and should make them realise that the present situation was extremely unsatisfactory. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to promise some legislation during the coming autumn in order to bring in these 144,000 women and children who were working outside the protection of the Factory Acts.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Resolutions agreed to
    Postponed Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [5TH JULY] REPORT.
  Resolution reported.
  SUPPLY [5TH JULY] REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

      CLASS II.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £40,396, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
      MR. GOOCHreferred to the question of Macedonia, and said he thought all agreed that this was the most troublesome and perhaps the most difficult question confronting this country at the present time. He hoped very much that the Government and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would not give the consent of England, which was the country principally interested, to the Customs increase unless they got in return conditions very much more far-reaching and satisfactory than anything they had up to the present obtained. To allow the Sultan to claim an extra half million a year without some such conditions as those laid down by Lord Lansdowne last year would only enable him to maintain his already swollen Army and perpetuate a state of things of which we all complained. He wished also to know from the Foreign Secretary whether he had received any reply from the Sultan with reference to the demands put forward by all the Powers in connection with the increased powers of the gendarmerie. Those demands were so reasonable and so moderate that it was exceedingly weak and undignified on the part of the great Powers to allow month after month to pass—the demands were made in April—without receiving a reply. He hoped, therefore, the Foreign Secretary would ask once again and in a more determined manner than hitherto. He should like to know also whether the report of the English representative on the Financial Commission had been received or was likely to arrive in the immediate future. From the accounts of several correspondents it appeared that the condition
      1128
      of affairs in regard to the Financial Board was exceedingly unsatisfactory. The scheme had the making of an excellent scheme as put forward last autumn, but it was very much whittled down before being accepted by the Sultan, and since then he was afraid the amount of work which the Commission had been able to do had been very small. Would the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ascertain whether it was making any real progress? If it were not, would he take whatever steps were necessary to give that Commission more power and to bring it more into conformity with the plan originally designed when Lord Lansdowne made the suggestion last year? There were two main reasons for imploring the Foreign Secretary to take a more active line in connection with this question. The first was the internal condition of Macedonia. He understood that there were something like 200 murders a month. Neither the gendarmerie, nor the Commission, nor the civil assessors have been able to render life and property safe. The second reason was the international situation. Lord Lansdowne said in the House of Lords a few weeks ago that Macedonia was a constant menace to the peace of Europe, and since then additional proof of that statement had been received. War had almost been brought about between Greece and Roumania. So long as the Bulgarians in Macedonia were at the mercy of raiding Greek bands or Turkish irregulars so long would there exist a feeling of tension between Turkey and Bulgaria which might involve other countries in Europe. He hoped he would get a satisfactory reply from his right hon. friend in regard to these matters.
      MR. LYNCHsaid that it had been decided to take this Vote because of the recognised importance of foreign affairs. But if foreign affairs had the importance with which he knew his right hon. friend invested them, and with which many hon. Members would be inclined to agree in investing them, then surely they ought not to be brought up for debate in forty minutes between lunacy and 10 o'clock, with the object of allowing Members like himself to air their views. The question he wished to raise to-night was that of the

      1129
      3 per cent. increase in the Customs duty on British goods entering Turkey, an increase which was not leviable without our consent. In itself that might not appear to be very important, but, as he hoped to show this evening, it brought with it most important commercial and also political results. They on the Ministerial side were a Party committed to the principles of Free Trade, and, that being the case, he submitted that they should do their very best to develop those great neutral markets in which hitherto, if there were any Customs duties, they were only for revenue purposes. The great markets of China, Manchuria, Persia, and Turkey were the markets which a Free Trade country like ours should above all things endeavour to cultivate and to develop. This question of the 3 per cent. increase vitally affected one of these great neutral markets. The question had been already debated in another place, the discussion having been remarkable for a speech by Lord Lansdowne in which two things became clear; first, that the policy of the late Government in the matter was the policy of the British Ambassador in Constantinople, and secondly, that the late Secretary of State strongly counselled his successor, the right hon. Gentleman, to stiffen his conditions considerably before reopening negotiations with the Porte. His right hon. friend was well aware of his views and those of his friends, as well as of the Balkan Committee and the great chambers of commerce of this country. His right hon. friend had received strong protests from these bodies against the proposed increase. In view of all these remonstrances he would personally have been content to leave the matter to the judgment of his right hon. friend. But his right hon. friend was, after all, not merely an autocrat. He was the only representative organ of a powerful bureaucracy, whose transactions were screened from the representatives of the people by an impenetrable veil of secrecy. He could wish that the conduct of foreign affairs could be scrutinised by a Committee of this House, framed somewhat on the model of similar committees in other Parliaments. It would inspire greater confidence and bring to the consideration of foreign questions new points of view. Above all, it would impress into the
      1130
      service of the country the ripe experience of many hon. Gentlemen who had particular knowledge of these questions. But without labouring that point it was sufficient for him to dwell upon the fact that, outside official circles, the opinions of those who had studied the question were on one ground or another unanimously, or almost unanimously, against the proposed increase of the Customs. Now where did they stand? In May last proposals were presented by the Powers to the Porte making certain conditions to their consent to the increase. These were rejected by the Porte. The Government had informed the House that they were now engaged in reconsidering the whole question. Two courses were open to them: either to refuse to negotiate further or to make more stringent conditions to their consent. The latter course he understood was suggested by Lord Lansdowne in another place. What were the facts? By the scheme 60 per cent. of imports duties were to be evied upon British trade. By whom would it be paid? Who were the Powers who asked us to make this concession? What was the consideration offered? It was not for him to argue whether the duties were paid by British manufacturers or whether, as he believed, by the Turkish consumer, for the effect must inevitably be injuriously to affect British trade, because the Turkish consumer, who was an extremely poor man and becoming daily poorer, would be unable to purchase the same amount of commodities owing to the increase of price. For what purpose were these revenues to be applied? The Powers which were urging us to give our consent to the increased duties were the protected Powers of Europe—the very Powers which were taxing the imports from Turkey into their countries at very high rates. But it made very little difference to the other Powers of Europe whether Turkey put on a tax of 11 per cent., or 8 per cent., because being protected nations they clapped on far higher taxes on the imports that Turkey sent to them, whereas we took all the imports Turkey sent us entirely free from duty. Therefore we occupied a privileged position and we had a right to say to the Powers that in virtue of the fact that we supplied 60 per cent.

      1131
      of this trade we, above all other Powers, ought to be considered in this matter. We were entitled to say to Turkey that she had a right to consider us most, as we let in all her goods free of duty. Inasmuch as we gave all this to Turkey, what was the consideration we got in return? He understood we were going to get an improvement of the Customs Houses, a new Mining Law, and possibly collection by the Public Debt. As regarded the last-mentioned, it was already provided for by the Decree of Muharram of 1903. As regarded the new Mining Law, lie had been in communication with some mining authorities, and he had received a letter, unsolicited, from a leading mining authority in which the writer said that a point which struck him forcibly about these transactions with the Turkish Government was the ignorance of this country as to the supposed benefits which we were to receive by the improvement of the Mining Law. He hoped his right hon. friend would not think that collection by the Public Debt was entirely in the interests of this country. It was an admirable administration, but at the, same time collection of Customs by European administration was always an assistance. The bringing in of European Customs administration into Persia was the only means by which Russia gained her great commercial supremacy there. Then for what purpose were these revenues to be applied? They were to be devoted to supply the Macedonian deficit. But what on earth had our traders to do with the Budget of Macedonia? Surely if it was the desire of the Powers to come to the assistance of Turkey in Macedonia, why did they not issue a joint loan to Turkey in connection with Macedonia, and leave the Customs free? Was there not need for such a loan? The deficit in the Customs for the year ending March 13th, 1906, was £687,855, caused entirely by the enormous military expenditure in Macedonia, which during the year was £l,303,liil, as against the civil expenditure of £678,223. The revenues from increased duties were £750,000, and, deducting 25 per cent. for the reduction of debt, there was £560,000 left. If the proposal had been adopted to have the Customs collected by the Public Debt authorities, there was no doubt that the revenues would have
      1132
      more than balanced the deficit in the Macedonian Budget. The deficit was now supplied by drafts on the Department of Indirect Taxation according to the concession of December, 1905. At present, therefore, the deficit in Macedonia was supplied by Turkey out of Customs duties, and what we were asked to do was to supplement those revenues of indirect taxation to the extent of £600,000 a year. The result would inevitably be that this sum, which was at present drawn from Imperial taxation, would be applied to other purposes which Turkey had in view. Everything pointed to the fact that these sums would be used by Turkey to provide a guarantee for the Baghdad railway. He was not in the-least opposed to that railway, but they must insist that this country obtained proper terms in that settlement. If our Government consented to an increase before we had obtained proper terms from Germany, we would be throwing away one of the strongest weapons in our power. He therefore entered his protest. We supplied at present three-fifths of the trade with Turkey, and he was sure if we were only left alone we might increase it to a greater proportion. If the Foreign Office came in with an arrangement of this nature, all he could say was that the same result would follow: in Turkey as had followed elsewhere.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): My hon. friends have raised a very important question. The increase in the Customs dues and the reform of Macedonia have been, by the policy of the late Government and continued by the present Government, undoubtedly linked together. My hon. friend truly said that this question of the increase of Customs duties in Turkey was not initiated by the present Government. We took it up where we found it. Lord Lansdowne had been approached with regard to it; he did not meet it with a negative. He had, on the contrary, indicated the conditions on which his Government would be prepared to agree to a 3 per cent, increase of the Customs dues in Turkey as far as this country was concerned. When a Foreign Minister, on behalf of his Government, indicates to another Government that he

      1133
      is prepared to agree to a certain increase in their Customs dues on certain conditions, it is not open to us without a considerable breach of continuity of policy—however we may regard it from a Party point of view here—and without its being regarded abroad in a commercial transaction of this kind as a breach of faith, to abandon at once the condition laid down by your predecessors and to say that you should start afresh. I thought it necessary to take up this question where Lord Lansdowne left it, and I found that certain expectations had been created, not only in the mind of Turkey but in the minds of the other Powers with whom Lord Lansdowne had been working closely with regard to Macedonian reforms, that the consent of this country should not be withheld from the increase of the 3 per cent, duties on Customs after the financial provisions had been granted by the Sultan and accepted by the Powers in Macedonia. I do not think that the expectation in the simple form in which I have stated it was warranted by what Lord Lansdowne said. He did not commit this country in quite such a simple form as that, and I went closely into the conditions which it seemed to me Lord Lansdowne had laid down. Broadly speaking. I interpreted them as being that Lord Lansdowne, would have been prepared to agree to the 3 per cent, increase of duties provided he could have been satisfied that the money raised by the increase would have been applied to the reform scheme in Macedonia in such a way as to be a benefit to Macedonia and to develop that scheme. I developed that condition a little further. It was not merely necessary to satisfy us that, the money would be applied to reform in Macedonia. We must also be satisfied that the whole of the 3 per cent. Customs was properly collected and applied. Unless you are sure that the whole was properly collected, it is impossible to be sure that it would be properly applied to the reforms in Macedonia. We developed that condition, and the proposal which we indicated would be acceptable to us was that the Commission of the Debt, a well-known body, trustworthy in finance, should have the supervision of the collection of these Customs dues, and
      1134
      that the dues so collected should be paid in in such a manner that they should be applied to the scheme o£ reforms in Macedonia. We were fortunate enough to secure what was very important—the co-operation of the other Powers—in pressing that condition upon, the Sultan. After all, on this matter of the increase of the Customs, I have felt it important to maintain another condition which Lord Lansdowne bequeathed to us as part of his policy—namely, to preserve the concert of the Powers. We have stipulated in regard to the increase of the Customs, that we should carry with us the other Powers, because I consider that most important both from the point of view of Macedonia and of securing adequate conditions for the increase. Why is the concert of the Powers so important? It is everything to the progress of reform in Macedonia. This country is not prepared to undertake responsibility alone, beyond its power to fulfil it, for preserving order in Macedonia. All we can do in regard to Macedonia we must do by diplomatic influence at Constantinople. Dissension among the Powers would undoubtedly bring into the whole question not order in which is so much wanted, but confusion. And the influence of diplomacy at Constantinople must be infinitely weakened by the withdrawal even of one of the Powers from the concert which Lord Lansdowne succeeded in maintaining. I do not agree with my hon. friend who spoke first with regard to the work that the Financial Commission has done. Some progress has been made in Macedonia— improvements have been made with regard to the levy of the tithe and the collection of the taxes, both of which were felt to be oppressive in many parts of the Turkish Empire. The situation has been very much improved in Macedonia, and it would compare favourably to-day with some other parts of the Turkish Empire. The thing which has stopped progress in Macedonia has not been that the Financial Commission has been a failure, it has been the constant activity of the bands of rival nationalities that has continued throughout this year. When my hon. friend quotes, and rightly, with regret and sadness the number of murders which have taken place in Macedonia, those are due to the activity of the

      1135
      irresponsible bands of rival nationalities. The mere presence of the European officers of the gendarmerie in Macedonia has done a great deal to ameliorate the conduct of the Turkish troops, and the worst difficulty in Macedonia to-day is not oppression with regard to the collection of the tithes or taxes, not the conduct of the Turkish troops, but the constant activity of bands, sometimes of one rationality, sometimes of another. That makes it very difficult to insist upon the reduction of the military force which the Turks maintain in Macedonia. I do not see how you can insist upon a reduction of the force there unless you are prepared to guaranteee the frontiers from attack. But I see great force in the point that if the Turkish Government is allowed indefinitely to increase the amount of military expenditure charged to the Macedonian Budget it may result in the scheme of reforms, which must depend on civil expenditure, being starved; and the increase in the Customs may result in an increase not of the civil but of the military expenditure. Therefore I think it is important that though it may be impossible to reduce the amount of military expenditure on the Macedonian Budget, yet, if we agree to the increase of the Customs with the object of effecting civil reforms, we should have some undertaking that the military budget will not be increased.
      MR. LYNCH: Is not a reduction of the 80,000 men now in Macedonia possible?
      SIR EDWARD GREY: As I found the question, a considerable reduction of military expenditure had taken place; but the Powers had agreed to the present military expenditure being charged on the Budget. I am sure that, with the proper administration of the Macedonian finance which will be secured in due time under the Financial Commission, an increase in the Customs duties would in a few years provide a sum of money for civil reforms, providing that the military expenditure was not increased. After all that has passed you cannot get the Powers to consent to a reduction of the existing expenditure; but if you secure that it shall not be increased, you will get the product of the increase of the
      1136
      Customs for ameliorating the state of affairs in Macedonia. I think that the increase in the Customs should not be permitted until we have satisfactory guarantees that the money will not be wasted, but will be properly applied. If we do not succeed in securing those conditions and if the 3 per cent, increase is not granted, then I am afraid the outlook in Macedonia is a very bad one, and, in spite of what my hon. friend has said with regard to the use we are prepared to make of the money, I am convinced from all the information I have that the present condition of Turkish finance is such that unless some relief of this kind is given to the Porte on satisfactory conditions there is a danger that the whole scheme of financial reform as it exists to-day will fall to the ground. That is why I regard this question as so serious, and, though we are not prepared to give way, except on satisfactory and adequate conditions, I cannot for a moment hold out any prospect that we are prepared to meet this demand with an unconditional refusal.
      Resolution agreed to.
      And, it being Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II. of the Civil Services Estimates, and the Navy Estimates.
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II. of the Civil Services Estimates,"
      Put, and agreed to.

      NAVY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Navy Estimates," put, and agreed to

      WAYS AND MEANS [31ST JULY] REPORT.
      Resolution reported.
      "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1907, the sum of £68,528,828 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
      Resolution agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Whiteley.

      PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REPAYMENT].
      Resolution reported.
      "That it is expedient to authorise the extension of time for the repayment of a loan made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans."
      Resolution agreed to.

      PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
      Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time and passed.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
      Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time and passed.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
      "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year
      1138
      ending on the thirty-first day of March. one thousand nine hundred and seven, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow.

      LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
      Lords Amendments considered.
      MR. BRYCEsaid it might be convenient to the House to state, before the adjournment, that he proposed to accept some of the Amendments on this Bill made in another place. Some of them he did not altogether approve of, but they were not of much importance.
      Lord's Amendment—
      "In page 1, line 23, to leave out ' can ' and insert 'will.'"
      Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment."
      MR. CLANCYsaid he wished to shorten discussion and promote general harmony, and therefore he would be brief in his remarks. All the same he wished to say that in accepting some of the Amendments on the Bill he and those for whom he was authorised to speak felt that the House of Lords had acted in their characteristic manner in dealing with this Bill. It seemed to him that they had been willing to wound and yet afraid to strike. They had gone through the whole of the Bill and amended it here and there. They had shown their teeth but had been afraid to bite. They had made many Amendments, which he was authorised to say for the Irish National Party were vital, except one; but all of the Amendments had been made in the direction of cutting down the benefit of the provisions and rendering the Act, when passed, as unworkable as possible. The principal Amendment on the Paper was that referring to the right of appeal. The Government now proposed to have an alternative appeal and the Irish Members were willing to accept that. But there was one Amendment on the Paper which he hoped the Government would not

      1139
      accept, and that was in regard to advances made to labourers and the sons of labourers. It might be argued that the sons of labourers were labourers themselves and therefore it was not necessary to include them amongst those to whom advances were to be made.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Lords' Amendment—
      "In page 2, line 7, leave out clause 4."
      MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to move that this House do not agree with the Lords' Amendment, and suggested that whilst they should restore Clause 4, they should insert in place of a month, which had been suggested, three weeks as the time for entering an appeal. He hoped it would generally be accepted as a reasonable compromise.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he would point out the great inconvenience of discussing these Amendments without having them on the Paper, and suggested that on future occasions those who had charge of Bills should see that that was done.
      MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendments were printed but they were in the Vote Office. They had been there since four o'clock to-day.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid it was impossible to hon. Members to know when they were ready. They could not be expected to be constantly going to the Vote Office.
      Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
      Amendment proposed—
      " Clause 4, line 7, leave out '14' in order to insert '21.' "—(Mr. Bryce.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords' Amendments down to the Lords' Amendment in page 6, line 41, agreed to.
      Lords' Amendment—
      "In page 6, line 41, after 'sub-section,' insert as a new sub-seotion:—'A copy of the receipt shall, on the request of any person entitled to any estate or interest in the land in respect of which the purchase money or compensation was paid, be furnished by the council to that person."
      MR. BRYCEsaid he thought this Amendment was an improvement. It would be more effective if the additional words "at their expense" were inserted. They had been suggested in another place, but they could not be inserted there as it would raise a question of privilege. He proposed that they should accept the Lords' Amendment and add the words "at their expense."
      Lords' Amendment agreed to.
      Question, "That the words ' at their expense' be inserted after the word ' council,'" put, and agreed to.
      Lords' Amendment—
      "In page 7, line 30, to leave out Subsection (9) of Clause 11."
      *MR. SPEAKERsaid that in his opinion this Amendment was an infringement of the privileges of the Commons. It would enable an arbitrator to add an additional sum for compulsory purchase which would involve an increase of rates. This was not within the competence of the Houes of Lords.
      MR. BRYCEmoved that the House disagree with the said Amendment.
      Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
      Lords Amendment—
      "In page 7, line, 41, after 'pounds,' insert 'unless the court shall otherwise order.'"
      *MR. SPEAKERsaid he had to make the same observation with regard to this Amendment which also would involve an additional charge on the rates, and therefore was not within the competence of the Lords.
      Lords' Amendment disageed to.
      Lords' Amendment—
      "In page 10, line 35, to leave out ' or by the foil of any such labourer.' "
      MR. BRYCEsaid he sympathised with what had been said by the hon. Member for North Dublin. He thought this was an unfortunate Amendment and regretted it had been made. But he did not think it was of much practical consequence. Owing to the shortness

      1141
      of the time it would be a pity to delay the Bill, which was wanted by everybody in Ireland, and therefore he would suggest the hon. Member should not insist in his motion.
      MR. FLYNNsaid the feeling in Ireland was that these words were unfair to the agricultural labourers of Ireland, and therefore he hoped the Government would stand firm and not allow the Lords' Amendment to stand.
      MR. SHEEHANsaid it was an Amendment carried on the motion of the hon. Member for Cork City. It was valuable from their point of view because it was thought it would induce young labourers to stop on the and.
      MR. HAYDENpointed out that there were several instances where labourers had been refused a cottage on the ground that they were not married. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to accept the views that had been put forward from the Irish benches.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry,)said that if this Amendment of the Lords had the effect of excluding a large number of people from the benefit of the Bill he would at once agree with what had been said, but that was not his view. If a cottage was refused to a labourer on the ground that he was not married it would be quite illegal.
      MR. SHEEHANsaid they were not referring to cottages, but to advances for untenanted land.
      MR. CHERRYsaid they naturally did not wish to give it to a boy, but a man of twenty-one, though he lived with his father, was an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the definition of the Bill. So far as he could see, having regard to the fact that very few if any would be affected by the Amendment, it was not desirable to persist in this Motion.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he understood that this was a Bill for the benefit of the labourers, and if that was so every
      1142
      labourer would be entitled to benefit from it.
      MR. CLANCYsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman as an expert, had expressed his opinion upon this Amendment, and upon his statement he hoped the Chief Secretary would so direct the Local Government Board in the administration of this Bill. Under the circumstances he did not think they would be justified in detaining the Bill on this point.
      Lords' Amendment agreed to.
      Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.
      MR. BRYCEmoved that a Committee should be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for differing from them in regard to certain Amendments which their Lordships had made in the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill. He also moved that the Committee should consist of himself, the Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Sheehan, and Mr. C. Craig.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill
      Committee nominated of—Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. James Bryce, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Sheehan.
      To withdraw immediately.
      Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. James Bryce.)

    COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL [LORDS].
    Considered in Committee
    COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL [LORDS].

      Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1:—
      *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,)said there

      1143
      was a technical Amendment to the clause which it was his duty to submit to the Committee. This Bill was one to enable persons married under laws which had received the assent of the Crown in the Colonies, to inherit real estate in this country, and otherwise to receive the privileges of those who had entered into lawful marriages in this country. There was a proviso to Clause 1 which was designed to prevent this Act having any retrospective effect. The Amendment he had to ask the Committee to accept was to leave out the words
      " Nor any claim by the Crown for any duty due at the passing of this Act,"
      in order to insert a new proviso prepared on the advice of the Board of Inland Revenue to make sure that duties paid in respect of deaths before the passing of the Bill were not to be returned and that duties commuted or compounded for in the anticipation of death until after the passing of the Bill were not to be returned.
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out the words, ' Nor any claim by the Crown for any duty due at the passing of this Act.'"
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he must enter a protest against the pressing of an Amendment of this kind without any notice having been given. He did not suppose there was any Member of the House who understood what the meaning of the Amendment was. He certainly did not, and he was doubtful whether the hon. Member who moved it understood it himself. Of course, the hon. Member had the power of passing the Amendment, and he seemed to think that that was sufficient, and he did not think it necessary to display the courtesy of putting his proposals upon the Paper so that they could be understood. It was almost a farce in regard to business of this kind if long and complicated Amendments were put before the House without notice.
      *MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentle-
      1144
      man did not understand the Amendment, because it was couched in the legal rigmarole of which he was so great a master. It was not his desire to show any discourtesy to the Committee and least of all to the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed it. The Amendment was of a purely formal and technical character and did not alter the original sense or intention of the measure. He regretted that it had drawn from the right hon. Gentleman such very severe and wounding comments as he had thought it his duty to make.
      SIR E. CARSON: I do not understand a word of it.
      *MR. CHURCHILLwas sorry that his right hon. friend did not understand the Amendment, because it was, as he had said, drawn in that legal rigmarole of which he was such a master. The only object of it was to provide that the provisions of the Bill should not be retrospective.
      SIR E. CARSONinquired if the Lords would be able to make an Amendment on the matter now before the Committee.
      *MR. CHURCHILLsaid that was a matter of procedure upon which he could not be expected to give any opinion.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put and negatived.
      New proviso inserted.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [No. 339.]

      STREET BUTTING BILL [LORDS].
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1:—
      MR. GLADSTONEmoved an Amendment providing that any person frequenting "or loitering in streets or public

      1145
      places" for the purpose of betting shall be liable to the specified penalties.
      *MR. CLAUDE HAYwished to know whether they could have some clear definition of the word "loiter," and he reminded the Secretary of State that he had already this year appointed a Royal Commission to ascertain the meaning of the word "loitering" as understood and used by the police in London.
      *MR. GLADSTONE: It is a well-known word in the English language.
      LORD BALCARRESasked if a telegraph office was a public place. Would this Act prevent a man standing about a telegraph office and making bets by telegram?
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's object and he believed that as a matter of law a Post Office was a public place. The difficulty of deciding whether a man who was sent to bet by telegram really came within the scope of the Act was so great that it was impossible to draft an Amendment to cover it.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he was sorry that the Home Secretary had come to that conclusion. The Government had not given much time for Members to put down Amendments, because it was past 2 o'clock, after midnight, when the Bill was passed. The right hon. Gentleman last night made a very able and powerful and useful speech upon this question of betting in streets and public places, but would the public believe he was in earnest if a man was permitted to be arrested outside a telegraph office for betting whilst the Government were receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds inside the telegraph office for the purpose of transmitting bets to bookmakers? He did not see what the practical difficulties were. If the right hon. Gentleman issued an instruction that no telegraph clerks should receive a bet, that might meet the case. If it was enacted that it was punishable by fine to send a bet by telegraph, there would not be much difficulty in the matter. The great difficulty was that the Government, while they pretended to wish to do
      1146
      something to put down an admitted evil of a very great character, desired themselves to countenance this system of betting for the sake of revenue. It was purely and solely a question of revenue which prevented the Government dealing with it. If in this Act they had a section really preventing and legislating against the transmission of bets by telegraph, it would smash up the whole bookmaking system throughout this country. There was nothing more pitiable than to go into a country post office, close to some small local races, and see the men there who were hardly able to buy their own dinners waiting to telegraph 5s. or 2s. 6d. to have a bet on some of those races. So long as that practice existed the public would consider the Government particeps criminis in this matter; if the right hon. Gentleman had given them a little more time to put down Amendments to make it perfectly clear that the Government were determined to alleviate the evils, they would have done much to put an end to this disastrous system which went on throughout the whole country.
      *MR. GLADSTONEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that there was still a Report stage upon which he could exercise his legal ingenuity to draft an Amendment which it would be possible to accept. If he would do that the Government would be extremely glad to consider it. He did not know whether this Amendment would cover that. He did not know whether a telegraph office was a public place. He was not a lawyer, but he should have thought it was outside the scope of this Bill, which was one for "the suppression of betting in streets and other public places." He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a distinguished Member of the late Government, that this Bill was sent down from the Lords in the past two sessions, and that it never advanced to the present stage in this House [An HON. MEMBER: It was blocked.]. He did not know who blocked it, but what the Government were doing now the late Government could easily have done. It was a Bill which at any rate provided a partial solution. He did not claim anything more for it. If they could pass this Bill, however, he would suggest to the

      1147
      Postmaster-General and his colleagues that perhaps a Bill might be brought in next year aimed at betting by telegraph.
      MR. PAULsaid this was not a question of legal ingenuity. It was a very serious matter. Betting by telegraph was more injurious than betting at street corners. He did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. If a telegraph office was not a public place it was not a private place. The Government did not allow messages of an improper or immoral character to be sent by telegraph, and he wished they did not allow messages to be sent in regard to betting transactions. He hoped words would be introduced at this stage, or on the Report stage, to stop this system of betting, which caused untold misery to the public.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid that if betting by telegraph were not within the scope of the Bill the Bill was not worth anything. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would find the least difficulty in legislating to prevent the transmission of betting messages by telegraph. He admitted that the law might sometimes be evaded, but let them put on the face of the Bill that this House disapproved of the system.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid it seemed to him that this Bill was framed for a certain specific object, and that was to put a stop to the system of street betting which enabled the poorer classes to put small bets on horse races. What was now proposed was that they should graft an entirely different principle on the Bill at the last moment. Were they to understand, for instance, that if Lord Rosebery, who was an excellent type of sportsman, went to a post office and put on a bet he was to be liable to a fine? [An HON. MEMBER: Why not? He would tell the hon. Member. He was endeavouring to explain that this Bill was not framed to deal with a case of that kind. The Bill was intended to deal with the case of the poor man. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He thought that the acceptance of the Amendment would do what the framers of
      1148
      the Bill did not really intend, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would make the point perfectly clear.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that he quite agreed with the hon. Member that there were great difficulties which had not been not by the Bill. Besides betting by telegraph, there was the difficult case of betting by telephone.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid that most people now bet by telephone because there was no record of it.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that they had also to consider the legitimate secrecy of the telegraph. The Government would put this Bill when passed on trial, and would consider whether afterwards any Amendment could be made upon it.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that this was a very important question. A post office had been held by competent Courts of Law to be a public place. Was it to be distinctly understood that the Government in passing this measure would render liable to arrest Lord Rosebery or the Duke of Devonshire who entered a post office in order to put a bet by telegraph on a horse they fancied, or even to make a bet on the life of the present Government?
      Amendment agreed to:
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words ' or wagering' "—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      MR. CLAUDE HAYasked why these words "or wagering" should be left out? Was it designed to cover any transaction now conducted in the streets which was connected with matters of business in different parts in the United Kingdom? He understood that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Davey had thought it necessary to put these two words into the Bill.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave these words out of the Bill.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that the first amendment standing in his name was to reduce the fine from £10 to £5, which he submitted was quite sufficient.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'ten' and insert the word 'five.' "—(Mr. Bottomley.)
      Question, "That the word ' ten ' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that after the decision just arrived at he would not proceed with his other Amendments.
      MR. LUPTONmoved an Amendment with a view to omitting the provision that in the case of a third or subsequent offence or in the case of a person committing the offence of having a betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years he should be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for six months, without the option of a fine. He thought the punishment was monstrous.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word ' pounds ' to the word ' tine ' in line 22. — (Mr. Lupton.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
      MR. CHARLES CRAIGsupported the Amendment, and said the penalty was an extremely heavy one for a person who perhaps only bet half-a-crown three times. Such a provision was unworthy of any assembly which called itself an assembly of reasonable men.
      MR. J. W. WILSON, thought this was a very serious question, and pointed out that bookmakers employed men and paid them well to bet with youths, women, and children. If the penalty was made severe they would not be able to get men to do this dirty work.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid his hon. friend who moved the Amendment seemed to have overlooked the fact that the im-
      1150
      prisonment only followed upon a third offence having been committed. Therefore a person convicted must have determined to defy the law. The penalty for a person willing to enter into such transactions with a boy of sixteen was not one whit too large.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment, because if they did so the Bill would become useless.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYmoved the omission of Sub-section 2, which provided that any constable might take into custody without warrant any person found committing an offence under the Act, and might seize and detain any article liable to be forfeited under the Act. He submitted that in view of the fact that the telegraph and telephone offices might be places within the meaning of the Act, to give a policeman liberty to loiter round those places in the hope of making an arrest was not desirable. He asked the Government if they would not accept his Amendment or find words to limit the power of arrest to cases where there was a complaint. He moved to omit the sub-section.
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out Sub-section 2".—(Mr. Bottomley.)
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment. The custom at present was to arrest without warrant, and in this case it seemed to be necessary.
      MR. LUPTONsupported the Amendment. It was, he said, a monstrous thing that if two men happened to meet in the street and had a bet a constable should come up and run them in. There was something more important even than putting betting down, and that was upholding justice. This was a prostitution of law and justice. Under this Bill it would be legal for a lord or a rich man to make a bet on the racecourse, but if a poor man made a bet in the street he was to be run in. Was this great Liberal Government going to begin its work by filling the gaols of this country with, innocent men?
      MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he merely wished to confirm what he had said on the previous evening, that powers of this kind had already been conferred on three towns.
      MR. SHACKLETONsaid this Bill was aimed at the professional bookmaker, who was far better engaged serving his time in prison than in demoralising working men. In this case these people were well known, and to give a man a chance of running away every time a policeman saw him was absurd.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid it was not only the wicked bookmaker but the poor innocent working-man who put his 6d. on who was liable to arrest.
      MR. CULLINANasked whether the Bill was designed to punish the bookmaker?
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Bill was designed against the men who made a profession of betting, and frequenting places for that purpose. They were the bookmakers.
      MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked for an interpretation of the words "articles relating to betting." He pointed out that those words were sufficiently wide to comprehend money passed to the bookmaker, which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed with him he hoped he would consider the matter and make it clear before the Report stage.
      MR. GLADSTONEagreed that there was something in the point of the hon. Gentleman, and said he would look into it very carefully. If it was as the hon. Gentleman said, he would take care to alter it on Report.
      MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the Bill was designed to punish bookmakers plying their trade, and not those who made occasional bets.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid a man must be frequenting a place for the purpose of betting.
      MR. LUPTONsaid that Clause provided that if a man made a bet h was to be run in.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not think the observations of the Home Secretary ought to go unchallenged. If the right hon. Gentleman meant that this Act was only to apply to those who were known as bookmakers, taking bets in the street, he thought he was mistaken; any person found in the street making a bet could be punished under this Bill.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid all he did was to answer a specific question put to him as to whether if a man made a bet in the street for the first time he would be sent to prison. He did not think any magistrate would find a person in a case like that guilty of loitering or frequenting public places for the purposes of betting.
      Amendment negatived.
      *MR. WATTsaid that he was under the impression that a recent deputation to the Undersecretary had converted him to their views upon this point, but the Government had not adopted their suggestion. The Bill gave power to "seize and detain," but not the right of search. It stood to sense that such articles as books, cards and papers relating to betting would be secreted about the person. By the law of Scotland the police officer in charge of the station had not the right to search, and the object of this Amendment was to give the power under this Bill. He begged to move.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 5, after ' and,' to insert' the officer in charge of the police station to which such person is taken may cause such person to be searched and."'—(Mr. Watt.)
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Government could not accept this Amendment because any constable at the present time had the right of search, and why should that right be limited to the officer in charge at the station? His hon. and learned friend informed him that the

      1153
      law in Scotland with regard to search was the same as in England.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYmoved to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. A person might be sent to prison for six months if, in the opinion of the Court, he had made a bet and was under the age limit allowed by this Bill. This sub-section threw the onus upon the prisoner of proving his own innocence. The proceedings under this Bill might be either in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or by indictment. What was the position of a bookmaker who was charged with betting with someone under the age of sixteen and who honestly believed that the person he was betting with was over that age? Probably some short-sighted stipendiary magistrate would take a casual glance at the prisoner and say that he looked under the age of sixteen. Probably the boy would be sent down to the Criminal Court and possibly they would have in the end to search the register at Somerset House. [Cries of "Oh."] Hon. Members should remember that they were dealing with a Bill which immediately it became law would be construed literally according to the laws of evidence. If they gave a prisoner the benefit of such a safeguard as that which he was suggesting no man could be deprived of this plea—that he had reason to believe the prisoner was above the statutory age. He hoped they would not violate every fundamental principle of justice in the Law Courts by passing this sub-section,
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Bottomley.)
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid this sub-section referred to the lads under the age of sixteen, with whom a bookmaker made bets. There were precedents for this proposal. Surely if there was any doubt in the mind of the Court about the lad's age, they would take precautions to call for his birth certificate.
      MR. LUPTONsaid this was another case of making a prisoner prove his innocence when it was the duty of the
      1154
      prosecution to prove him guilty. A more monstrous proposition he had seldom heard placed before this House.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYmoved to leave out Sub-section (4,) because it professed to be an interpretation clause, and this was the opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to introduce his proposal to amend the Act so as to apply to telegraph offices and make it quite clear that the Act was intended to apply in such cases.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 10, leave out Sub-section (4)."
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid this subsection was intended to remove any doubt about certain places which it might be held would not come within the meaning of the Act.
      *MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that some race meetings were conducted upon open ground to which the public had free access. What the Home Secretary said was that it was the intention of this Bill simply to prohibit bookmakers frequenting the street in order to induce people to bet on things which they did not see. If there was any doubt about this question it was desirable that the Government should consider the advisability of including some proviso to exempt coursing meetings.
      Amendment negatived.
      Drafting Amendment agreed to.
      *MR. CLAUDE HAYmoved the omission of the word "unenclosed." If betting was an evil it should be dealt with as a whole and not piece-meal, and if persons who possessed much of this world's goods were to be allowed to bet because they went to an enclosed ground for access to which they paid an entrance fee, then they were tolerating within a ringed fence that which they considered an offence if it was done in a club or in a street. They must deal with the rich man as well as the poor man.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word ' unenclosed.' "
      Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid this word was extremely necessary. The definition clause was subjected, to the closest scrutiny by eminent legal members of the House of Lords, and he was very much afraid that if any alteration were made it might endanger the passage of the Bill.
      MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had already thrown over the House of Lords by accepting an Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had given him no answer. If betting was an evil it was the same whether carried on by rich or by poor.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not see any reason why the word "unenclosed" was there. In the case of a football match or a cricket match he thought the sport was often spoiled by the betting which went on. What difference did it make whether the place was enclosed or unenclosed if the public had unrestricted access? They could not apply this Bill to private grounds, because, of course, the police could not go in.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would consider the matter, and if necessary propose an Amendment at a later stage.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment, and then tell the House of Lords that it came from the Tory Party in the House of Commons.
      MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that in view of the promise made by the Home Secretary he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. FORSTERmoved an Amendment to make the
      1156
      Clause apply to any enclosed ground used for the holding of any atheltic sports or cycle racing. He wished to know the views of the Home Secretary on this matter. He believed that the National Cyclists Union was anxious that an Amendment of this kind should be inserted. It was in the interest of clean and healthy sport that the Amendment should be made
      Amendment agreed to.
      Motion made, and question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR.T. M. HEALYasked the Government to consider whether in Ireland the right of appeal should not be given in the case of sentences of under one month's imprisonment. It was a real hardship that a police magistrate should be able to pass such a sentence and that the accused should not have the right of appeal. He was quite with the Government in regard to this Bill. He thought they were taking a proper step, but he held a man should not be liable to lose his liberty for a month without having the right of appeal. There was the right of appeal in England and Scotland, and he thought it was time that the whole question of public liberty should be put on the same footing in Ireland.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,said the matter was one worthy of consideration. He could say for himself, and he thought he could say also for the Home Secretary, that it was a very desirable thing that there should be the right of appeal.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause 2:—
      MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he was not quite sure of the meaning of the words "procedure before provided for." He hoped that some exception would be made, and he proposed to insert words so that the clause should road: "Nothing contained in this Act shall, save as hereinbefore

      1157
      provided, apply to any racecourse" He begged to move.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 10, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words ' save as hereinbefore provided.' "—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the point would be considered before the Report stage.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he wished to move an Amendment to add to Clause 2 the words "or other quantity." He admitted that the words were somewhat curious in their present form, but if they were going to exempt racecourses, it should be remembered that there were racecourses in large numbers, especially in the north of England and in Scotland, where there were other than horse races. He referred to dog races. He maintained that a dog race was as clean as any horse race, and if exemption was desirable in one case it was also desirable in other cases. There was also the question of foot racing as well as cycling racing.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that there was no exact analogy between coursing and horse racing. The people who attended the former meetings did not go there for the purpose of betting professionally, and those who went to enjoy legitimate sport should not come under the operation of the Act. He undertook, however, to look into the question.
      MR. CHARLES CEAIGsaid he presumed that most people regarded the coursing match for the Waterloo Cup as an ordinary race meeting, but the question of extending this Bill to all coursing meetings as well as to horse race meetings should be very carefully considered.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR E. CARSONmoved to amend Clause 2 by leaving out the provision that nothing contained in the Act should apply to ground "adjacent to" a racecourse on days upon which
      1158
      races took place. He did not see the necessity for the words.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, clause 2, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words ' or adjacent thereto.' "— (Sir H. Carson).
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that there were certain parts adjacent to a racecourse which might not come within the legal definition of a racecourse. Therefore it was necessary, he thought, to have these words in. It was the first time that his attention had been drawn to this matter, however, and he would consider it.
      LORD BALCARRESsaid these were rather important words, and, like many other expressions in the Bill, would require legal definition. Did "adjacent thereto" mean fifty or 100 yards or a quarter of a mile? That would have to be settled by a Court of law. The provision meant that on Monday when races were being held you could bet at a particular place or upon a particular road, but on Tuesday when races were not being held you would get six months for doing so. He thought it was desirable that there should be some machinery established for determining this question in advance, and he hoped before the Report stage the Home Secretary would consider the matter.
      MR. T. M. HEALYthought that the Liberal Party were playing into the hands of their opponents, because they were endeavouring to put down betting in every part of the country except those which were resorted to by the aristocracy.
      *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was making remarks which should be made on the clause rather than on the present Amendment.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid in that case he should have to make a second speech.
      MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the words "adjacent thereto" might not be held to include the betting ring.
      *MR. GLADSTONE: No; that is not a public place.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Report made, and Question proposed "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Government proposed to put down the miserable people who betted sixpence while they allowed peers and monarchs to bet in hundreds and thousands of pounds. And this was said to be the Party of the democracy. This Bill and this clause, moreover, came from the House of Lords, and no doubt the Government case was that they must take the moat they could from that House. He thought, however, that the best thing to do was to take this clause out and send the Bill back to the House of Lords and leave upon them the responsibility of restoring it.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had already pointed out that if they omitted this clause it would strike at the poor man and would not affect the rich, because the betting ring was protected inasmuch it was not a public place. Therefore the rich people could bet there but the poor man could not bet even upon a racecourse when races were being run. This was the result of the Kempton Park case.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken about the Kempton Park case, which only applied to a house, office, or place, and not to a racecourse. The decision was under the Betting House Act, which dealt with betting houses. He was as anxious as anybody to put down this nefarious system of betting, and if the Government was honest in the matter they would put it down in the post offices. They had now left themselves open to the taunt that they put down Tom, Dick, and Harry, and allowed to go free the peers and other persons and rich people, who were the tempters in this matter, who spent their tens of thousands in so-called sport and tempted the working men. They gave the little men six months while they
      1160
      allowed the protectors of this vice to go free. It was the Liberal Party who were making themselves this rod to be laid on their own backs by the Conservative Party.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would no put himself in competition with the hon. and learned Member on a question of law, but he was advised that the law was perfectly distinct on this point, and that it was against the view taken of the hon. and learned Member.
      SIR E. CARSON: What view?
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid if this clause were struck out the betting rings on the racecourse would be perfectly immune. The words of Clause 1 were "unrestricted access." these people had not unrestricted access to the betting rings.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Epsom Downs.
      *MR. GLADSTONE: That was his whole point. People did not wander up Epsom Downs making casual bets. But the class of society using the betting rings did not. If this clause was struck out the betting rings would still be immune, and they would not strike at the betting tendency of the wealthy by taking out the clause. All the criticism of this Bill had been that it was a Bill dealing with the poor and not striking at the rich, and it had been argued on that basis. If the rich man frequented a street for the purpose of betting, or if he betted with a bookmaker in the street, he would come within the provisions of the Bill. But they were now talking of omitting this clause, and he was pointing out that if it was omitted the omission would not effect the purpose they all desired to secure.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that if this Bill raised the whole question they would have no difficulty in assenting to the clause, because they would rather have the Bill with the clause than lose it altogether; nevertheless, many Members had had great difficulty in supporting this exceptional legislation. If they could legislate against betting at street corners why could they not legislate

      1161
      against betting on racecourses? He had a distinct objection to saying even by implication that a thing was right on a racecourse but wrong in the streets.
      *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would leave the matter to the House.
      MR. SHACKLETONsaid it appeared to him that the point they were missing was that the avowed object was to get rid of the professional bookmaker who took money from the State and gave nothing to the State back again. Taking the right hon. Gentleman's own version, a bookmaker might be in the street on Monday taking bets and he would be liable under this Act, but on Tuesday he might go on the racecourse where he would be absolutely free to bet. He did not see why they should prevent betting in the streets and legalise it on the racecourse. He thought the Home Secretary had taken a wise course by leaving the question to the House.
      *MR. H. H. MARKSsaid there was one point in connection with this clause to which he desired to allude. The object of the clause was not so much a question of the protection of the rich; it was intended to protect the poor, and more particularly the class of men who were induced to bet 1s. or 6d. in the street on a race which they did not go to see and about which they knew nothing at all. If this clause was allowed to stand, and if an exception was made in favour of the racecourse, the Committee should bear in mind what that meant. If they were serious in their desire to stop the working classes being induced to bet, surely the most effective way was to stop betting altogether, and they could do it by eliminating this clause. It was within the knowledge of everybody who knew anything of the subject that the prices which were the basis of the bets made by the working classes were what were known as starting prices, and that meant the prices which prevailed at the time the horses started. If there was no betting on the racecourses there would be no starting prices and then there could be no street betting. If they
      1162
      loft out this sub-clause they would stop betting at its very foundation.
      MR. CLOUGHsaid he should vote against this clause, because it was class legislation of the worst type. The House of Lords seek to take the mote out of the eye of the working class, whilst they keep the beam in the eye of their own class by carefully preserving the race-courses for their indulgence. To reject this clause at this stage does not necessitate losing the Bill, because the House of Lords frequently reject clauses which are sent up to them by the House of Commons, and we are perfectly within our right by now rejecting a clause in a Bill which has come from them to us.
      SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not think they ought to assume that the House of Lords would at all insist upon this clause. It was plain that the Bill was drawn to put down street betting, but if there was a general expression of opinion that the Bill ought to be made wider in its scope he did not think it was fair to assume that the House of Lords would not adopt the measure in its wider form.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that anything more ridiculous for the House to do than to strike out this clause he had never heard. The Bill was intended to deal with street betting, and this kind of betting was as different from betting on the racecourse as black was from white. It was now proposed to extend the Bill in a way that was never intended, and to place the onus on the House of Lords. The measure dealt with an admitted evil, and to say that they should include betting of all sorts would be a very injudicious course to pursue. He suggested that the Bill should be allowed to pass as it was because it struck at a very serious evil. Nobody had made a case beyond a sentimental one for the proposition which had been made. If this Bill passed there would be no street betting, and when street betting disappeared hon. Members would have carried out what they intended by this Act.
      LORD BALCARRESsaid he gathered that the opinion of the Committee was

      1163
      against this clause. He did not take that view, and he rose to ask the Home Secretary if this clause was thrown out to postpone the Report stage.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think a question of that kind should be brought on later.
      LORD BALCARRESsaid that if they left out Clause 2 they would make it a fresh Bill altogether. The most sanguine supporter of the Bill could not claim any mandate to suppress betting altogether in Great Britain. Therefore they ought to pause before they dropped this subsection. If they stopped betting in the street they should also stop betting by telegraph, and that alone would cost the country £250,000 a year. If they made betting illegal it did not follow that they would stop betting. He hoped the Home Secretary would at least consent, in view of the enormous change which would be made by this proposal in the whole scope of the Bill, to postpone this question until the Report stage.
      MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that upon street betting the opinion of the country was ripe for legislation, but not one hon. Member had advocated at the election the putting down of race meetings.
      MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that as one who did go to race meetings he wished to point out that there were two kinds of racecourses, those which were known as enclosed and those which were open. If this clause were omitted it would still be possible for anybody who went to Kempton Park races to be entirely outside the scope of the Bill, whereas at Epsom, on Derby Day, the Bill would not prevent the working man indulging in a little betting. He hoped the operation of this Act would be confined to street betting.
      MR. CROSSLEYsaid he was anxious that street betting should be put down. All employers of labour must know what a nuisance this street betting was. Not long ago a poor widow told him that a bookmaker was hanging about his works, inducing boys to bet. He would prefer to carry a
      1164
      measure suppressing street betting rather than risk the chance of dealing with this question altogether by accepting the proposal before the House.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,said he was very anxious that this Bill should pass into law this session, and if possible this month. The proposal had been made that this clause should be omitted. He should deplore that extremely. There was no doubt whatever that if that course were taken this Bill would not see the Statute-book until October, and that would be a great calamity. The urgency for this Bill was great. They were legislating not for the whole of the betting evil in the country—he wished they were —but for betting in its most acute and urgent form.
      MR. DICKINSONsaid this clause placed on the Statute-book words which recognised racecourses as places suitable for betting. That made him and some others hesitate about giving it support. He hoped the Government would not force them into the position of recognising betting upon race-courses in that way.
      MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that every night in order to expedite legislation in these late discussions they were asked to water down measures containing important principles which some of them had taken an active part in advocating in the country. He thought they would, do better to delay for a few months, or Bill another session, legislation on some of these great questions, in order to get something that would effectively deal with the evils. What he and those associated with him had to guard against was the creation of a suspicion that they were seeking in this case to put down an evil by which the working classes were very much touched, while permitting the evil to exist so far as their so-called social superiors were concerned. They had been told repeatedly by the Home Secretary that the object of the measure was to get at the professional bookmaker. Did they only want to get

      1165
      at the professional bookmaker in the public thoroughfare on Monday, and leave him absolutely free to go to the racecourse on Tuesday? If betting was wrong in the one case, he did not think this House should give its approval to betting in the other. They must guard against the impression that they were guilty in this House of promoting class legislation. The front Ministerial Bench was divided on this question. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He said "Yes." the Home Secretary left this question open to the House, and the Lord Advocate solemnly appealed to them to take a particular course.
      MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he did not presume to interfere with what was said by his right hon. friend, but the interests of the Bill were to him very sacred. He had pointed out what might happen if this Amendment were carried, and he was within his rights in doing that.
      MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he was not disputing the rights of the Lord Advocate.
      *MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: That is not in the least inconsistent.
      MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he had not stated that it was inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to leave the question open, and then the Lord Advocate made an earnest appeal to the Committee to leave the clause in the Bill. He thought he was right in saying that there was a division of opinion on the front bench. He hoped the Committee would reject the clause.
      MR. A. E. W. MASONsaid that, although he had every sympathy with the object of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, he did not think the leaving out of the sub-section would have the effect he supposed, for it would still be limited by the definition of "public place" as including "any public park, garden, or sea beach, and any unenclosed ground to which the public for the time being have unrestricted access." So far as he knew there were only two
      1166
      racecourses in England to which the public had unrestricted access. To his mind the question opened up was too wide to be settled at that hour of the morning.
      *MR. BERTRAMsaid he entirely sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in saying that the Party to which he belonged would be made thoroughly unpopular in the country by this kind of legislation. He recognised that there was a difference between a man making a bet on an event which he saw, and making a bet at a street corner on an event which he could not see. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle talked about watering down the measure; but the omission of the Clause would vastly enlarge the scope of the Bill, which was only meant to put down betting at street corners; and it would be very unwise to risk the Bill by insisting on Amendments which would be refused in another place, and which would have a far greater effect than this Bill was ever intended to have. He should vote for the retention of the Clause.
      *MR. GIBBSsaid that the Bill was directed against bookmakers who made bets at street corners with poor people; and if the clause under discussion was omitted it would not be legislating in the interests of the poor. They were dealing with the case where the bookmaker came to the people, and not where, as on Epsom Downs, the people went to the bookmaker.
      MR. ESSEXasked whether the clause gave additional sanction to betting on racecourses. If it did strengthen the right to bet on racecourses he would vote against it.
      VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid that an hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial side was afraid that the popularity of the Government would be weakened if any attempt at legislation were made without a mandate from the country. If he thought this clause would make the Government unpopular it would be an inducement to some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House to vote for it. Almost every Member who had supported the

      1167
      Bill had declined again and again that this was a class measure and was intended to prevent a poor man putting a shilling on a horse on a race, but would not prevent the wealthy man from betting his £50 or £100. The first thing this democratic Government did was, instead of protecting the mill hand and other members of the working class, to introduce a piece of class legislation.
      MR. RICHARDSONbore testimony to the mischief which the street betting carried on by the bookmaker with men, women, and children wrought, and said that although it might make him unpopular with some of his constituents for a time, as the result of a choice of evils he intended to vote for this clause. He would leave the question to the common sense of the working men later on.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it was an extraordinary fact that this Bill was brought forward to defend a child from
      betting anywhere except on a racecourse. Formerly there was a right of sanctuary in this country, but it was confined to cathedrals, but now the right of sanctuary was only to be found upon a gambling ground. It was said that the Government would be unpopular if the Bill were passed, but at all events it could not be accused of not having the courage of its convictions, although it might be considered hypocritical, as this was the first time that it had been laid down that a racecourse was a sacred place.
      MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid it was idle to legislate in advance of public opinion, and if they tried to put down betting on a racecourse the Act would be a dead letter.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77 Noes 69. (Division List No. 299.)

      AYES.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Forster, Henry William

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Rees, J. D.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Richardson, A.

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbertJohn

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Beach, Hn.MichaelHughHicks

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Rose, Charles Day

      Beale, W. P.

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Runciman, Walter

      Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

      Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

      Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

      Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

      Bertram, Julius

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Billson, Alfred

      Levy, Maurice

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Bottomley, Horatio

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Bryce, J. A. (InvernessBurghs)

      MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.

      Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Cawley, Frederick

      Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston

      Stuart, James (Sunderland)

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

      Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Ure, Alexander

      Corbett,CH.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

      Morse, L. L.

      Ward,W.Dudley(Southampt'n

      Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.

      Nicholls, George

      Watt, H. Anderson

      Crossley, William J.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Duckworth, James

      Nuttall, Harry

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

      Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Winfrey, R.

      Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Elibank, Master of

      Paulton, James Mellor

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Pease,.J. A. (Saffron Walden)

      J. W. Wilson and Mr. John

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Philipps,Col.Ivor(S'thampton

      Robertson.

      NOES.

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Byles, William Pollard

      Barnard, E. B.

      Brooke, Stopford

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

      Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Clough, W.

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Scott,A.H(Ashton-under-Lyne

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Lamont, Norman

      Seely, Major J. B.

      Cory, Clifford John

      Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

      Shackleton, David James

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Cullinan, J.

      MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N

      M'Killop. W.

      Sullivan, Donal

      Dobson, Thomas W.

      Marks, H. H. (Kent)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Essex, R. W.

      Mond, A

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Montagu, E. S.

      Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

      Fenwick, Charles

      Montgomery, H. G.

      Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark

      Ffrench, Peter

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Verney, F. W.

      Gill, A. H

      Murphy, John

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Glover, Thomas

      Nolan, Joseph

      White, George (Norfolk)

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

      White, Patrick (Meath,North)

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      O'Malley, William

      Whiteley,George (York,W. R.)

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      O'Mara, James

      Hazleton, Richard

      Paul, Herbert

      TELLERS FOK THE NOES—Mr.

      Healy, Timothy Michael

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

      Arthur Henderson and Mr.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Price, C. B. (Edinb'gh, Central)

      Ramsay Macdonald.

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Rickett, J. Compton

      Jenkins, J.

      Russell, T. W.

      Resolution agreed to.

      MR. LUPTONmoved to report progress.
      THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the rule was suspended in order to get through business.
      Clause 3:—
      Mr. THOMAS SHAWsaid Scotland was very much interested in this matter of street betting. In Scotland there was a system of houses—of flat tenements approached by a passage or a common stair. The passage and common stair had been found to be a very convenient situation for bookmakers to take up a position in. They stood in one of these passages during the dinner hour when the working men were coming home to their meal, and there was an instance where a bookmaker induced in thirty minutes fifteen men to make bets with him. In 1903 there was a decision in Scotland which held that a passage or common stair was not a place within the meaning of the Act. He begged to move an Amendment to deal with this point.
      Amendment proposed—
      "In page 2, line 20, at end, to add the words and "passage" Includes common close or common stair or passage leading thereto; and, in the event of an offender failing to make payment of a fine imposed under Section 1, (1), (a) or (b) of this Act, he shall be liable to
      1170
      imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
      Question proposed, 'That those words be there added."
      MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONentirely agreed with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman. All he desired to know was whether under the Summary Jurisdiction Act in England imprisonment was contemplated, because if so he thought Scotland should be placed on an equality in that regard.
      MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he believed that was so.
      MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he hoped the Committee would permit him to add the following words, which he thought were necessary—
      " Any offence under this Act may be tried before the Sheriff Court. "
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 3 amended, and agreed to.
      Clause 4 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

      CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
      Order for SECOND READING read.
      Proposition made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      LORD BALCARRESthought that Parliament ought to settle generally within certain limits how often this census should take place. What he wished to refer to more particularly were the last words of Clause 3 under which forms had to be prepared to give particulars with respect to production. The words of the clause were very wide indeed, and people did not like to give to Government Departments the whole particulars in a great many industrial occupations. He was aware that it was done in agriculture, but that was a very open industry and it differed entirely from the secret processes of manufacture which came under this Bill. There was the Wireless Telegraphy Act which he would give as an instance. Under that Act nobody might practice wireless telegraphy without a licence from the Postmaster-General. The result of that was that people preferred to run the risk of the penalities in some instances rather than allow the officials of a Public Department to know the secrets of their business. In this case there were certain applications of what were known as chemical physics which were extremely precious and which it was quite unnecessary that a Government Department should investigate. If the compiling of these returns was carried out in any hostile or inquisitorial spirit the value of them would be absolutely nil. As the object of this Bill was purely statistical the measure ought not to be put in this general form. It was like the ordinary Board of Trade Return, but it was placed in a more extended form and in carrying it out he trusted the President
      1172
      of the Board of Trade would not keep it in such a vague and extended form because that might defeat the object he had in view. There was a great deal of anxiety about this Bill in industries which were now in their infancy. There was one particular company which was doing much useful work in the development of wireless telegraphy, and he was sure they would suffer all the penalites rather than make returns about their business. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
      MR. STUARTsaid he hardly needed to say anything but ditto to what the noble Lord had said. The object of the Bill was to obtain statistical information as to the course of trade apart from exports and imports. There were many details that did not come under the statistics required. He desired to second the appeal which had been made by the noble Lord that this Bill before it became law should go before a Select Committee. He thought that would calm the fears which some of them felt and he hoped that course would be taken by the Government.
      MR. T. M. HBALYregarded this Bill as a great invasion of public liberty. There was no necessity for it and no case had been made out for it, and it was a deplorable thing that such a Bill should come on during the dying hours of the session. He regretted that this Bill should have been moved without a word of explanation from the Board of Trade or any indication of the nature of its provisions showed the extraordinary state of things which, the House of Commons could come to during the hot weather of the month of August. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been President of the Board of

      1173
      Trade and by a measure of this sort he had got into his hands the possibility of prying into the secrets of the trade and commerce of the men of Birmingham. What would have been said about it by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Where was the necessity for this and where was the demand for it? They were simply sacrificing their liberty to a gang of clerks in Downing Street. Every plumber or every man who was employed upon a building job would be expected, under this Bill, to spend hours making a public return or run the risk of being fined £10. Who wanted this return? They were told that manufacturers were flourishing and that free trade was triumphant all over the land. This was an extraordinary illustration of the use the Government were making of their power to compel every man to make a return of his business. This Bill lent itself to oppression of every kind. The Government if they could save a single farthing on any orders would send their orders to Germany instead of to Ireland; would the Government send an inspector to Ireland to ascertain why Irish industries were languishing?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OP TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEOKGE,assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not the case that he did not wish to defend the measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not correct in saying that there was no demand for the Bill. The Chambers of Commerce had passed a unanimous resolution in favour of an inquiry of this character. When the Bill was first introduced there was no voice raised against it, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham got up and supported it, expressing the hope that
      1174
      it would be passed this session. His hon. and learned friend had rather exaggerated the dangers of the Bill; he said bids was an experiment which had not been tried anywhere before. As a matter of fact this was a system which had been in operation in the United States for fifty rears. It had been exceedingly successful there. In Australia a similar Bill had been passed. He thought it would be desirable before the Bill passed the House of Commons that the rules to be prescribed should be laid on the Table if the House, so that anyone would have the opportunity of scrutinising them and moving the excision of any particular part of them. He had received a deputation of traders who expressed the wish that the clause should be modified, and he was able to remove their apprehensions. What he proposed to do was, under the general powers taken in the Bill, to set up a Committee representing trades and industries for the purpose of settling; these forms. He thought that would be much better than the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee would take into account all the points raised by the hon. Members who had taken part in this discussion. The noble Lord had expressed anxiety lest secret processes should be divulged. He could not imagine that any Committee of that character would frame regulations in such a way as to invite traders to divulge their secret processes to any Government Department. What they wanted, to know was the aggregate of the home trade. They knew the export trade in the details divulged to the Customs. At present their information with regard to home trade was more or less a matter of conjecture. While one man would say that it was £800,000,000, another would

      1175
      say that it was £1,500,000,000 what they wanted was to ascertain the actual facts in regard to our industries from decade to decade. Hon. Members might rest assured that there was no desire to have an inquisition of any sort into the trade of any man.
      LORD BALCARRESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of making the Committee statutory.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was prepared to consider that suggestion.
      MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he had heard some objections stated by an hon. Member to the proposal in the Bill to obtain returns in regard to the various trades of the country. The right hon. Gentleman boasted of his ignorance of figures; but that was one of the exaggerated statements which the right hon. Gentleman made when he wanted to score a point. He himself was rather fond of figures both for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and he hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would get all the statistics possible, and have hem arranged in an admirable manner. A short time ago he had received a most interesting return on all the industries in the State of Massachusetts which he would be glad to put into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. Complaint had been made about the want of statistics of the trade of Ireland. It was true that the trade of Ireland had been practically wiped out more than a century ago, and that they did not know much about it. They were short of official statistics both under the old Irish Parliament and since the Union.

      PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REPAYMENT)
      Resolution reported:
      "That it is expedient to authorise the extension of time for the repayment of a loan made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund and for other purposes relating to Local Loans."

      LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
      Reasons for disagreeing to Lords' Amendments reported and agreed to.
      To be communicated to the Lords.

      MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
      That they have agreed to: Marriage with Foreigners Bill; Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.
      Whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th July last.
      Adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock a.m.

Preamble
The Lord Bishop of Durham took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Solicitors Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill; Paisley Roads Order Confirmation Bill; Inverclyde Bequest Order Confirmation Bill; Perth Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petitions against.—Of parents, guardians, and teachers of children attending schools at Copp; Oswaldtwistle; Knuzden; Milnrow; Farnworth; Clifton; Newton; Blackburn (two); Ramsbottom; Castleton (two); Accrington (six); Castle-ton (two); Westleigh (two); Bolton (two); Newney; Howe Bridge (two); Dearnley (two); Harpurhey; Melling in Lunesdale; Blackburn; Middleton (two); Lower Broughton (four); Ruswarp; Westcombe Park; Ashow; Fernhurst; Shaw, near Oldham; Eartham; Darowen; Penrhoslligwy; Sapiston; Christow; Temple Colston. Of inhabitants of Tardeligge Parish, Bromsgrove; Pirton Parish, Hertfordshire; Crosby Ravensworth; Bickershaw.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Tramways Act, 1870, during the Session of 1906.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1898.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising—
  The construction of light railways in the parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln, from Winteringham to Barton-upon-Humber, and from Whitton to Aldborough in extension of the North Lindsey light railways.
  The Urban District Council of Barking Town, to take lands for the purpose of widening a road on which a light railway authorised by the Barking Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1903, will be laid in the urban district of Barking Town, in the county of Essex.

  Third Abstract of Foreign Labour Statistics.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 9. (1906).
  Convention between the United Kingdom and China respecting Tibet, signed at Peking, April 27th, 1906 (to which is annexed the Convention between the United Kingdom and Tibet, signed at Lhasa, September 7th, 1904). (Ratifications exchanged at London, July 23rd, 1906.)
  Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War on army re-organisation, dated July 30th, 1906.
  METEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE.
  First report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, for the year ended March 31st, 1906.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Education Bill, 1906 (Draft Ballot Regulations).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  Further Regulations under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Closing orders made by the Portadown Urban District Council.
  Order made by the Council of the City of Bath, and confirmed by the Secretary

  883
  of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain shops within the city.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of Tuesday the 24th of July last), and to be printed. (No. 198.)
  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  The Lord Ribblesdale appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day, in the absence of the Chairman of Committees.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

  THE LAND PURCHASE ACT.
  LORD MASSY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government how many estates sold under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 have had the sporting rights vested in the Land Commission; what steps have been taken by the Commissioners for the preservation of game on such estates and for letting the shootings; and will the Government place on the Table of the House a copy of the regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant to enable the Land Commission to deal with the sporting rights vested in them in accordance with Section 13, Sub-section 1, of the Land Purchase Act, 1903.
  I have put these Questions on the Paper in the interest of the general preservation of game in Ireland. I have been for some years connected with an association which was formed in that country for the protection of game. That association has done excellent work, but we have had a very hard task with the Estates Commissioners. Instead of assisting us the Estates Commissioners have opposed us in every way. On one estate they absolutely refused to allow us to put up notices to prevent trespass in pursuit of game on those lands. It is quite a mistake
  884
  to suppose that the tenants of Ireland do not care about the preservation of game, for in several cases where large estates have been sold to the tenants they have themselves combined to preserve the game on their several holdings.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in view of the important debate which awaits us, I hope I shall not be expected to give more than a very brief reply to the Questions of the noble Lord. The noble Lord asks how many estates sold under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 have had the sporting rights vested in the Land Commission. I am informed that twelve estates have been so treated, and that in six more estates the rights have been vested concurrently in the superior landlord. The noble Lord then inquires what steps have been taken by the Commissioners for the preservation of game on such estates and for letting the shootings. Up to the present the Land Commission have not taken any steps for the preservation of game on these estates. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a certain amount of hardship in this matter, but I must ask him to remember that many questions of urgency have arisen in connection with the working of the Irish Land Act more important than this particular one, and which have engaged the attention of the Government. The question of shooting rights cannot be one of such great importance, because only in eighteen estates out of a total of 1,006 sold has it been necessary to deal with sporting rights in this manner. Finally, the noble Lord asks whether His Majesty's Government will place on the Table of the House a copy of the regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant. The regulations are not definitely decided upon, but a draft of them is now under consideration. If the noble Lord will put this Question to me at a later period of the session I hope I shall then be in a position to lay a copy of the regulations, on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, although in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill to make further provision for education in England and Wales, I cannot put forward the plea for indulgence which is often advanced by those who have only lately become members of your Lordships' House, yet I am none the less disposed on that account to ask for your consideration on this occasion. As your Lordships are aware, it is the custom in this House, so far as speeches are concerned, to take the First and Second Reading of a Bill together. It is necessary, not merely to explain the principles on which proposed legislation is founded, but also to give some account of the actual particulars of a Bill. In this case the general outline is very familiar to many of your Lordships, but the particulars are unusually intricate and obscure, and, consequently a speaker in my position has to steer his ship very carefully in order to avoid, on the one hand, running up against the rock of platitude, or, on the other hand, being engulfed in the whirlpool of detail.
    There is a further consideration which makes me ask for your Lordships' indulgence, and that is founded upon the composition of this House in relation to this particular measure. In another place, I think, pretty nearly all the different religious bodies affected by this Bill are well represented, but in your Lordships' House that is not the case. The Church of England is represented here not only in great variety, but also in the most authoritative manner possible. The Roman Catholic Church is also well represented here, but I do not know whether in the course of this debate any voice will be raised speaking authoritatively on behalf of the Nonconformist bodies, or on behalf of those who take a purely secular view of this question. I am almost tempted to wish that for once in a way the two Houses could have sat together on this subject in joint session. I feel that the debates which would then have followed would have been not merely exceedingly instructive, but also very possibly somewhat exciting.
    886
    I do not propose to dwell at any length upon the history of this question, and, indeed, it is only in relation to what is known as the religious difficulty that I propose to deal with history at all. As your Lordships all know, the association between teaching and the different religious bodies in this country is of very long standing. It dates from the days when a clerk and a cleric were almost indistinguishable. I need not remind your Lordships, although I should be blamed if I did not do so to some extent, of the services which have been rendered to the cause of education in the past in this country by the Church of England and also by other religious bodies. I have no intention of minimising those services. On the other hand, I do say this, that any scheme for continued control of education on behalf of any church must be subject to two very distinct considerations. In the first place, we are bound to consider the lapse of time. There must be some statute of limitations in this matter, and we are bound to regard the new conditions under which we live; and so far as the Church of England is concerned I merely desire to say that while I recognise to a great extent the claims which she has put forward, yet I am not prepared to admit that all the schools which are said to have been built by the Church have really been built with Church money, because a very considerable number of them have been built as the appanage of country estates, and others have been erected, as is well known to your Lordships, less with a desire to promote a particular kind of education than with a wish to effect some saving on the rates.
    I need not dwell on what is known as the compromise of 1870. That was a. compromise somewhat sulkily arrived at, but perhaps it was not altogether un-suited to the circumstances of the time. In 1876 an important step was taken by making school attendance everywhere compulsory. I pass over the changes of the intervening years, and come at once to the Act of 1902, under which the elementary education of this country is still carried on. In that year Voluntary schools for the first time applied

    887
    for, and obtained, rate aid, disregarding many warnings such as that which was given by Bishop Wilberforce in the course of the 1870 controversy, when he said that immediately you introduce the ratepayer you must give him the real direction of the instruction furnished by the rates. You know very well that the Act of 1902 has created a vast amount of discontent in this country. I remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, in the course of the debates in this House on that Bill, said that when the Bill passed the feeling against it in the country would subside. That has not proved to be the case. Wales revolted almost en masse against the Act. Some 70,000 summonses were issued against those in England who declined to pay rates under these conditions; and behind them there was a vast body of people who for one reason or another did not see their way to join in that particular form of protest, but at the same time deeply resented the provisions of the Act.
    That was the position which the Government had to face when we came into office. We had to consider what alternative systems exist for elementary education in this country which either we or any Government could possibly adopt. It might be possible in this country to adopt a secular system pure and simple. I, for one, have no desire to disparage the value of what is known as ethical teaching. I am quite prepared to admit the great value of such teaching, and I might remind your Lordships that the present administration at the Board of Education has issued regulations designed to extend it. But, against the introduction of a secular system into this country there remains one fatal objection—that the people of this country will not have it. That is sufficiently shown by the fact that when it was proposed in another place only sixty-three members of Parliament could be found to vote for it as against 477 who recorded their votes in the opposite lobby. I think we must presume that that majority at least reflects the opinion of the country, and shows that the people of England and Wales are determined not to have to depend in their elementary schools upon a system
    888
    of teaching which is not governed by some supernatural sanction.
    Failing a purely secular system, you may fall back in one form or another on what is known as concurrent endowment. There is no doubt that there are many people in this country who feel a strong abstract objection to concurrent endowment. The teaching or endowment of religion in any form, they say, is not the business of the State; but I am bound to admit, and I make a present of the argument to noble Lords opposite, that if it could be shown that any system of concurrent endowment of religious instruction was suited to our social system in this country and was fair in itself, I do not believe that these theoretical objections would weigh the value of a brass farthing in the minds of the people of this country. I can imagine a case in India of a town containing so many Hindoos, so many Mohammedans, and so many Sikhs, not differing greatly in social position as between the different religions, in which it would be a matter of very small importance whether schools for their children were concurrently endowed or not. But what we maintain is that no approximation to those conditions exists in this country.
    Concurrent endowment may take different forms. It may be either complete—that is to say, in which the State provides schools and teaching for all the different religious bodies in the country— or it may be modified in a form in which the State assists in the erection of school buildings by people of a particular religious denomination, accepts the use of those buildings for secular teaching, and pays denominational teachers; or lastly, concurrent endowment may take the form of what I venture to describe as a pseudo-secular system, that principle which was advocated in another place by Mr. Chamberlain, by which religious instruction is to be given by State teachers within school hours. I will say a word upon each of those forms in turn.
    The first form, that of complete concurrent endowment, I venture to dismiss very briefly. The multiplication of religious beliefs in this country is so vast that it would be obviously impossible for the State to supply schools and

    889
    teachers to suit everybody. Of course, we should all agree that there must be some limitations. Nobody would suggest that a single family of Swedenborgians settled on Salisbury Plain had a right to have a school built for them at the public expense and a teacher maintained who believed and was prepared to instruct the children in the principles of the Church of the New Jerusalem. But even without taking almost ludicrous instances of that kind, it is perfectly obvious to anybody who knows the circumstances of this country that it is absolutely impossible to build schools and to find teachers of a particular denomination for all the different varieties of belief in this country.
    I pass to the second form, modified concurrent endowment, which represents what really, I think, is the general denominational demand in this country. It represents very largely the demand which the Church of England makes in this matter; that is to say, that a religious denomination should be allowed to erect a building which should be taken over for certain purposes by the State, represented by the local authority, on the understanding that religious teaching should be given in the schools and a denominational teacher should be paid by the State. I am obliged to say that in my judgment such a solution of the religious difficulty is absolutely impossible as a permanent solution, because of the utterly unfair advantage which it gives to the Established Church. In the first place, the Established Church covers a great variety of beliefs, and it appears to me that when you are endowing concurrently you must know exactly what it is you are endowing. Now, it is in one sense the boast and the pride of the Church of England that she casts a wide net; she casts an even wider net than the Church of the Fisherman himself; but that very fact makes it infinitely more difficult to do in this case what in effect is giving a special privilege to the Church.
    Just think, my Lords, in this form of State assistance to denominational schools, what an immense advantage, what an essentially unfair advantage, is given to the Church of England by the existence of the parochial system. So far as rural districts are con-
    890
    cerned, the gain by the existence of the parish church and all its surroundings to the cause of that particular denonination is almost incalculable, and, therefore, I say without hesitation, that if it were desired to institute a permanent system of concurrent endowment in this country, a necessary preliminary would be the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England. But, my Lords, if that were done, I should certainly not admit that the conditions were even then equal as between the Church and other religious bodies in this country. After all you have to reflect that the religious cleavage in own social fabric is not vertical, cutting through all classes. It is a horizontal cleavage, including, roughly speaking, what are known as the upper classes and the wealthy classes within the Church of England. I repeat that statement without hesitation. By far the greater part of the land in this country belongs to members of the Church of England. That of itself obviously gives a great advantage in this particular matter, and if you compare the position of the Church of England with that of a poor body such as the Primitive Methodists, who after all are not to be despised in any sense, numerically or otherwise, for they have some half million children in their Sunday schools—if you compare the conditions of such a body with those of the Church of England, you will see that nominally to treat all bodies alike is to give a most preponderating advantage to one.
    I desire to say one word upon the proposition which I include under this head of concurrent endowment, a proposition which is of special interest because it represents the only alternative proposal that has been made by the Opposition since this Bill has been brought in—I mean Mr. Chamberlain's proposal of what are known as all-round facilities. His proposition is that in all schools religious teaching of that kind which is desired by, I suppose, a certain number of parents should be given not at the expense of the State, but within hours of compulsory attendance, and by the teacher whom the State appoints and pays. I might at first point out that there is one important body in this country to whom such a solution as

    891
    that must be utterly unpalatable. I refer to the Roman Catholic Church. I say that it is not possible for the Roman Catholic Church or, for those members of the Church of England who demand a religious atmosphere running through the whole of the education of the school, to accept a solution of this kind, which makes the schools nominally secular and really secular during the hours of ordinary education, but permits ministers of religion or teachers of religion to give instruction during the specified half-hour. But I should prefer, on the general question, to rest my condemnation of this proposition on a much higher authority than mine. It is that of a right rev. Prelate who, unfortunately, is not yet a Member of this House, but who has been one of the doughty opponents in the country of this Bill. I mean the Bishop of Manchester. At the Representative Church Council on 6th July last Chancellor Smith moved a resolution to the effect that it was the duty of all local education authorities to make provision in the schools for the imparting of such religious instruction to the children as the parents required, or, in the absence of expressed requirements, was in accord with the form of religion to which the parents belonged. The Bishop of Manchester said he did not think the Chancellor had clearly worked out in his own mind what was the effect of requiring the local authority in such area to provide religious instruction on the lines of the denomination to which the parent belonged. He pointed out that even in villages there were most extraordinary varieties of belief, and said he was not himself prepared to agree that the country would tolerate the expense of such an arrangement. After pointing out that if the local authority were compelled to provide competent teachers in all the different forms of belief the education rate would go up by leaps and bounds, the right rev. Prelate added—
    "On the other hand, if the denominations were to provide it he was quite sure it meant in the long run that the Church of England would take an advantage of the other denominations which he did not wish the Church of England to take. If they required the teaching to be given at the expense of the denominations, they would be making a grab at religious education far greater than they were accused having made up to the present time."
    892
    I am quite content to rest, so far as the Church side of the matter is concerned, upon that statement of the right rev. Prelate; but I am bound also to remind your Lordships that the educational objections to such a system are overwhelming. It would be exceedingly difficult in many places to arrange anything like proper accommodation for different kinds of teaching being given at the same time, and as for the destruction of discipline, I can assure your Lordships that you would only have to take the opinion of the great mass of teachers in the elementary schools to find that they stand aghast at the notion of the adoption of any such plan as this. We have dismissed, therefore, secular education, and we have dismissed the different forms of concurrent endowment. We therefore fall back upon the proposition contained in this Bill. We are anxious, so far as the existing condition of things and the past history of the schools will allow, to found a national system o elementary education.
    I will proceed to illustrate the principles which this Bill is intended to carry out by some reference to its actual clauses. Clause 1 says that on and after the 1st day of January, 1908, a school shall not be recognised as a public elementary school unless it is a school provided by the local education authority. It is not too much to say that this clause is the Bill. It is—and we have no desire to conceal the fact—an undenominational Bill tempered by certain exceptions, and not an undenominational Bill professing to be hedged round by safeguards, simply because we do not believe that those safeguards can possibly be devised. Clause 1 declares the principle of public control. Some people have stated that we have a mandate to introduce the principle of public control. I am one of those who are not fond of talking about mandates. I do not think I have ever used the phrase, and I am not sure that I approve of the theory; but as regards this particular point I would prefer to put what comes to much the same thing in another way. If at the last General Election any Liberal candidate had stated on a platform in the constituency which he hoped to represent that he was utterly indifferent to the principle of public control in elementary

    893
    schools, there is not the slightest doubt that his hoped-for constituents would have conducted him to the railway station and asked him to try his fortune elsewhere. And that I think is shown by the fact that this principle is ushered up to your Lordships by the great majority of no less than 192 obtained on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place. It is the old story in the old homely phrase, "The man who pays the piper may call the tune;" or as a civic dignitary who did not like homely phrases preferred to put it—
    "the individuals who desire to have a voice in the selection of the programme must be prepared to provide remuneration for the orchestra."
    It is very remarkable, my Lords, how much lip service is done to this principle even by those who profess to disapprove of the provisions of this Bill. Many people who dislike the Bill yet say that they are not prepared to contest, particularly after what has happened in the country, the principle of public control. Some have said—
    " Why did you go into this intricate matter? Why didn't you simply bring in a Bill stating that in Voluntary schools instead of four foundation managers and two managers representing the local education authority, the number should be reversed, and there should be four representing the local authority and two representing the old foundation of the school?"
    That sounds very simple and agreeable at first sight, but I think it is necessary to explain why that could not be done. There is a section—Section 23—in the Act of 1870, which allows the managers of a voluntary school to transfer such school to the local authority. If our Bill was passed it was pretty obvious that the new managers would have adopted this clause. In that case you were at once brought face to face with all these difficult questions relating to the fair way of treating the trusts of the schools and the user which you require from the schools, which we have to face later on in this Bill. On the other hand, if you had repealed Section 23 of the Act of 1870 and taken away that power from the managers, then your public control would obviously have been quite illusory. These four gentlemen appointed by the local authority would simply have had to carry out the duties
    894
    imposed upon them by the trusts of a denominational school, and their only office would have been to order in the coals and settle the special kind of pen to be used by the children.
    In this clause, to put it briefly, the object which we believe we effect is to place an undenominational school within the reach of every child whose parent desires him to attend one, and by so doing we remove one principal grievance of which the Nonconformist churches have complained. That is one-half, at any rate, of what is known as the Nonconformist grievance. It is admitted, I believe, by almost everybody. It was explicitly admitted by the noble Viscount Lord Llandaff in the course of the debates in 1902, and it is admitted to-day by Mr. Balfour. Mr. Balfour says he has always admitted it; but there is no comfort to be got from Mr. Balfour on the subject, because he evidently, thinks it is as far beyond the means of human prevention as an earthquake or an eruption of Vesuvius. I pass to the acquisition of the schools for this purpose. What we hope is that a great number of arrangements will take place under Clause 2. As your Lordships know, a very considerable number of arrangements have taken place under similar circumstances already. Many schools of different kinds, particularly privately-owned schools, have been transferred to local authorities at nominal rents. May I ask your Lordships to consider what it is that the Church, for I am speaking practically now of the Established Church, stands to gain by a transfer of this kind, and what it stands to lose. It stands to gain in all probability a certain amount of rent for the building. It has to the good the taking over by the local education authority of the liability for repairs, and it also has on the credit side those facilities which I shall describe on a later clause. On the other hand, it does lose a considerable portion of its power under the trusts, and it loses the power of appointing the teacher.
    Before leaving this branch of the subject, and while still dealing with the acquisition of the schools, it is convenient, I think, to pass over the intervening clauses and to come to the points dealt with in Clauses 9 to 12

    895
    inclusive, which describe what happens where no arrangement takes place between the local authority and the owner of the school. Of course, I need not remind your Lordships that where schools belong to private owners it rests entirely with the owner to say whether he chooses to part with his school or not, under certain restrictions as to user which appear later in the Bill; but where schools are subject to trusts a Commission is appointed to deal with the matter.
    That Commission takes the place of the Board of Education in the first instance, and in the second instance it takes the place of the courts of law to which further appeal might be made, and it is specially provided that the Commission is to carry on its affairs according to the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities. That means principally that where in the opinion of the Court the trust cannot be literally carried out, it should be carried out as nearly as circumstances admit. That is what is familiar to many of your Lordships as the doctrine of Çypres, and that doctrine will be followed by the Commission. It is further provided that the Commission have to take into consideration, in fixing the terms, what real alteration takes place in the future condition of the school from the condition which it has enjoyed in the past; that is to say, when it is a question of fixing terms the Commission are bound to take into consideration what the school can really be said to be losing by the Bill. As regards the personnel of the Commission, that is one feature in the Bill, and perhaps almost the only one, which has I think been subjected to no criticism. The Commissioners are three gentlemen of very high standing—Sir Arthur Wilson, who is one of the most eminent members of the judicial body in England; Sir Hugh Owen, who is a civil servant of unequalled experience; and Mr. Worsley Taylor, so familiar to many of your Lordships who sit in the Committee rooms upstairs, in which he has always been distinguished, not merely for his eminent skill as an advocate, but also for his great fairmindedness. I am glad to
    896
    know that since the names of these Gentlemen have been announced the practice of describing this Commission as a Star Chamber has ceased, probably from a conviction that their proceedings will be carried out with every regard to justice as understood in this country in the twentieth century.
    It will no doubt be argued in the course of this debate that we have no business to deal with these trusts at all, that we have no business to touch them. As to that I might say that some very substantial interference with those trusts took place in the year 1902. Where it suited noble Lords opposite to alter the trusts they did so, very greatly, as we know, to the annoyance of many of their clerical supporters. I would ask your Lordships for one minute to consider what the position is with regard to the claim of the Church of England in this matter. It seems to me reasonable to show that the condition of things has so very greatly altered since those trusts, or a great number of them, were instituted, that it cannot possibly be maintained that they are to be treated as absolutely sacred. I will give you the total sums which were contributed to the maintenance of voluntary schools from 1870 to 1900. In the year 1870 the voluntary contributions and endowments for the maintaining of Voluntary schools reached the sum of £466,000; the Government grants at that time were £562,000. In 1880 the voluntary contributions had risen to £877,000, owing to what happened after the passing of the Education Act of 1870, and the Government grants rose to a little more than £1,500,000. In 1890 the voluntary contributions were £917,000, and the Government grants just under £2,000,000. In 1900 the voluntary contributions were £963,000, and the Government grants £4,417,000. Since 1902, of course, the case is very much stronger, because the voluntary contributions have to a great extent died away, and the vast amount of rate aid, which cannot be calculated because the amount applied to Voluntary schools and to Council schools is not separated, would, of course, bring the figure up to an infinitely greater amount. But the effect of what I have

    897
    just read is this, that in 1870 the Government grants counted for 35 per cent. and the voluntary contributions for 30 percent. of the total cost, the balance of cost at that time being provided by fees. In 1900 the grants had risen to 78 per cent. of the total cost, and the voluntary contributions had fallen to 17 per cent. It cannot be denied that under those circumstances the conditions have vastly altered, and that it is really, therefore, open to us to modify these trusts in what we consider a fair spirit.
    I do not think that the idea that this country is bound by a perpetual obligation to carry on these trusts at the public cost is one that can be regarded as tenable for a moment. I would put an analogy to your Lordships. Suppose the hospitals were handed over to the local authorities. I can imagine a case of a hospital built many years ago by a gentleman who believed in the practice and principles of homœpathy. After a lapse of years people cease to subscribe to this hospital, and it therefore has to be handed over to the local authority. The homœpathic community say to the local authority—
    " You will pay the whole of the expense of this hospital; you will pay the doctors, the nurses, and also for the diet of the patients and all the expenses connected with it. In consideration of that fact you shall be allowed to order the stores from the butcher and the grocer, but we propose to retain in our own hands the appointments of all the doctors and the nurses, and to prescribe the complete regimen for the patients."
    Would any local authority look, or be asked by a Court of law to look at such a proposition as that? Yet it is not very dissimilar from what the country is now asked to do in the case of these trust schools.
    I pass over clauses which deal with the temporary use of the schools, and what would happen if the trustees of a school tried to close it off-hand. I go back to the question of religious instructions and the facilities which are offered. In the Council schools, now, as we hope, greatly to be multiplied in number, the ordinary rule of religion is what is briefly known as the Cowper-Temple system. We had a discussion but a very few days ago upon that system, and I do not propose to dwell upon it at all at this moment; but I do most emphatically repeat that that
    898
    religion as given in the Council schools at this moment meets the wishes of the vast majority of the parents of the children who attend them. We hear a good deal about the parents and the wishes of the parents in the course of these discussions, but I notice that when Cowper-Temple instruction is under discussion the figure of the parent is, so to speak, wheeled away into the background. What then is urged is not what the parent really does; want, but what in the opinion of gentlemen who speak on the subject he ought to want. I fearlessly repeat that this instruction gives what he really desires. I do not say that it is by any means complete. We know it is not complete, but we maintain that it can be supplemented, and obviously between defect and excess in this matter there is a vast difference, provided that the defect can be supplemented elsewhere.
    Clause 3, the clause which deals with facilities, meets the cases of those who complain that Cowper-Temple teaching, as I briefly call it, is defective. I will deal later with those who consider it erroneous. The first case is dealt with by the giving of two days' facilities for special religious teaching, with special arrangements ensuring that each child may receive it. It need only be given on two days a week, and it is given at the hour usually set apart for religious instruction. It is argued that under this system you give a most unfair advantage to the council school Cowper-Temple teaching, because you allow that to be given by the teachers, and you do not allow the teacher to give this facilities teaching. It sounds a paradox, but the desire for Cowper-Temple teaching is, I believe, so general that nobody would particularly volunteer to give it as given, unless it was given by the teacher under the auspices of the local authority. That sounds like a paradox, but you can easily find a parallel from what happens in our political discussions.
    We have undenominational politics and we have doctrinal politics. There are several matters on which we are all agreed—the excellence of trial by jury; the admirable adaptability of our constitutional monarchy to the needs of our Empire; and other things of this kind.

    899
    But when noble Lords opposite send down orators at the expense of their Party to make speeches in the country, it is not upon those truths that they dwell. They dwell upon what I may call doctrinal politics—such questions as the advantages of coolie labour in South Africa, or the sanctity of our present system of licensing public-houses. Therefore, it undoubtedly is the case that if this undenominational teaching had to be privately paid for it would not be given. Some people think that Nonconformists might give it. I believe there is a general belief among a great many people who do not read history and know nothing of the immediate past, that Lord Mount Temple was a Nonconformist. Many of your Lordships remember the distinguished and pious figure of Lord Mount Temple in this House; and, as you know, he was a distinguished representative of the Evangelical Churchmanship of the Victorian era. Some people imagine that Nonconformists would out of their own pockets give the kind of teaching which is imparted in those syllabuses which we discussed the other day. I have no reason to suppose that they would do anything of the kind. I have no doubt that if they had to pay they would teach the doctrines of their particular church. Therefore, we maintain hat there is a complete answer to the criticisms which are levelled against us for allowing this particular form of teaching to be given by the teacher.
    What I have said about this undenominational teaching is, of course, not universally true. There are some who consider it to be not merely incomplete, but actually erroneous. It is perfectly obvious to anybody who has even glanced at these syllabuses that no Jew could allow his child to be instructed in that way. Then you have the Roman Catholic Church. As we all know, to the Roman Catholic Church the Bible is not the sole rule of faith, and they are not pre pared to admit that what is spoken of as simple Bible teaching can be supplemented in any way by teaching outside. You cannot have a stronger proof of the position of the Roman Catholic Church in this matter than this. We know that a translation of part of the Scriptures into
    900
    the vernacular is at any rate liable to be placed on the Index of prohibited books. That shows how many miles apart Protestant and Catholic stand in this matter; and, of course, it is also undoubtedly true that there is a very considerable section of the Anglican Church who hold the same views. What proportion of the Church of England join in the Roman Catholic objections we have never been able to discover. We may possibly have some light thrown on that fact in the course of these debates; but we know from the protests which they have made that they exist, and that they feel deeply on this matter. They, too, like the Roman Catholics, are not satisfied unless they can get a religious atmosphere into the schools.
    That was a fact which the Government had to face very early indeed when this legislation was being prepared, and some means had to be found for meeting it. We met it as best we could by drawing a distinction, necessarily rough, but, as we believe, very real, between urban and rural schools. It is necessary to bear that distinction carefully in mind, and also the distinction between well-found denominational schools which have been erected with a distinct determination to maintain special religious teaching, and the inferior and worse found so-called denominational schools which we do not think require the same consideration. That is a distinction which has not been fairly drawn. Rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto. This is the origin of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses give to certain schools the special facilities on all five days of the week, and they allow this instruction to be given by the teacher. This privilege is confined to urban areas, including urban districts with not less than 5,000 population, and it is only given where it is satisfactorily shown that four-fifths of the parents desire it and that accommodation can be found if necessary for the remaining children whose parents do not desire it.
    We selected urban districts for two reasons. In the first place, because it is in hose populous districts that alternative schools will generally be found, and also because as a rule those who desire this particular teaching and dislike

    901
    any other are, as a rule, clustered around particular churches. That is true of Roman Catholics, but also to some extent of Anglicans. I noticed in reading the Return on the subject of Ecclesiastical Discipline that it is stated that among the 559 churches which were inquired into there were a certain number where the more extreme forms of doctrine and ritual were used. These were mostly in the Metropolitan area or in seaside places, though some of them were in rural parishes. I think it is not unfair to assume that it is in the neighbourhood of such churches as those that schools would exist to which this particular provision might reasonably apply.
    This four-fifths proposition has received a vast amount of criticism from different sides. It is by no means liked by some of those who ordinarily support His Majesty's Government, and it is not accepted with enthusiasm by those whom it is intended to benefit. Those facts to my mind speak strongly in favour of this being a sensible proposition. We are asked, Why four-fifths? There may be some who think that five-sixths would be a more reasonable figure; others might say three-fourths; and some people might find a magic in the fraction of seven-tenths. When I was listening to a debate in the other House I heard an hon. Member say that what appeared to him as fair was a majority consisting of one-half. He was an English Member too. When you say, Why four-fifths? any provision where a particular figure is mentioned is open to such a question. People who have incomes below £160 a year pay no income tax. There is no great difference between an income of £159 and £160. Then why particularly £160? Or, if I may quote a case which is more germane to this particular subject, there is a section in the Act of 1902 which provides that a school shall not be considered unnecessary if the average attendance is not less than thirty. One may say, Why thirty? What is the essential difference between a school with an average attendance of thirty and one where the average attendance is only twenty-nine? All you can say here is that the figure four-fifths sufficiently stamps the school as having a definite denominational character, and at the same time it
    902
    leaves a reasonable probability that accommodation will be found elsewhere for the children of such parents who do not require the teaching. A similar argument which I will not labour applies to the 5,000 limit which is mentioned in the Bill.
    Having detained your Lordships so long, I have no intention of going into the complex details of the appeal in this clause. Its form, I admit, is somewhat complicated. This is accounted for by the fact that it represents a considerable number of concessions, and in drafting a Bill there is nothing so fatal to conciseness as concessions. I therefore will not attempt to describe the method of appeal which is intended to safeguard the parents in this matter. I shall probably have some opportunity later of doing so; but I do say this, that the substitution which some think so simple of the word "shall" for "may" In this clause and so making it mandatory, would, in our opinion, land both the schools and the Board of Education in very real difficulties. We believe that the method of appeal which we suggest, added to the possibility in the last resort—I hope only in the last resort and very seldom— of the school standing out of the system altogether and not being supported out of the rates, offers a much more genuine protection and a much more solid probability of getting these four-fifth schools than if the word "shall" was substituted for the word "may."
    The next question is one which has given rise to a great deal of discussion. It is the question of attendance at the school during the religious instruction, and whether that attendance is to be compulsory or not. I am reminded of a story which I think is printed in Mr. Herbert Paul's "History of England," of a reply made by Bishop Thirlwall to a Conservative friend of his at Cambridge who objected to the admission of Dissenters to the University on the ground that the presence of Nonconformists would put an end to the practice of Church-going, and that the alternative was compulsory religion or no religion at all. "I confess," said the Bishop —
    "that the distinction is too subtle for my mental grasp."

    903
    Whether religion which is the subject of compulsion is religion at all is a matter which I think well worthy of consideration. Under the Act of 1870 attendance during what is known as the religious hour in schools was nominally compulsory, but as a matter of fact there is no instance of any parent having been prosecuted for not sending his child to school at that time. Things went on in that manner until the year 1903, when there was issued from the Education Department the "Anson by-law," which enabled local authorities to dispense parents from the necessity of sending their children to school for religious instruction, with a sort of general vague understanding that the child was to be given religious instruction elsewhere, but without offering any means of discovering whether he really received it or not. That by-law has been adopted by authorities representing about two-fifths of the total number of children. In the House of Commons during the progress of the Bill this subject was very keenly debated. It gave rise to strong differences of opinion which were not confined to one side, and which even invaded the circle of the Cabinet. The arguments are no doubt strong both ways. If you say that no parent need send his child to school during the religious hour, you are no doubt open to the charge of practically secularising the schools, and you are also open to the charge of making it likely that parents will take advantage of this permission to employ their children in various undesirable ways instead of sending them to school. These arguments are undoubtedly strong, but to my mind the arguments in the other direction carry still greater weight. In the first place, it is exceedingly difficult to arrange— and this is a minor matter—in some cases for the proper giving of secular instruction during that time; but, what is much more important, it is very difficult to make the conscience clause effective unless you allow the child to withdraw not merely from the instruction but from the school-house itself. It is not to be supposed that young children can stand up and announce their objection or their parents' objection to a particular form of religious instruction; nor are they likely to do so on their own initiative
    904
    if the secular instruction which is provided as an alternative is, as is very often the case, of an extremely unpalatable character. I am convinced that if when at school your Lordships had been given the choice of listening for half an hour to the admonitions of a Mohammedan Mullah or doing a set of Greek iambics you would not all have chosen the iambics.
    The third argument in favour of not making attendance compulsory is one which, to some extent, appeals to the Government, namely, that it relieves us from the imputation of giving an undue preference to the ordinary council school instruction, and there is this further point which I think will appeal to some right rev. Prelates and to others of your Lordships, that if attendance is not compulsory those who do not wish their children to receive the ordinary council religious teaching can take them away and teach them in a church or in some other building separately. That is a practice which I believe is being followed in an increasing degree. It points to the fact that the clergy, who have, I believe— I shall be corrected if I am wrong—I will not say of recent years, but for some years past, shown a tendency to give less religious instruction themselves, are disposed to return to the performance of those duties which I think I am right in saying are specifically laid upon them by the canons of the Church. If, on the other hand, you compel the children to attend at the building, you will make that special church teaching in the mornings, which has become a very distinct feature in some towns, an impossibility.
    Now, one word about the teacher. Two comments have been made upon the manner in which we treat the teacher with respect to this religious instruction. It is said he may always give Cowper-Temple instruction, even if unfit, and you never, except in the four-fifth schools, allow him to give the two days facilities teaching however willing he may be. Those provisions depend upon the conscience clause for teachers which is included in the Bill. A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not be required as part of his duty as a teacher to give any religious instruction,

    905
    and shall not be required as a condition of his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed, or to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school or place of religious worship. The effect of that is that when a teacher is engaged it is not thought right to ask him what his views are, or whether he will give any particular religious instruction; but, when he is engaged, if he agrees to give the form of religious instruction, the authority may and undoubtedly will cause him to show that he is qualified to give it. That, I think, meets to some considerable extent an objection which has been often raised —namely, that there is a risk of the ordinary religious teaching being given by improper people. I believe that risk in itself is exceedingly small. After all, these teachers are a serious class of people; and the sort of Mephistopheles teacher who is supposed to be giving Bible instruction one moment and speaking at Agnostic meetings the next is, I believe, a very rare being indeed. If he exists at all—and he may exist here and there—I have no hesitation in saying that his existence as a religious teacher is a scandal, and that the local authority would, and ought under our measure, to find somebody else to give the religious instruction.
    But when you say the teaching should only be given by those who believe in it, you come, it seems to me, to a very difficult question. It is very difficult to define what belief is. There are many degrees and varieties of belief, even within the ranks of the Church of England; but what I do desire to say is this, that after all conviction is much, but it is very far indeed from being everything. Unless a man has the teacher's gift, no amount of conviction or earnestness or knowledge will enable him to convey in a palatable form to children even the most simple religious instruction; whereas a man whose convictions are far less settled, if he has the gift, would in my belief be able to convey it not merely in a more attractive, but also in a more useful form to the minds of children. Then it is asked, Why not allow the teacher to give the two days facilities teaching in the transferred school? That no doubt seems a reasonable suggestion. It seems hard, undoubtedly, if a teacher is willing
    906
    to give it, to prohibit him from doing so; but in practice it is believed by a very great number of people—and those who think so object strongly to any alteration of this clause—that it would act as a test— a modified test no doubt—but a real test, in a great many rural schools; and it being, as I have said, our object to make the schools in these districts undenominational, we cannot consent to a proposition which in our opinion would to some considerable extent undo one of the main purposes of the Bill itself. I may just add this, that I think it would not be difficult to show that unless you also hand over the appointment of the teacher to the denomination—which would, of course, destroy the structure of the Bill altogether—this permission would cut both ways in a great many instances. What would happen in such cases would depend upon whether the local authority desired the teacher to give the instruction or not, because the appointments made by them would no doubt be largely governed by some consideration of this question.
    I pass very rapidly over the question of finance, which is one which does not specially concern your Lordships' House. It is provided by the Bill that a sum of £1,000,000 will be found to carry out its object, but I desire to make it quite clear that in the Bill no allocation of this money is suggested at all. The noble Marquess opposite, Lord Huntly, was kind enough to send me a Return he had made out as a sequel to a Question which he asked. I think it will not be difficult to show that the noble Marquess has founded his conclusions on a somewhat unreal basis, but there is no use going into details on this matter. A. Bill has been promised for next year dealing, not only with this million, but with the general allocation of all the money which is provided by the State for this purpose; but I want to make this one point clear, namely, that the fact that the sum of a million was named has no relation whatever to the probabilities or possibilities of the amount required by individual schools, or likely to be received by individual schools, in the form of rent. The two things have nothing whatever to do with each other, and any argument founded on a supposed connection is illusory.

    907
    I pass, not without satisfaction, from the rather and desert of religious controversy to the more green and pleasant land in which the children themselves live, and to one or two points of a more educational character than those with which I have been hitherto compelled to deal. Your Lordships will have observed that we do not make any alteration in the authority under which elementary education is worked in this country. I need not trouble you at any length with our reasons. Had we started with a clean slate it is possible that we might rot have adopted exactly the plan followed by noble Lords opposite in 1902, but finding matters; s they are we do not thick it would be wise to attempt any further alterations in that respect. But experience has undoubtedly shown that some form of delegation is very much needed. In some county councils the members of the education committees complain that they come great distances at serious sacrifices of time, only to find themselves confronted with an endless agenda paper composed of the most trifling details relating to small schools, and that they really never have the chance of considering educational problems at all. For that reason we propose that in every county in England and Wales, except fourteen counties which have less than 69,000 inhabitants, schemes should be prepared for some form of delegation. The only points about these schemes which I wish to mention are these, that they must be uniform as affecting the one county; that in every case they must involve some disposal of money by the minor authority to whom the power is delegated; that the scheme must provide for the inclusion of women members on the smaller bodies; and what I think is also an important provision, that any go ahead and energetic area which washes to try to improve its own particular education may apply to be specially rated by the county council in order to carry out its ideas. I hope and believe that this plan of delegation will meet with general approval.
    The authorities are given sixty years instead of thirty years to repay borrowed money, which will case their position to some extent. Then, as regards higher education, the 2d. limit on the rate is
    908
    removed. Clause 24 has two very-important provisions—one is for the encouragement of a movement which, has been carried on to some extent successfully by private enterprise, but which we now think needs public support. I mean the provision of vacation schools and play centres for children at times when they are not actually at work; and the second sub-head in the same clause applies in a limited form the important principle of medical inspection to schools. I believe that to be a most important provision. I believe that in the mere matter of dentistry alone the turn of misery and suffering which during all their life the poor children of this country go through in consequence of not having their teeth properly attended to when young is at least as great as that caused by an ordinary European war.
    I will not detain you by any reference to the teachers' register, which we propose to abolish. Its abolition has been a matter of some comment, but we have been forced to arrive at the conclusion that the register, so far as it has gone, has not carried out the intentions of Parliament in creating it, and what is worse, that no proposition which has been advanced by those who have most kindly given a great deal of thought and consideration to the subject will carry out the intentions of Parliament. What we hope is that the undoubted hardship which exists in the case of some of those who have gone to trouble and expense in getting themselves on to the register will be at any rate very considerably mitigated by the regulations, of the Board of Education.
    The next part of the Bill which I will touch on briefly deals with Wales. That probably is a matter which is likely to be considered in full when the Committee stage is reached; but I may just say this, that I believe all parties in Wales are at any rate agreed as to the principle of the creation of some central council for education.
    A RIGHT REV. PRELATE: No, no.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: I will not put it quite as high as that if right rev. Prelates object. I will say that

    909
    there is a large measure of agreement among people of very different schools of thought in favour of the formation of a central council of education for Wales.
    EARL CAWDOR: Not such a council as is proposed by the Bill
    THE EARL OF CREWE: I understand that. I was speaking as to a general agreement on the principle; and I think it will be generally agreed that if Wales wants a council the admirable manner in which the Welsh Intermediate Education Act has been carried out by the Joint Committees and by the Central Board makes it almost imperative that we should do what we can to meet the wishes of that country. I am not going at all into the details. There is one striking fact with regard to this matte, that Wales apparently desires certain powers now vested in the Board of Education to be transferred to the Treasury. This is the first time in my recollection that I have ever heard any body of people, so to speak, "nestling up" To the Treasury, but that is a matter for Wales itself to decide.
    The remaining clauses of the Bill are such as I think would be more conveniently dealt with in Committee. My task is therefore at an end, and I feel I must apologise to your Lordships for having detained you at such unconscionable length. The nature of the subject made it exceedingly difficult for me to deal with it at all briefly. During the last six months it has been my duty to study so far as I could everything that has been written or said on this subject, and I do not know that any utterances of any very great importance have escaped me. Nineteen-twentieths of what has been said and written on this subject has dealt with some aspect or other of the religious difficulty. I confess that all through my uppermost thought has been this—it only all the energy, all the passion, and all the research which have produced such a volume of emotional rhetoric and such a museum of elaborate argument could have been, and now could be, applied to the real advancement of education in this country! This religious difficulty has
    910
    swamped everything, or almost everything. What was originally the second part of our Bill, dealing no doubt with a somewhat controversial, but an exceedingly important question—that of endowments—had to be sacrificed owing to the lapse of Parliamentary time, and is one of the victims of the religious question
    I ask, my Lords, is it not possible that this long strife can somehow be made to cease? In a very few days your Lordships are going to disperse to your homes at a delightful season of the year. Possibly some of you may be able to spare time from more attractive pursuits to consider this thorny question and to reflect what an immense gain to the nation would be a declaration of peace after this more than thirty years religious war. I know very well that there are some provisions in this measure which your Lordships are disposed to condemn. May I ask this, not merely that you should refrain from condemning without full knowledge of what is actually proposed, for I am sure your Lordships will not do that, but also that you will refrain from condemning without very-anxious consideration of all the possible alternatives. Some of those alternatives-seem at first most attractive, but we, too, my Lords, have had to consider them and sometimes very reluctantly have had to reject them because in our opinion they were utterly incompatible with a final settlement of this question. If your Lordships will give the subject full consideration in that spirit, I believe that you will admit that this measure represents an honest and a not altogether unsuccessful effort, seriously designed and seriously carried out, towards a just solution of this most baffling and intricate problem.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Crewe.)
    THE MARQUESS OP LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down, and who has so lucidly introduced this complicated matter, asked for your Lordships' sympathy in the difficult task he was undertaking. I can assure my noble friend that if there is one Member of your Lordships' House who can sympathise with him in that

    911
    appeal it is myself, for I performed a similar duty when in office on more than one occasion.
    The noble Earl has dealt fully with a great number of the clauses of the Bill. We on this side of the House all understand that Clause 1, giving complete popular control, is the hinge on which the whole Bill hangs, and in the course of his opening remarks my noble friend stated that that was the opinion of himself and his colleagues. I regard that clause as the keystone of the measure, which, in my opinion, absolutely destroys the denominational schools from the point of view of denominational education, and therefore is an attack upon the Established Church of this country. The noble Earl went on to say that he was convinced that he had the people of the country at his back in the line which he and his Government are taking. I think he stated that if anyone had announced at a meeting in the country that he was opposed to the ratepayers having popular control in the matter of education that man would be promptly escorted to the railway station.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I was speaking of Parliamentary candidates.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I agree entirely with what the noble Earl said. I believe that the people of this country are in favour of public control in elementary schools, but when they declared that as their opinion they did not anticipate that the chief measure of the session would have for its object the endowment of Nonconformity at the expense of the whole community, especially of the Church of England, the abolition of Church influence in Church schools, and that the Bill would be a stepping-stone towards the disestablishment of the Church of England. There is no doubt that the ratepayers fully anticipated that there would be additional representation on the boards of management of non-provided schools, but I venture to say they never thought for one moment that the Government were going, by one stroke of the pen, to abolish the 14,000 voluntary
    912
    schools which have done such spendid educational work for generations past.
    What did the people of this country i form their opinions upon in this matter previous to the general election? They formed those opinions on the various speeches made by the President of the Board of Education, Mr. Birrell. In one speech Mr. Birrell said—
    " Not only was be desirous that there should be Christian education in all schools, but he was also anxious that there should be facilities given, if they could be arranged on proper terms, whereby all denominations would have the opportunity of instructing children who attended the schools in what they believed to be their true religion."
    On another occasion Mr. Birrell declared that—
    " He hoped it would be possible to have in the public elementary schools in this country simple religious teaching for those who were content with it, and also to give facilities that those people who wanted more definite dogmatic instruction should have it so that their children might enjoy the benefits of it. "
    What did Mr. Birrell mean by that? He undoubtedly meant that where Cowper-Temple teaching was required it should be given, but where extra religious instruction was desired it should also be given. Therefore, if any man date on the subject was given by the country at the general election it was on the programme set out by the Minister for Education, and was in favour of religious teaching.
    Much allusion has been made to the Act of l902. It has been naturally criticised; but let me say at once, as one who was to a great extent responsible for that measure, that the Act of 1902 destroyed nothing. I may be told by my noble friend opposite that it destroyed the school boards, but if my noble friend will carry his mind back to 1870 he will remember that the school boards were only set up as a last alternative because there were no local authorities. The Act of 1902 destroyed nothing; but, on the contrary, it was a constructive and educational measure. I challenge the noble Lord opposite to show me any provision in this Bill which by any stretch I of imagination can justify its being called an Education Bill. It is a Bill to destroy religious education; there is nothing in it to benefit the general education of the

    913
    country. The Act of 1902 co-ordinated all grades of education under one head, and under the system set up education is steadily and gradually improving. I have myself been to a great number of the big towns in the country, and not only do I find the Act working smoothly and well, but it is praised by all classes of the community. I know that in some of the rural districts there is annoyance at having to pay a rate which they did not have to pay before, but I cannot see that there, will be any reduction under this Bill.
    The system on which provided and non-provided schools have been working side by side since the year 1870, and as the Act of that year intended them to work, has been entirely to the benefit of the education of the country. The atmosphere of religion in the denominational schools has permeated the whole district in which those schools are situated, and this is bound to have had beneficial results; and, owing to its being necessary for the non-provided schools to be as efficient as the provided schools secular education has been kept up to the same high standard. Therefore I am at a loss to know how it can be in the interest of education to strike this blow at the great work done by voluntary schools. I do not think the country realises what it owes to Church or voluntary schools. Many years ago, when there were no other schools of any sort or kind, the sole education of the country was provided by these schools. Children of Nonconformists took every advantage of the educational facilities thereby offered, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has admitted having received his elementary education in a voluntary school in Wales. The people who now denounce these schools were not above taking advantage of them.
    I regretted to hear the sneers which the noble Earl cast upon the reason why these schools were provided and kept up. He seemed to insinuate that they were provided for pecuniary reasons in order to keep down the rates. I repudiate that suggestion entirely. The supporters of these schools have made sacrifices for their maintenance out of love for religion and education. I could quote to your
    914
    Lordships case after case where clergymen have devoted the whole of their incomes to the support of these schools on behalf of religious education. The landed interest, too, has supported these schools, because landlords have believed in them and wished the children of their tenants to benefit by the religious education imparted. To hear our political opponents talk, one would imagine that the voluntary schools as they now exist were under the absolute control of the managers. Anyone who has studied this question knows that that is not the case. The local authority has absolute control over each and every one of them, with the exception of the very short time in the morning which is devoted to religious instruction and with regard to the selection of the teacher, but they have the power of veto where they consider the teacher is not competent to give secular education.
    I agree entirely with the cry for popular control. The ratepayers of the country should have the control of expenditure out of the rates, but apparently it is considered that the only people who pay rates are Nonconformists. There has not been a religious census for many years past, and consequently it is impossible to draw a distinct line as to the sums paid by the various denominations, but my own conviction is that if the rates paid for education could be earmarked it would be found that supporters of voluntary schools pay an amount sufficient for the maintenance of their schools, and yet, while paying for Cowper-Temple teaching in provided schools, they are not to be allowed their own denominational teaching. The noble Earl has told us that this is an undenominational Bill. He has reiterated the statement of the Prime Minister that—
    "This is an undenominational Bill setting up an undenominational system, and we must regard it in that light."
    The noble Earl went at some length into what he described as concessions and facilities. The so-called concessions and facilities, which have been so much dwelt upon, are in my opinion illusory.
    I give the President of the Board of Education credit for an intention to deal fairly with the denominational schools. I have read his speeches both before he

    915
    was Minister for Education and since, and I am convinced that in his heart of hearts he would wish to do justice to those who hold the views I have expressed; hut I consider that Mr. Birrell is in the unfortunate position of the dog that is wagged by the tail. It looks as if, whenever he has made a concession, he has been immediately taken to task by colleagues in the Cabinet and a section of his supporters in another place, the result being that his concession has been instantly hedged in and guarded by conditions which make it worthless. I give Mr. Birrell credit for being an extremely able man, and I should therefore like to know whether he gives these concessions because he knows they are illusory or because he thinks they will be of value.
    In this Bill plausible facilities are undoubtedly given for religious teaching, but they are hampered by the conditions as to the time when it shall be given and the exclusion of the regular teacher. It is the regular teacher who best knows the way to the heart of the child, and on this point I would refer the noble Earl to a speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. In that speech Mr. Lough emphasised the importance of having the religious education given by trained and regular teachers because they knew the way to the child's mind better than did anyone else. In those circumstances I should like to ask what are the reasons which persuaded His Majesty's Government to refuse to allow the child to be taught by the teacher who their own Parliamentary Secretary tells us is the person best qualified to give that teaching. I have myself a large school at Seaham in which there are 1,139 boys, girls, and infants, and thirty-three teachers. I would ask the noble Earl, who is going to do the work of those 33 teachers on the days in the week allotted to religious education? The clergyman and two curates cannot be asked to do it all in the allotted days, and I want to know how outsiders are to be got in the schools in the time.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I should like to ask, are these all Church children?
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: They represent all denominations except Roman Catholic, but they have gloried in the fact that they have had this instruction at the hands of the thirty-three teachers to whom I have referred. That system has gone on to the entire satisfaction of the parents, and there has hardly been a withdrawal of a child from that school. In the Bill you maintain that there shall be no qualification in the future for teachers. I did not quite follow what the noble Earl said, with regard to the position of teachers, and whether they would, be liable to dismissal.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: They are not liable to dismissal. I was speaking of new teachers being engaged, and I said they would not be subjected at the time of their engagement to any test whatever as to their religious opinions, neither would they be subject to any obligation to attend or abstain from attending any place of worship or Sunday School or anything of the kind. But afterwards, if they agreed to undertake religious instruction, it might then be ascertained if they were qualified to give it. If they were obviously disqualified the local authority would have to find somebody else.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know how the noble Earl reconciles that with his Bill. I understood that all tests and qualifications were to be abolished.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: Tests, but not qualifications.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not understand the fine distinctions which are drawn between tests and qualifications. If you have a teacher to teach arithmetic you insist on his being qualified to give that instruction, but, according to the noble Earl, those responsible for the giving of religious instruction are not to be compelled to possess any qualification at all.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry again to have to interrupt the noble Marquess. No question is to be asked when the teacher is engaged as to his religious

    917
    opinions, but if engaged he is asked whether he is willing to give religious instruction.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes, but you have not the slightest idea whether he is qualified to give it or not. If a teacher is to teach anything well he must thoroughly believe in it himself. The President of the Board of Education admitted, on the Third Reading, the importance of religious teaching being given by a well-trained teacher. He said—
    " I agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury that religious instruction is very badly given I have heard it given again and again in Board schools and in Church schools, and I have very seldom heard it given otherwise than badly. That is a criticism, not of the system, but of teacher. A well-trained teacher is the thing we want."
    Yet it is the well-trained teacher you propose under this Bill to turn on one side. That is a point on which I lay great stress. I hope that in the recess those responsible for the Bill will ponder over the words of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that—
    "the efficiency of religious teaching depends on the earnestness of the conviction of the teacher."
    The facilities, as they are called, are entirely at the discretion of the local authority. The word "may" Instead of "shall" comes in frequently, and, owing to the fact of its being permissive, Clause 3 holds out hopes that cannot, by the widest stretch of imagination, be regarded as certainties.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: In Clause 3 the facilities are obligatory if the school is taken.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes, but only if it is taken. I know that in the House of Commons an endeavour was made to obtain an appeal to the Board of Education, but Mr. Birrell refused to accept that because of the wish of the local authorities to be all powerful. Therefore, what is the position of these schools if the local authorities are hostile to the granting of facilities for denominational teaching?
    I now come to Clause 4, which, with the exception of Clause 1, is the most important Clause in the Bill. Let me
    918
    first of all consider what was the intention of the Government in introducing that clause. I think it is notorious that it was introduced in order to secure the Roman Catholic vote, and, secondly —and this was by no means its least object—to retain the services of the noble Marquess the Leader of your Lordships' House. It must have been intended to cut out the Church schools. That must have been in the minds of those who drafted the clause, because it is confined to urban districts of over 5,000 inhabitants, and His Majesty's Government know full well that the great majority of voluntary schools are in the rural districts and could not possibly come under this clause. To my mind, the clause will be found impossible in its working. The conditions to be fulfilled before facilities are granted are almost incapable of fulfilment, even within the areas to which the clause applies. What is the explanation of the Roman Catholics in another place voting so constantly against the Government on this? It is because they are finding out that the clause will not benefit them, for the simple reason that in nearly all Roman Catholic schools there are a large number of children of other denominations. The denomination that will be benefited is that of the Jews. I contend that it will be impossible to get four-fifths of the parents to vote as the Bill requires. But there is a further restriction imposed, viz., that there shall be no facilities given unless there is alternative accommodation for the children of parents who do not desire facilities. Thus there might be a school of 100 children the parents of ninty-nine of whom desire facilities. If there were not another accessible school for the remaining one child facilities could not be granted. The facilities clause is, in fact, utterly useless.
    Then we come to another very important provision — the Council for Wales. I object to separate treatment for Wales on constitutional grounds. I decline to agree to a proposal for what I may call Home Rule all round. There is no more reason why this step should be taken in regard to Wales than in regard to Durham, the Ridings of Yorkshire, and every thickly populated part of the country; and I must

    919
    deny entirely a statement of the noble Earl opposite that all parties in Wales are agreed on the principle of this proposal. I do not think that right rev. Prelates opposite connected with Wales will contradict me when I say that there are a large number of people in Wales who will not accept that principle. This is a question which was scarcely discussed in the House of Commons. The Government did not seem to know their own minds one day from another, and proposal after proposal was submitted. I think this is a point which will have to be carefully considered when the Committee stage of the Bill is taken. I was Minister for Education when we had to put into force the Defaulting Authorities Act, and if we had not put that Act into force 205 voluntary school teachers in Montgomeryshire alone would not have had their salaries, nor would the school have been provided with coal or light. If this is the treatment which these unfortunate teachers received then, what will be their chance of fair and just treatment in the future?
    Then the financial proposals of the Bill appear never to have been thought out. We are told that £1,000,000 is to be given annually for the purpose of the Bill, chiefly, I believe, for the purpose of taking over or paying rent for what are called transferred schools. When I read that the sum was to be £1,000,000 I puzzled my brain as to how that amount had been arrived at. It would have been easy to ascertain the number of schools to be taken, and the number of children attending them, and to have struck an average of so much per child; but to my amazement the only reason given for fixing £1,000,000 was that it was all the Chancellor of the Exchequer could spare. There is not much finance about that. Mr. Asquith stated in another place that he considered the clause for medical inspection and the clause for delegation the two most important clauses in the Bill. That shows the feeling of His Majesty's Government. Is the question of religious teaching to be considered of no importance at all? Apparently that is so, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his opinion that these were the only two clauses of importance.
    920
    I may be asked why, if I hold these views so strongly, I do not move the rejection of the Bill. If I had done that it would have amounted to a declaration that the Act of 1902 was perfect. No Bill that has ever passed through Parliament can be considered a perfect Bill, and still less so when it is built upon the foundation of another imperfect measure like the Act of 1870. Therefore, I am ready to allow that there is room for improvement in our educational system. The Second Reading of the Bill should be allowed so that it may be carefully considered clause by clause and line by line. In this House there is no closure, and I hope your Lordships will take full advantage of that fact and insist on closely examining the details of the Bill. I do not know who understands the Bill. I doubt whether His Majesty's Ministers do, for their speeches in another place are of an extraordinarily contradictory character. Is it likely then that the ordinary man in the country can understand it? The rapidity with which this measure has been rushed through the House of Commons has aroused the indignation of even my noble friend opposite, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who is a strong supporter of His Majesty's Government. Even Lord Stanley of Alderley declared that Government Amendments had been inserted in the Bill quite unconsidered.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I was only referring to one particular Amendment.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: These matters, at any rate, should be fully considered, and I quote my noble friend as having said that an Amendment to one important clause in the Bill had been dealt with in a most unsatisfactory manner. What is, after all, the chief object of this measure? It is to abolish denominational schools and denominational teaching, and it is a direct attack therefore, on the Church to which we are proud to belong. I hope your Lordships and the people in the country will not go away thinking that if this Bill is carried it will do no harm to the Church. It is a stepping-stone to the disestablishment of the Church, and I think it is well that

    921
    the people of the country should understand that. I am one of those who regard this as a very grave question. We are all working for one end—to inculcate in the rising generation of this country those principles which we Churchmen hold so dear. We are convinced that the teaching we have given has been conducive to the welfare, happiness, and prosperity of our people, and we desire that nothing should be done to impair it.
    *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, we have heard the case for the Bill to which you are asked to give a Second Reading set before us with clearness and in large measure with a fairness which I think left nothing to be desired. We have had from the front Bench opposite weighty criticisms about some of its details and a good many of its principles. I will try not to go over again the ground which has already been well trodden. I approach the question perhaps from a somewhat different standpoint. I should like to say at the outset that some of us feel on this subject a peculiar difficulty in speaking adequately in Parliament, because the matter concerns so closely the deeper and more sacred parts of life as to make it not always easy to express in a public speech the innermost reality of what one feels about it all. No one can have had such opportunities as I have had during the last few months of being in touch day by day with some of the best of the teachers in our schools without finding how for them at least the whole of this question is swept outside the category of social or political controversy and is felt by them to involve interests which are too sacred and too deep for words.
    I want first to look at the Bill in its setting in the history of the last half-century or more. When we are dealing with a highly controversial question, and want to be on our guard against unconscious prejudice or distorting bias, it is well sometimes to stand back a little from the subject and to look at the events as they will appear to the cool, unemotional historian who may be telling the story when this century is drawing to a close. The more faithfully and the more competently that we can do this the more likely shall we be to see things in their
    922
    true balance and proportion, and to judge of the relation which each great episode bears to the rest. For the story of education during the last hundred years in England groups itself round certain great episodes and certain great men. Some elements of the controversy —some vehement outbursts of opinion— which seemed at the time likely to endure have proved to be evanescent. To take a single example, drawn from a period within the lifetime of many who are here, and within the political recollection, I suppose, of a few of our veterans. In 1847 there was a great Parliamentary duel between Macaulay and John Bright. Macaulay vainly endeavoured to convince Mr. Bright that it was a good thing that the State should take some responsibility for the education of the people. Mr. Bright remained entirely unconvinced, and set his views forth in a memorable speech. Nobody holds those views now, and I only refer to the matter as a curious object lesson. When we remember that his were the opinions held by a vigorous section of a great Party within recent times, it should make us a little cautious as to what is colloquially called "cocksureness" about the permanent validity and weight of some political nostrum or some popular cry.
    The really curious fact in that long story is that on almost every occasion of widespread controversy the practical difficulty has ultimately turned, as it turns to-day, mainly on the religious question. The Nonconformist for a whole century has asked, when any large educational question has been raised, whether the change would not increase and consolidate the power and status of the National Church. Churchmen on the other hand have asked whether the particular change under discussion would not prevent them from discharging a responsibility which they were not only able and willing, but absolutely bound, to discharge for the good of the nation as a whole. It is that particular difficulty which has again and again divided men when they might, it would seem, have almost come together upon everything else. It was that which exactly a century ago sundered these two pioneers of education—good men both of them, but angular and eccentric—Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster. It was that

    923
    which wrecked the statesmanlike and far-seeing Bill of Lord Brougham in 1820; it was that which led, in part at least, to the opposition which the Manchester school gave to the education grants in the '30's and '40's; it was that which hampered the revised Code in 1861; it was that which forced a change of front upon Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Forster in 1870; it was that which destroyed the Bill of the late Conservative Government in 1896; it was that which, in some counties at least, has made the Act of 1902 drag its wheels very heavily. My Lords, that is, in one sense, a humiliating confession, and perhaps especially so when it is made by an ecclesiastic. Is it wonderful, one asks, that, this being so, we should have heard from time to time in recent years the cry—"Sweep away the whole thing that causes so much strife where strife is unnecessary, and let us have in our schools secular teaching only?" Considering the impatience and irritability of human nature one understands without difficulty why such a thought should find wide expression. And yet, my Lords, it only needs a clear and insistent gaze into the facts to satisfy us how fallacious the cry is. The actual facts, surely, are these. Every sort of people in the controversies of those hundred years who have combined practical experience of our schools with real enthusiasm about elementary education are agreed in saying that it does matter beyond words for the forming of character in the elementary schools of the nation that they should be carried on upon a basis of religious teaching, or rather, that that golden thread should be woven through and through the web which they construct. The very importance which everybody attaches to the manner in which the thing is to be done is of itself very striking evidence as to the necessity which they feel that it should be done. What they differ about is the question; On what lines and by what men and women is that golden thread to be inwrought? Could anything be more fatuous than to say, in a moment of impatience, that the proper way to solve the perplexity is to sweep the whole thing aside?
    Take a humble parallel. I believe it is agreed by almost everybody that for little children a milk diet is essential, and I am further told that at this
    924
    moment there are, in connection with the great Poor Law schools of the kingdom, groups of medical men divided into factions as to whether that milk should be sterilised, boiled, or given in its natural state. What should we think of the reformer who was to argue that, having regard to these controversies, it would be better that no milk should be given at all? The analogy is not a very profound or close one, but it seems to me that it holds water for our purpose. The instinct of the English people is sound and true that their children should be Christianly brought up at school as well as at home. They are ready to trust the teacher pretty largely as to the nature of that instruction and the manner in which it is to be given, but they do want the religion taught to be real. Many of us clergy, my Lords, who have spent years in ministering to the sick and whole among the working class population, are familiar with the parent's frank declaration. "I have not made an over good use of my own life. I wish I had my school days over again, but at least I do want my boy, my girl to get help for living better than I have done." Yes, my Lords, people do care very much about religious teaching, not merely in the vague way that it is sometimes put, that the children of a Christian nation ought to receive a Christian upbringing, but as something definite and real which they believe will make a difference to their children's lives. Any policy which ousts religious teaching from our schools is a policy, as it seems to me, born of impatience and despair. They are ill-omened parents, and their progeny is likely to be noxious and deformed.
    But to return, to the endeavours which the last fifty years have seen to find some solution of the problem. Of course, before 1870, the difficulty of the subject, though real, was far less complex than it is now. The mass of educational supply throughout the country was purely voluntary. The very first grant made by Government was only about seventy years ago, and was absolutely trifling in amount. Even in much later days the proportion of voluntary effort to the aid that came from the State was enormous, the State's contribution

    925
    being for many years comparatively trifling.
    But in 1870 a far-reaching and beneficent endeavour was made to enlarge and strengthen our educational system as a whole. It was made on great lines by thoughtful statesmen, who looked at the matter all round. Three men were prominent in the work—Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, and the noble Marquess who so worthily presides over the House to-day, and who was then responsible for bringing forward that Bill in your Lordships' House. I am not going into the merits of the Bill of 1870. I regard it as a really great and wise conception, and I am glad to think that on that, though there have been strange things said to the contrary in some quarters, most people are entirely agreed. I am not often in agreement on this particular kind of subject with a very prominent man in English life today, Dr. Clifford, but I find he says—
    "[The Act of 1870] is the truest ideal of State education for its young citizens which the nation has yet conceived, and the most just and beneficent legislation Parliament has framed to actualise it. It is the high watermark of our civilisation. It is the sign of the dawn of a new educational era; 1870 is in fact the most fruitful year of the 19th century."
    If that be so, it is well worth our while to see what was the essential character of the main political provision, using the expression in the large sense of the word, which belonged to that piece of legislation. The most marked feature in it, that which gave rise to controversy at the time, but was adhered to throughout by the statesmen who were in charge of it, was that it was a Bill to supplement and encourage, not to supplant, the denominational system of the country. Again and again Mr. Gladstone warned the House of Commons not to belittle, not to ignore, not to waste what he called our noblest educational asset, that which came from a religious impulse and religious zeal. I quote some words of his from the debates of 1870—
    " As Christianity, since it came into the world, has given a new character to secular philanthropy, so religious zeal has created in this country especially, an amount of anxiety never before exhibited for the promotion of a sound secular education."
    And again—
    "In this matter of education, it is a great mistake and error, in our view, to think that
    926
    secular education given by a State machinery is per se better and more valuable than the same education given by machinery voluntary in its character. Setting aside that which is abstractedly desirable, I think we are justified in feeling that this enormous power which exists in the country ought to be turned to account."
    And if any one doubts that that was not merely an element in the Bill, but was the very backbone of the policy that was then taken in hand, let him look, not at the rhetorical words spoken in the debates of that year, but at what was said a little later by its author, when the Bill was at work and people had had time to see and understand its provisions and their meaning. Three years after the Bill was passed, and when its character could be fairly judged, Mr. Bright, in a great speech at Birmingham, denounced the Education Bill passed by the Government of which he, though somewhat of an invalid at the time, had been a member. He used these words—
    " It was a Bill to encourage denominational education, and, where that was impossible, to establish board schools. It ought, in my opinion, to have been a Bill to establish board schools, and to offer inducements to those who were connected with denominational schools to bring them under the control of the school board."
    Thereupon Mr. Forster reminded Mr. Bright that, before the introduction of the Bill, its character had been clearly explained to all the Cabinet, including Mr. Bright. He enclosed the Memorandum then circulated, to recall, as he said, to Mr. Bright's memory—
    "That it is in fact founded on that principle to which you now object—namely, that our object should be to supplement the present voluntary system; to enforce compulsory school provision, if and where necessary, but not otherwise; to give time, after educational destitution is proved, for bad schools to be improved, or new schools to be erected under the existing voluntary system."
    Mr. Bright, in his reply, admits that he had forgotten the Memorandum, and, speaking of the new departure, says —
    " This great concession, unexpected and, as I think, wholly evil, has had the effect of fastening on the country the old system."
    I quote those words, because they show how everybody, friend and foe alike, realised the basis and character of the policy adopted and established. From first to last, during the debates there ran a similar challenge to the friends of

    927
    denominational schools to use their opportunity and, on the strength of that Parliamentary encouragement, to build new schools and thus to strengthen their systems. It is quite easy to quote Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Forster to that effect, but I should prefer to quote, in his presence, and to his honour, the words of the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal. Speaking in this House on its Second Reading, he said—
    "The Bill proposes to maintain all existing schools at present in receipt of Government aid on their present footing. We desire that they should continue and extend, and needlessly to destroy one of them would be to inflict a great mischief."
    And, again—
    "In considering the educational wants of a school district, however, we distinctly contemplate the taking into account not merely of existing schools, but of those which are about to be supplied bona fide for the benefit of the district. On this point your Lordships will read Clause 8 in connection with Clause 10, and you will see that the friends of voluntary education in each district will have an opportunity of supplying within a reasonable time, if they can, the deficient education … I think that is a fair and ample warning to the friends of voluntary education; and, considering the demands of the children for education, a fair and ample opportunity of supplying it is thus afforded."
    Those words show the basis, or one of the bases, upon which our contention rests, that schools built by voluntary contributions during the years which followed 1870 acquired what I should call an absolute claim, as a mere question of fairness and honour, not to have their distinctive character taken away whatever might be the provision made for preserving it—and there are many ways in which that can be done—unless the schools can be shown, what it is not even contended or attempted to show, to have wholly failed to carry on effectively and for the general good the work which they undertook to do.
    Here was the friendly challenge of the Liberal Government of the day to the Church and other denominations to take the matter in hand and do their best, and what was the response? The Church and other bodies, to use a colloquial expression, "buckled to," and in the course of the years which followed they built 5,000 new schools at a cost of some £9,000,000, which it would have been quite easy to throw on the rates. I will give the
    928
    figures more exactly. The number of Church schools under inspection was, in 1870, about 6,900. In 1889 it was about 11,800, an increase of 4,900. Or, if you express it in terms of school places, the figures in 1870 were 1,411,000, and in 1889 2,621,000 school places, an increase of over 1,200,000 school places as the result of the voluntary contributions which had been raised in that time. All these schools were built in answer to the challenge of the noble Marquess who is now Lord Privy Seal. At the lowest estimate the Church of England expended, in order to provide these places, nine and a half millions of money, quite apart from the Parliamentary grants, the amount of which was trifling compared with the rest. But in the figures I give that amount is not reckoned at all.
    It has been very courteously and very truly said to-night by the Lord President of the Council that we must not claim all that as a result of Church enthusiasm; that a very large sum was subscribed to keep out school boards, with their heavy rates and that some of it was given by people who did not care a straw about religious education. I am quite prepared to admit that in a great many cases large sums of money were given by trustees, and corporations and by railway companies and by other bodies which did not profess to look at the religious instruction side of the question, but who wanted to avert a school board rate. I think it would be most deceptive to deny that there has been a considerable amount of money given in that way for the building and maintenance of voluntary schools, but, when you have deducted all the money that can on the highest estimate be ascribed to such an origin, there remains a vast sum which had a distinctly religious origin and purpose. It was given in order to maintain in districts where the people wanted it a type of school which the parents knew would give that personal relationship which springs so largely from voluntary effort, especially when that voluntary effort is linked in with other kinds of work going on in the parish. The donors knew further that their gifts would secure the real type of religious teaching and religious teacher which they regarded,

    929
    as so important to the highest interests of the school or rather of the children attending it.
    But I would rather stand on ground which is in no sense open to that challenge. Take the towns in which rates were being levied and in which subscribers to voluntary schools were also themselves paying rates, or take what has been done in the counties since the passing of the Act of 1902, which rated the country all round. I have here the figures for three dioceses taken absolutely at random, and I find that since "the appointed day" under the Act of 1902 the diocese of Canterbury has spent £50,000, Oxford £57,000, and Winchester £105,000 either on the building of new schools or on the enlargement and improvement of existing schools. It surely is almost impossible to say that these schools can be taken over and entirely transformed in their character without an absolute violation of the whole traditions of English public security and of English public honour. Perhaps I should plead guilty to the fact that I have again and again urged such contributions and assured the donors that their gifts were quite safe, inasmuch as no Parliament and no Government could possibly alienate that money, given freely within the last few years, for a purpose which every Government has encouraged and applauded.
    I dare say I shall be told in this debate that nobody thinks of confiscating and destroying these schools, but presently I shall show your Lordships how, if this change comes about, there will be something more than transformation—there will be an absolute end of any true preservation of the principles for which this money was given and this effort made. I beg you to understand clearly that I am not claiming any sacred inviolability for everything contained in every trust. I do not object to modification or change in these matters if there is good cause shown, and if the conditions are fair; but if it means a bouleversement of what has been done and the scattering to the winds of money which has been given, and if this is deliberately done in order to bring about just those conditions which were expressly deprecated by the donors and which it was hoped would be averted by
    930
    that money being given, I think pause is necessary before we go forward in a course so contrary to the best traditions of English honour.
    In a question such as this, it is sometimes useful to leave generalities alone and to give attention to some concrete instance, not of course because it is unique, but because it is a specimen of what is happening in greater or less degree all over England.
    I will take an example from a London parish close to which I resided when I was Bishop of Rochester. I refer to the parish of St. John, Kennington, which contains one of the very poorest bits of London, one of those regions which are marked with special blackness in Mr. Charles Booth's statistical maps. In or around the parish there are several very large and flourishing board schools, to whose excellence I am glad to bear warm testimony, and also two other schools, St.John's and St. Michael's, one attached to the parish church and the other to a mission church. What has the building of those two schools cost the donors, who, please remember, were people who were already being heavily rated for the Board Schools? They have spent on St. John's site and buildings, £14,780, and have just intimated to the county council their readiness to spend £1,200 more to make good certain deficiencies pointed out by the county council, provided they have some security against the alienation of their gifts. They have in addition to the £14,780, also spent on maintenance £13,416. On St. Michael's there has been spent £3,000 on buildings and £7,000 on maintenance, or, altogether on the two schools, £38, 196. Now notice please that all this has been spent by people who have been paying School Board rates all the while, spent in order that they might secure something they very much cared for. What is going to happen in regard to these schools? These two schools are immensely popular and have excellent Government Reports. A great many parents in that poor region desire their children to go to them rather than to the excellent board schools which stand close by, and this not perhaps because of their denominational teaching so much as because of their whole tone, character and spirit. One asks wonderingly: Who are the aggrieved people

    931
    if these schools go on as they are? Every parent has a board school at hand if he prefers it. Why is he to be debarred from having this sort of school if he likes it better, and if we are willing and able to supply it? I may be told the four-fifths clause will come in here and virtually enable the school to go on as it is. I do not think so, and I will show in a few moments what will happen if this measure becomes law. I was going to give you similar details about another school—an East London school this time. But perhaps I should weary you by a repetition of such details. If any one will inquire for himself as to the schools of St. John at Hackney, rebuilt within the last few years at the cost of some £10,000, he will learn what devotion and self-sacrifice can do in a cause for which people really care.
    Let me here say one general word. It is sometimes claimed that a change has come about because of the falling off of voluntary subscriptions. That is a most fallacious statement. Whenever you hear that subscriptions have fallen off it is always the percentage that is meant, as compared with the enormously increased expenditure. People forget that the whole cost of living and of education has increased so gigantically. Instead of having fallen off, voluntary subscriptions have doubled. In 1870 the subscriptions for the maintenance of voluntary schools were only £329,000; they rose in 1880 to £587,000; and in 1901 they had risen to £678,000. And yet it is quite true that the percentage these voluntary subcriptions bear to the whole cost of education works out at a good deal less than in 1870, because the cost of everything has risen so normously. What the Government have to show in order to justify the Bill on that score is, not that there is a falling off in the percentage of income from voluntary subcribers as compared with the whole educational expenditure, but a falling off in the interest on the part of subscribers as shown by smaller gifts. This is abundantly refuted by the figures I have quoted.
    If it could be shown that the schools had ceased to be really efficient, or had ceased to invoke the enthusiasm of the people as shown by voluntary subscriptions, then I should be ready to say that the terms on which the money was
    932
    promised in 1870, and since that time, might be reconsidered. But neither of these things is true. As regards the higher grades of technical efficiency and the winning of scholarships, I admit that the voluntary schools have not been fully able to hold their own against the great board schools of the towns. But when you hear that comparison drawn to the discredit of voluntary schools as such always look at something else. Look at the country board schools. Think of the difference between the country and the towns, not between board and voluntary schools. It has further to be remembered that in towns Church schools are hampered by the fact that their buildings are usually older than the board school buildings, and are being superseded by modern requirements. But ask any impartial Government inspector whether the voluntary schools in the last ten years have not been contributing as good a type of citizen to the country as the board schools, and I am perfectly certain you will not find an inspector to tell you to the contrary.
    So far, then, we have seen the origin, the history, and the present position of what we used to call "voluntary" schools, and their relation to the Government challenge of 1870.
    In 1901 the difficulty had risen to a high point, owing, as I have said, to the increased cost of education, a cost which private resources could not adequately meet, although the contributions from voluntary sources were double what they had been a few years ago. I hold no brief for the solution arrived at in the following year as completely satisfactory. I should not if I had had the power have passed the Bill exactly in the form in which it became law, but at least it was in my judgement an honest and vigorous attempt to prevent all the voluntary enthusiam and self-sacrifice from being in vain and yet to be fair all round—to give more financial support from public sources to the schools, and at the same time to give increased popular representation. That was what was attempted, and in many parts of the country the plan has worked admirably, but I am very far from saying that it was not necessary, especially after the recent election,

    933
    to have a reconsideration of that position and to make a now endeavour to meet difficulties that had been discovered or had arisen.
    That was the situation which the present Government had to meet. I believe, and I have always said, that the difficulties they had to face were very great, especially in regard to the single school areas, that it was a most anxious and trying position, and that I did not envy those on whom the responsibility of the task lay. The position was difficult enough, and it was enormously complicated by the popular cry, and the Parliamentary pledges lightly given by people who, as it now becomes abundantly plain, did not really understand what those pledges were thought to carry, and what they implied. It was a great opportunity for a great measure, and I am myself the more disappointed because I felt intensely sanguine that we were going to have a great measure dealing with the question on a large and generous scale. I should like to refer your Lordships to an article in the Independent Review for July by Canon James Wilson, once headmaster of Clifton—a great Liberal and a great educationist who has thought out this problem to its depth, and has looked at it from every point of view—on what he calls the Government's lost opportunity.
    We are told by Lord Crowe, as we have been told by many others, that the nation has declared in favour of complete popular control and that there shall be no sectarian tests, and I go a very long way with that cry. Popular control I have never deprecated; I am not afraid of it if you leave the controlling power really free; but if you give the nominal power to an authority with one hand tied, if you give freedom to go in one direction, but do not allow one step to be taken in the other—if you say this is complete control, it does not seem to me to be popular control worthy of the name. Give complete control as you have it in Scotland, or let Parliament, if you prefer it, lay down detailed conditions after full discussion as to what they are to be. But do not let us say there is complete public control and then find that those
    934
    to whom the supposed control of religious education is entrusted are tightly tied on one side and allowed full liberty on the other.
    Then, as regards tests, I have no wish that a teacher should be unduly restricted in his calling by denominational tests provided that he can show that he is duly qualified for the work he has to undertake; but with all respect to teachers—and there is no class of men and women for whom I have a more genuine regard — I would remind teachers that they, after all, exist for the schools, and not the schools for the teachers.
    But what does the Bill do? It takes 14,000 existing schools, with their trusts, and demolishes, not the mere wording of the trusts, but the very essence and pith of them. The characteristics that make a denominational school different from others are abolished, and the school is handed over to a local authority, which may, if it likes, refuse to take it; or, if it does take it, may practically secularise it save for some two hours in the week, and may appoint teachers who are unwilling to give, or untrained to give, religious teaching; and if religious teaching is given, and the teachers are willing to give it, no child need go to school until the religious lesson is over. A burden of temptation is by this means laid on the poorest homes and presses there most hardly; or the children may come from homes in which parents are altogether careless, and, therefore, of the religious teaching of those children we should be specially careful. To say to these parents that their children need not attend until after the religious teaching is given is almost to put a premium in certain homes upon parents' neglect or parents' eagerness for gain, and it will do quite incalculable harm to the interests of the children.
    We are told that local authorities will not on any large scale destroy or even impair the system of religious teaching, but are we quite sure that that can be counted upon everywhere? Of course, no man will allege it of England as a whole. I am quite prepared to say that local authorities in the main

    935
    will try to act fairly, and I would trust them generally, but the Bill binds them in one direction to allow a denominational teaching and leaves them free in another to go as far in the secular direction as they like. Again, surely our usual and reasonable trust of the local authority is qualified by the facts disclosed in the Return which has been furnished to us so promptly and efficiently in answer to my request, and which I brought before the House last week. I then ventured to call attention not only to a large number of schools where there is no inspection of the religious teaching, but to the fact that there are many in which, to all intents and purposes no religious teaching at all is given. I quoted the statistics given, and, as nothing is so useful as a concrete instance, I mentioned the case of Huddersfield, not, of course, for any special reprobation, but as an example of what may happen anywhere. I referred to the words in the rules of the Huddersfield local authority—
    "In the schools provided by the council no religious teaching shall be given,"
    The Regulation goes on to prescribe what it calls "religious observances" which may last for fifteen minutes at most, and consist of a hymn, the Lords' Prayer, and the reading by the principal teacher of some verses of the Bible without note or comment. Imagine the value of that form of "instruction" given to very little children! Such is the system followed at the present time in Huddersfield. Now there are twenty-one or twenty-two Church schools in Huddersfield in which I suppose there are something like 120 teachers, at the very least, who on the appointed day, when this Bill becomes operative, will be absolutely debarred from giving, not any denominational teaching, but any real religious teaching at all. If I am wrong the noble Earl will correct me. As I read the Bill, it will be in the power of the local authority of Huddersfield, which has declared plainly its opinion that there ought to be no religious teaching but only religious observances such as I have described.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: May I draw the most rev. Primate's attention to Sub-clause 5 in Clause 2—
    " Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with section fourteen of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school."
    If the most rev. Primate is right in thinking the teaching now given in Huddersfield is not religious instruction then some other instruction suitable to the transferred school would have to be given there.
    *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I can only say this is very obscure. All schools are now to become provided schools. The local authority says that in all provided schools there shall be no religious instruction given. I shall be delighted to hear a method for getting out of the difficulty. As I understand, the Bill, it will be in the power of the local authority to say it will not take over a school, or, if it does take it over, to bring it, save for the excepted hours, under its own regulations as to religious instruction.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: When the school is transferred, the transferring body can make a stipulation for two days facilities teaching and three days Cowper-Temple teaching if they choose.
    *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am glad to be corrected, but, even at the best, imagine what will be the feelings of teachers who have gone on year after year under careful guidance giving religious teaching loyally and lovingly when they find themselves transferred to the control of an authority which lays down the principle that in its opinion no religious teaching ought to be given. The noble Earl told us that Liberal Members returned at the recent election would have been escorted out of the constituencies had they declared against public control, but if it had been made clear that the

    937
    vague phrase "public control" was to mean the imposition of this cruel rule upon a great body of eager religious teachers, I cannot help thinking that such candidate as the no bio Earl refers to would have found his chances of success very seriously affected.
    Then I take the question of the appointment of teachers. In all schools, including those with the four-fifths facilities as they are called, the appointment of teachers is to rest wholly with the local authorities. I called attention the other day to the case of the local authority who placed at the head of a pupil teacher centre—the school where young teachers are prepared for their duties—a man who was writing to the papers condemning as among baseless myths taught to defenceless children the story of the Resurrection of our Lord. This was the man chosen by the local authority to teach in a higher grade school, and to control the pupil teachers who come both from Church schools and council schools, and, such being the view of its duty adopted by the local authority, there is obviously nothing in the Bill to prevent such a man being placed at the head of a great Church school.
    You may tell me that such action on the part of the local authority is not likely, but if we are half-way in the direction of that possibility, surely we ought to look at these provisions with a view to their alteration. What we ask is not that a new religious responsibility should be imposed on a local authority, but you ask us to transfer to such an authority the schools in which the religious teaching is an essential part of our system, is definite in its character, is carefully inspected and controlled, and is given only by trained and competent men and women. This is the condition now of the schools which are to be transferred to local authorities who may prescribe, to quote their own words, that "no religious instruction shall be given." If that is untrue or unfair, I should honestly like to have it corrected.
    I do ask your Lordships to believe that this is not a matter about which we feel lightly as a mere question of social or political controversy. We feel that it is something that goes far deeper. We are dealing with what
    938
    concerns the immortal interests of these children, and we feel responsible, in the highest and most sacred sense, for safeguarding these interests. It is with that thought in my mind that I want to make this no question of rhetoric, in a Parliamentary sense, but to speak in words of sober earnestness. If I am right, if it u really possible that these things can come about, surely it is childish to tell us "Yes, they can do all that if they like; but Mr. Birrell hopes they won't."
    Does the security come to anything else? And is that the answer we are to be satisfied with when we are invited to bring about the sweeping change; required by the Bill? If that is the true answer, let us have it in black and white, and let people ponder about it in the recess.
    The time has not come yet for our formulating Amendments to the Bill; but you will have seen the kind of direction in which my own desires would tend. I think I can say without egotism or affectation that there has been no man who has striven more earnestly than I have to bring about some reasonable rapprochement in this particular matter; and therefore I do not speak as a heated, narrow partisan. I claim not to be so, but to be dealing with interests too large and too sacred to make it easy for us to bring them into the arena of political controversy at all.
    What I desire to see done in this Bill involves changes which are pretty far-reaching. We ought to endorse, in my view, the wish of the English people by saying that there shall in all schools be religious teaching within the school hours, subject of course, to the most ample conscience clause arrangements both for teachers and for taught; and I say that especially in the interests of the poorest, weakest, and most oppressed of our little children. The religious teaching must be given by men and women who mean what they say. Then I say that definite religious teaching must be accessible to those children whose parents desire them to have it, subject to such reasonable limitations or restrictions as the authority may lay down. If you prevent this it does seem to me that your theory of uniformity is a mockery and a snare. Then I should

    939
    wish to make it clear that the teachers who have spent some of the best years of their lives in thoughtfully and reverently acquiring the capacity of doing that very difficult thing—giving definite religious teaching—shall not be silenced by a stroke of the pen when they are eager to go on doing that work. It is simply impossible to overstate what England owes at this moment to our Church school teachers, both men and women. Hundreds of them have sacrificed the possibility, and in many cases the certainty, of better emolument elsewhere in order that they might go on giving the particular sort of teaching which they feel to be so important to the whole life of these children. Are you going to bid them stand idly, wistfully, by while others—amateurs, except the clergy, who can only deal with a handful in a large school—take the place of the men and women who have thus trained themselves by prayerful thought and endeavour for the task they love? I believe that proposal to be as cruel to the teacher as it would be unfair to the taught. Why should that be the one subject of human study which is to be taught by untrained teachers, and so taught because you silence the trained teachers who want to teach it? I believe that to be something which the country has never understood and never desired, and that such a rule can never be allowed to find a place in our system.
    Then, the principle after which Clause 4 seems to struggle requires quite certainly to be enlarged and strengthened. I think you may feel that I have forgotten Clause 4 in what I said for example about the Kennington and the Huddersfield schools. Not at all. I believe that in most cases Clause 4 as it stands would be quite inapplicable to such schools. I have got statistics from that school in Kennington showing how many of the scholars go to Church Sunday schools, how many to other Sunday schools, and how many nowhere; and the number who go to other Sunday schools or nowhere is a very large number indeed. No endeavour is made to proselytise, but every endeavour to prevent the children going nowhere. The fact that so many non-Church parents choose this school would of itself probably operate to
    940
    prevent the four-fifths majority asking for definite religious instruction of a particular kind, even if, in so poor a district, you could get them to the poll. Parents might not honestly see their w ay, while a child was going to a Wesleyan or other Sunday school, to say they wanted such special facilities. Some, no doubt, were sent to the Church day school with a strong denominational wish on the part of their parents; others not for that, but because the parents liked the character and tone and management of the school. They might feel that although the denominational teaching was not precisely what they would have selected for themselves, the tone and character, the spirit of the school, and the type of the teacher, resident always among them and known to them all, was such as they were eager for. Are you then going to enact that such a school is not to come under the facilities of the four-fifths clause because a conscientious parent, greatly as he or she approves the school, could not base the claim on purely denominational lines? Then my last point, which. I feel to be a most important one, is that those who have directly to do with the school and its life must have some voice given to them directly or indirectly in the appointment of the teacher. It is only in that way that we can possibly stimulate and maintain a local interest in the schools. When the real Bill was introduced the President of the Board of Education laid great stress, rightly and well, on the danger of bureaucracy in this matter—on the danger that the management and control of the schools should get into the hands of clerks in county council offices. That is exactly what you are bringing about by taking away from those who have knowledge of the schools any say in the appointment of the teacher.
    See what is happening now in the boroughs of London. There are boroughs of London to-day which under the new system, for which I hold no brief and have no responsibility, have airily swept away the old bodies of local managers on the ground perhaps that they want no clergy, or that they will do the management themselves. The teachers are beginning to come piteously to the former managers and to say, "No manager comes near us

    941
    at all."the change to bureaueracy has already taken place. You may fairly say that it is not what the present Government ever wanted or enacted. It is due to their predecessors. I entirely agree. But when you are mending matters, will you not mend that? What I dread in that bureaucratic system is the one-man rule of the clerk or other official of the county or borough authority. Nothing can be worse educationally or worse for the teachers, or worse for the local spirit in the school. We all know the lurid pictures that used to be painted of the one-man rule of the high-handed autocratic priest or parson in the rural area who pushed everybody aside, and, so to speak, "ran" the school himself. I appeal to those who know the country districts whether the true picture was not ordinarily more like this — that there was one man who cared a little about the education of the children, and where the squire was non-resident, and the farmers were hostile to education, and the labourers were apathetic and indifferent, was slaving day by day at the work which nobody else would do and who to his great disappointment and regret had to carry as one man the burden which ought to be shared by many. Many a time I have come away from the house of such a man saddened with the knowledge that he was labouring unaided against heavy odds, and that in some instances he had thought it right to sacrifice even the higher education of his own children for the sake of promoting the life of his elementary school, and making good its financial loss. In such hours, and with such object lessons, one has many a time recalled the proverb that "the world knows nothing of its greatest men."
    My Lords, I have said my say. The juncture at which we stand is a grave and critical one in our national life, and especially in the story of English education. The measure before us has passed through the House of Commons under the, pressure of exigencies, partly at least not of an educational kind. In the circumstances of our modern political life such incidents must, I suppose, take place at times, whatever political Party is in power. The greater, then, the burden of responsibility which rests upon this House. If, as I hope will be the case, you this week read this Bill a second
    942
    time without a division, it is not because we are accepting it, even in outline, as a satisfactory measure in its present form. Let no man who wishes to speak of this matter honestly say hereafter that we have done so. For myself I only assent to its Second Reading because I consider that when a Bill comes to us from the House of Commons under such auspices as these that House is entitled to ask that we should weigh with scrupulous care the several provisions it contains, and discuss them with a calm deliberation which circumstances rendered impossible elsewhere.
    Not with any sanction of mine, nor, I am sure, with the concurrence of those who sit on the episcopal benches, shall this Bill become law as it now stands. I ask for its large amendment in the interest of what is just and reverent and true. I do not ask it in the interests of any political Party, for I have none to serve. I ask it in the interest—the highest and most sacred interest—of the little children of England. Though I bring no accusation against the authors of the Bill—for I accept frankly their assurance that they had no such intent—I do in my heart believe that these clauses as they stand imperil the religious upbringing—in the largest sense of the word, the religious upbringing—of the little children in our schools, imperil, that is, the most precious asset in their lives.
    I feel certain of being able to show this in detail when we come to the Committee stage. Everything, yes, everything for England's well-being depends upon what these children's lives are going to be like; and that will depend in a large measure upon the chance you secure for them in their earliest days. As the Bill now stands there is no guarantee for the daily teaching of the elements of Christianity in our schools. If the teaching is offered there is no guarantee that it will be taught by qualified men and women. If it is so taught there is no guarantee that the children who, from the character of their homes and the circumstances of their lives, need it most, will ever attend.
    Therefore, my Lords, these clauses must be amended if the Bill is with our consent to become law. Fail to amend them, and in the years to come you will

    943
    hear, I am certain, two loud voices of reproach. One will be the voice of those who, in the confident belief that this House would review the whole, have voted almost lightly, or else under conditions of high pressure, for clauses whose full effect they have never adequately weighed, The other voice of reproach will come from those, Churchmen and Nonconformists alike, who have known in some town or country village the school life of to-day and can compare and contrast it with the life which, under the new conditions, will have supplanted it. When they awake to these facts they will feel— if you have left this Bill alone—that the answerableness for the disastrous change has been in large part yours. It is with those limitations and on those conditions only that I hope the House will road the Bill a second time.
    LORD GLANTAWE: My Lords, as this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House it may be thought a great presumption on my part to rise immediately after the most rev. Prelate who has so ably put his case before your Lordships. No one appreciates more fully than I do the ability with which the most rev. Prelate has put forward the case of the Church, especially in regard to the religious aspect of this Bill. I have taken a very active part in the religious education of the country for a great many years. I remember that when the Act of 1870 was discussed in the country the same controversies raged, and the same arguments were used very largely as are being used to-day with regard to the present religious difficulties. I well remember how the country was moved in regard to Clause 25 of Mr. Forster's Bill, and the great excitement which it aroused; and at the great meeting which took place in Manchester in 1872 I was one of the two delegates sent from Swansea to represent the Nonconformist views upon the religious question of that time. It is sad to think that religion should be the bone of contention in almost every question that has to do with education, seeing that religion is intended to teach us to be forbearing one to another, to bear good will one towards another, to love one another, to endeavour to assist one another, not
    944
    only in educational matters but in all the affairs of life.
    The general character of the Bill was very ably put before your Lordships by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading; consequently it will be unnecessary for me and other speakers to refer to the Bill clause by clause. I do not think that this Bill would have been brought forward by the Government now in power but for the unsatisfactory nature of the Act of 1902. That Act changed the whole position in regard to religious teaching, and altered the whole of the law in regard to education, especially in its financial provisions. The Act of 1902 was very unfavourably received, especially in Wales, where Nonconformity is exceptionally strong. It has been most difficult of application, and there are many places in South Wales where it has never been adopted and could not be enforced. It was offensive to a very large section of the community in that it gave the Church undue influence. It is all very well to say, from the Church point of view, that the object was to bring up the children in what is called the true religion. But the phrase "true religion" is a very difficult one to define. Those who are of a religious turn of mind generally believe that the religion of the particular sect to which they belong is the true religion. In Wales, where Nonconformists are very strong and powerful, although they may not be united except on one particular point—and that is in regard to the question of enforcing a particular kind of religion upon the children in the Principality or in the United Kingdom— they have a very strong objection to, and oppose the adoption of, any kind of religious dogma.
    Many references have been made to the Cowper-Temple clause, and it has frequently been referred to in very depreciatory language. I would say, however, that no safer or sounder religion could possibly be taught to a child than that which is given under the Cowper-Temple clause. The most rev. Prelate a few days ago referred to two particular counties in Wales where no religious instruction of any kind was given—Cardigan and Carmarthen. I would point out, however, that Cardigan, although it has not put forward any formulary to be followed

    945
    throughout the county, is well known throughout Wales, if not throughout the greater part of England, as being one of the most religious districts in South Wales. More professional men, and more ministers of religion of different denominations, including a large number of ministers of the Church of England, have come from Cardiganshire than perhaps from any other county in the Principality, In that county there are two colleges of high repute. One is at Aberystwith, which, through the liberality of Welsh gentlemen of wealth and position, is to-day endowed almost as well as any college in the United Kingdom. Aberystwith has turned out excellent scholars. Then we have Lampeter, at which college a right rev. Prelate who sits in this House, and who enjoys the respect of every person in South Wales who has the privilege of his acquaintance, distinguished himself. I am one of his admirers, though we differ upon this question of the religious education which our Church friends desire to see adopted in elementary schools.
    Wales has always been noted for its education. Swansea was the second town to adopt the Act of 1870. I happened to be Mayor of Swansea at the time, and I was so impressed with the necessity for general education of an elementary kind which should be within the reach of all classes that I gave that Bill, with the exception of one point, my heartiest support. The only thing that I regretted in regard to that Bill was that those who had the management— the school boards—in many cases were rather extravagant in their notions, and in many places erected schools which were unnecessary or of a needlessly costly character. But experience taught the school boards. It took some time to get them well into their work, but when they were beginning to understand their work, and to apply themselves to the carrying out of education in the most economical way, the Act of 1902 was passed, which practically did away with every school board in the country. I do not mean to say that all the school boards did their work in the best possible way; possibly there were too many of them, especially in the country districts,
    946
    but that could have been remedied by several boards being united together and forming one school board for the enlarged area. In London, for instance, the school board which was doing such excellent work was done away with, and its duties allocated to that overworked body the London County Council—a step very much to be regretted. Then in regard to higher education, although Wales has been backward in elementary education it has taken a lead in regard to higher grade schools, and it has reason to to be proud of the position it has taken in that respect. In Swansea higher grade schools were started very early, and I was one of the half-dozen people to whom was entrusted the duty of formulating a code to be adopted in such schools.
    In regard to the Bill now before your Lordships, I would say that I am generally in favour of it. I am well aware that broad as it is, and strong as is the desire of the Government to meet the wishes of every grade and section of the people, the question is a very difficult one, but they have done their utmost to settle it once for all on the best basis possible. Clause 4 is perhaps one of the most controversial and debatable sections in the Bill. I am quite in favour of the clause as now amended, and strongly support the retention of the word "may" as against "shall," because I believe it Would be very detrimental to the interests of education throughout the country if the clause were made mandatory. I believe the Government have done wisely in regard to the Amendments they have introduced, because it it comes to a fight there is no doubt at all that the local authority, supported by local opinion, can best exercise the necessary control. We have had a very fair example of that in South Wales, and I think the Government have acted very wisely in providing a safety valve in order to avoid any deadlock. It is well known that when the Act of 1902 was being enforced, especially in some parts of Wales, the local authority clearly beat Sir William Anson and all the forces which he had behind him. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but would beg to thank you sincerely for having listened to me so patiently. I shall give this Bill my hearty support.
    *THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, having been connected with educational matters in my county since the Local Government Act was passed, for a long time as Chairman of the Technical Education Committee, and, since the Education Act of 1902, as Chairman of the Education Committee, I should not like to allow this measure to be brought forward without saying a few words upon it. I presume that the Bill is brought in to remove the religious difficulty rather than to deal largely with educational matters, because it really deals only with the very fringe of matters which affect the well-being of education. The Bill deals with the religious difficulty, but I can assure your Lordships that as far as I am concerned, although I live in a county which has as large a proportion of Nonconformists as almost any other county in England — namely, Huntingdonshire — I have never felt the religious difficulty, either in the schools in the county or on the Committee. Nearly half of the Committee over which I have the honour to preside is composed of Nonconformists who work side by side with Churchmen in the most harmonious way. We have never had the slightest difference or difficulty on religious grounds in dealing with any matter which has come before us. The curious thing is that after the passing of the Act of 1902, when one would have thought the religious difficulty would have been brought forward, and when the voters could have elected men to represent them if there was any such difficulty as has been alleged, there was no contest throughout the county connected with the religious question at the county council elections. I might give one other illustration to show how harmoniously we have worked. Only the other day we had a meeting of our Committee to consider this Bill, and we agreed that the clauses connected with the religious question should not be discussed, the only clauses considered by us being the administrative and financial clauses of the Bill.
    As I say, this Bill is intended to deal with the religious difficulty. But what was the motive power that produced the religious difficulty? There was rampant
    948
    throughout the country at the late election the militant political Nonconformist. It was he who worked the late general election, and this measure is really to carry out the proposals of the militant Nonconformist as opposed to the opinions and feelings of the great mass of Nonconformists throughout the country. Many of the leading Nonconformists in my county with whom I have spoken on the matter consider the Bill to be unfair to the Church in several of its provisions. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading said that the man who paid the piper should call the tune. I agree with him. He alluded to a Motion which I made, and to some statistics which I have had prepared, showing what will be the cost of this measure if it passes in its present form. I gathered from him that I need not deal with the financial question, as a Bill would be brought in later on to deal with that aspect of the matter, and with the present grants given for educational purposes. My object, however, is not to deal with the financial situation as it exists, but to show that in the estimate setting forth that the £1,000,000 to be granted under this Bill will provide for all that is required, a great mistake will have been made.
    But before I consider the cost of voluntary schools, I would allude to the speech made on the introduction of the measure in the House of Commons. It was there said, and the statement was loudly acclaimed, that many of the voluntary schools were in a bad condition. I believe the phrase used was that there were some good, some indifferent, some bad, and some very bad, and that the latter would not be taken over by the local authority. Rent was to be paid for the good schools; the bad, or very bad, schools would not be taken over; and other schools would have to be built. That is clearly foreshadowed in the clause which says that the local authority need make arrangements only in cases where they desire to do so, which means that they will refuse to take over a great many of these voluntary schools. Therefore I think it is only fair to calculate that the cost of these transferred voluntary schools to the new authorities will, be quite equal to the cost of the

    949
    board schools which were taken over under the Act of 1902. The request which I addressed to various local authorities was for a return of the cost that had been involved in taking over the council schools. I have tabulated the returns from nineteen counties scattered over the country, and it comes out that on an average the cost per school in the first financial year, 1903–4, was £29, and for the year 1904–05 £30 per school. Taking this rate, and the number of voluntary schools in comparison with council schools in each of these counties, I find that it would require on an average l⅓d. in the £ upon the whole of the country to provide for the maintenance of the transferred voluntary schools. I find also that this £1,000,000 that is dangled before our eyes represents exactly 1966⅓d. in the £; because 1d. in the £ for the whole country represents £725,000 a year, and therefore l⅓d. represents £1,000,000. I think, therefore, you may fairly argue, upon experience in regard to the 1902 Act, that the cost of the voluntary schools would absorb the whole of the £1,000,000 which is proposed to be devoted for the purposes of this Act.
    But when I come to look at what has been said with regard to this £1,000,000, I find it has been stated that in the first place it is to go towards the relief of poor necessitous districts. Thus the way will be opened for very large demands in that direction. I understand that it is intended that the poor areas round about London, which are very highly rated, are to have a contribution from the fund towards the relief of their rates, and I think it was stated that where those districts had been involved in very heavy expenses they should receive a special grant. There will be very little indeed of the fund left for the purpose of aiding the local authorities in rural districts if all the necessitous areas throughout the country are first to get relief. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the position of that sorely tried and overburdened man, the ratepayer. He was told under the Act of 1902 he would be rated, but in every county the rates have been higher and the expenses greater than was ever prophesied. The position is that
    950
    if the grant of £1,000,000 does not go round, and any further expenses are incurred, the authorities will have to fall back upon the ratepayer, and the deficit will be raised from the rates. That is a very serious state of affairs, and one deserving of some notice. It is most unfair that where you have a hobby to ride—if I may put it so low—where you desire, for the benefit of a strong militant party, to take over all the schools and to make them of one type, you should do it largely with the ratepayers' money. If you were to say that in the event of the grant you propose not being sufficient to carry out your object the balance would be defrayed, not from the rates but from the taxes, I should have no grievance in that respect; but when we have no definite knowledge, inasmuch as this financial clause was not explained or debated in the House of Commons, and. no information was given about it, I think a representative of the ratepayers would be neglecting his duty if he did not try to elicit some further information as to the effect of the financial portions of this Bill.
    I will instance one other direction in which very heavy cost will be entailed by this Bill. the noble Earl alluded to Clause 24. I hail that as one of the three clauses in the Bill which do something progressive for education. I cannot say that the providing of vacation classes, play centres, or means of recreation is strictly educational, but certainly it is a worthy and very desirable object. A sub-section of that clause makes medical inspection of children compulsory as the Board of Education may direct. Let me say in passing that we shall be very much more under the Board of Education after the passing of this Bill than we have been since 1902. I do not know whether any estimate has been made as to the probable cost of this medical inspection. I presume that it is to come out of the £1,000,000 grant, or out of the ratepayers' pocket. I have made a calculation which I think will give some data to go upon. There are some 6,000,000 children on the school books at the present moment; the average school life of a child is about ten years, and it is probably an underestimate that there are 600,000 fresh

    951
    scholars per year. You could not calculate on less than 3s. 4d. per head per annum for the medical inspection of i hose 600,000 scholars. I think that that is a low figure, but on that basis the cost per annum would be £100,000. I should like to know whether the Minister in charge of the Bill has considered these various items which are to be made compulsory by the Bill. If this expenditure comes out of the £1,000,000, it will leave only £900,000 for the grants to local authorities, but there are also other things which have to be seen to.
    Besides providing for the medical inspection of children, and the repairs of the schools, there is the rent of the transferred voluntary schools to be paid, there is the building of new schools to replace the very bad ones which are not taken over and those which are considered unsuitable according to the dictum of the Board of Education; there are also the salaries of correspondents to be paid, because hitherto we have been able, in the non-provided schools, to arrange for the correspondence with the central authority to be done free of charge, but you may be sure that the moment the schools are taken over, we shall have to pay the correspondent in each school. Then there will be the legal expenses involved in the transfers and in the whole machinery, which is no light matter. We are told that the conditions raid the accommodation in voluntary schools are much worse than in the board schools, which means that much will have to be done directly to provide better accommodation, which also will involve expense.
    I should like here to make one protest against what is considered by some to be the policy of the Board of Education as regards small rural schools. You have a visit from one inspector, who gives his advice as to ventilation and warming and so on; he goes away to another district, and another inspector comes who has totally different views upon these matters, and instead of objecting to small rural schools he approves of them and says that they do good work. The aim of the Department ought to be not so much the enlargement or improvement of the school, as to ensure the selection of a good teacher. It is not the school itself or the building; it is the teacher that
    952
    makes the school. That is our experience everywhere, even in the smallest rural schools in counties. However small the school may be, if the teacher, whether male or female, is thoroughly earnest and callable in his or her work, there you will have a good school and the children will be well taught.
    Another idea which I understand is in the mind of the Board of Education is that many of these schools might be grouped together, so that a central school might be built to which the children could be conveyed. I believe there are cases where that might be done with advantage. I know of two such cases, where the children are conveyed considerable distances. One of them is in the Fen district, near Holme, and the other is at Eaton Socon, on the borders of Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire. I may tell your Lordships that the cost per child for bringing them from an area some five miles long in the Fen district is only £2 per head per annum, while in the other district of Eaton Socon the cost is only £1 14s.; so that it is really cheaper than to build a new school. But in saying that we are successful in this direction, I do not wish it to be supposed that I am advocating the extinction of small rural schools.
    In the face of all these expenses involved in the various proposals of the Bill, I submit that the outlook is alarming. They will add enormously to the already excessive burdens on the rates. Unless we get some clear explanation as to who is to pay for all these things, we shall be left in ignorance, and the rates will go up without their being any chance of redress, or of the county councils or individuals having any voice in the matter. It seems to me to be a curious anomaly that it should be in the power of a Government Department to fall back on the needy ratepayer to make up any deficit that might arise in connection with that Department. It would be very convenient in the case of the Admiralty if, instead of having to come to Parliament for an extra "Dreadnought," they could simply fall back upon the ratepayer for the necessary funds. Or it would be very nice for the Secretary of State for War if from the same source he could draw the money for two or three

    953
    more battalions of troops, instead of having to get his proposals through Parliament. I know of no Government Department except the Board of Education which is in the happy position of being able, in the event of having any deficit, to call upon the ratepayers to meet it. I have never understood why there seems to be no objection on the part of the taxpayer to pay for anything. The passive resister, as a taxpayer, did not object to pay his quota towards the school expenses, and I hope I may be able, sooner or later, to persuade the Government that any extra expenses involved by this Bill should come wholly and solely out of the taxpayer's, rather than out of the ratepayer's, pocket. I have dealt with some practical points of the Bill, and do not desire, on the present occasion, to go into the religious question, although I have as strong feelings on that matter as any other Churchman present. I thoroughly approve of what was said by the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I only hope that before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House the injustice which we feel will be redressed, and that we shall also have some assurance that the ratepayers' interests will not be entirely overlooked.
    *LORD FARRER: I should certainly not have ventured to address your Lordships on this occasion were it not that the noble Marquess the late President of the Board of Education stated that in these matters an ounce of practice was worth a ton of theory. I have been what I expect not many of your Lordships have been, and that is chairman of two rural schools for the last seven years. These two rural schools in my own district have ultimately come, by a process of what I may almost call natural selection, into practically the form that this Bill designs for rural schools generally. The two schools have rather a curious history. The first was built on: glebe land about the year 1860, at a time when there was a great revival of rural education in Southern England, and it has averaged about fifty children, entirely of the rural class. The clergymen at first carried on the instruction almost entirely, which instruction of course was of a Church of England character. The
    954
    second school, which was built by my father in 1872, was a school to which no special religious formulary was attached, because we believed that there were a larger number of Dissenters than of Churchmen in that part of the parish. Gradually the Church school failed to find the necessary funds, with the result that it became necessary to see how the school could be carried on. In those days none of these miserable religious squabbles had arisen, and we found that the best plan would be to form, not a school board, which was a very expensive matter, but a voluntary committee to which the ratepayers should be asked to contribute, and to allow both the clergyman and the Nonconformist minister to teach in the school. We did that for two years, with rather disastrous results. Perpetual squabbles arose, and there were attempts, one might almost say, at proselytising the children. Ultimately we came to the conclusion that it would be desirable for the schoolmaster himself in each case to give the religious instruction. From the '70's, when that was arranged, until 1902, when the new Act came into force, the system went on without a protest from a single parent, and to the complete satisfaction of persons of all shades of religious opinion in the parish. We all felt that some form of ethical teaching was absolutely necessary, and we never had the slightest difficulty in finding a schoolmaster for each school both willing and competent to give the simple Bible teaching and to draw the ethical lessons from it. The absence of dogma has never been in any way detrimental to the interests of the schools, and the interesting part is that the Church people themselves accepted the teaching as willingly as the Nonconformists.
    I ought to say as regards the financial arrangements, that we found that the Church school needed enlargement. We arranged to raise on the voluntary rate, if rate it can be called, sufficient money to enlarge the school, the only condition made by the Dissenters being that similar teaching should go on as before. That we were right in the case we took I think may be seen from the fact that the most rev. Prelate, who was then Bishop of Winchester, himself signed the lease of

    955
    this Church school to the voluntary committee on that very agreement. As I read this Bill, the teaching that is proposed to be given is precisely of that kind which has proved acceptable, in the parish to which I have referred, not only to Dissenters, but to Church people themselves, as is evidenced by that signature. Therefore I think that a great deal of the storm and fury that has raged around these particular provisions of the Bill may be discounted when it comes to the practical teaching among the children of the people of the country, and after all it is the children that need most consideration. I believe that in most rural parishes the same possibility will be found to exist, if people can only be brought to reason—
    For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight; His can't be wrong whose life is in the right.
    I should not have said more on this subject except that the Bill of 1902 very seriously interfered with our religious peace and quiet. Immediately after its passage, the demand was made that we should give back the school that had been built on the glebe as a Church school. That, we said, was of course possible if the money that had been provided by the other denominations was paid back. What our position exactly is nobody seems to know, and I venture to think that, in that one parish at any rate, the Act of 1902 gave rise to considerable discord, because all this religious difficulty had never arisen before. A desirable feature of this Bill is that it gives a chance of securing a much better representative committee than existed in the foundation managers. My experience has been that the most valuable members of our old school committee were the mothers of the children attending the schools. But when the Act of 1902 was passed, we were compelled at once to discontinue their services, and to reduce the committee strictly to the foundation managers. I say that this Bill gives a chance of remedying that evil.
    I think that anyone who has had practical experience of the working of the Act of 1902 will also feel it desirable to support the change proposed by this Bill, by which smaller districts will be allowed to manage their own affairs. The county councils
    956
    in many cases make admirable central authorities, but they are overburdened with work, and can have no real touch with the teaching in the schools. Therefore I think that any arrangement by which a better form of teaching organism can be provided in that respect will be greatly welcomed in country districts. I recollect very well that the noble Earl who used to lead the Opposition in this House, whose absence we so much regret, and who has had enormous experience of rural administration, told me that what he doubted most of all about the Bill of 1902 was the fact that the county area was far too large for satisfactory control, and that he had serious thoughts of suggesting, if indeed he did not actually suggest in this House, that the district council area was far better than the county. In my own case it takes three hours to get to the county centre, but not a sheet of paper or anything else can be ordered without the consent of the officials at the centre. The rates, too, have gone up. When we managed our own schools, we managed them for thirty years with a rate of less than 6d. We were solemnly promised by Mr. Balfour that that rate would not be exceeded, but would be reduced. But what has been the result? Our rate has gone up to 11d., and we have not the slightest improvement in teaching or administration.
    I am gad to find that there is one point at any rate upon which I am in agreement with the most rev. Prelate who made so eloquent an oration just now, and that is that you must get personal interest if you are to have a good school. But when I come to the most rev. Prelate's history, I confess I am somewhat surprised at the attitude that he takes up with regard to the Church and education in this country In looking up the history of the early part of the last century with regard to this question, I find that in 1807 the House of Commons passed a Bill enabling the ratepayers to set up a school in each parish. This House threw out the Bill on the advice of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, and these are the words that the Archbishop used in this House on August 11th, 1807—
    "the provisions of the Bill leave little or no control to the minister in the parish. This

    957
    would go to subvert the first principle of education in this country, which had hitherto been, and he trusted would continue to be, under the control of the Establishment, and their Lordships would feel how dangerous it must be to innovate in such matters."
    Thereupon the Bill, which allowed the ratepayers' organisation to make its own school, was thrown out by this House. I venture to think, therefore, that the claim for the enormous advance in voluntary subscriptions afterwards can hardly be sustained altogether. I wish there had been more right rev. Prelates present to listen to the remarks which have been made on this subject.
    But, my Lords, to return to the more general question in regard to the Bill. I have tried to find out what people mean by education. I always think it well under such circumstances, to turn to that good Tory authority, Dr. Johnson. He is one of the few men who have given a satisfactory definition of the word, and he defines education as "the formation of manners in youth." I am bound to say that on reading this Bill it appears to me to go a long way towards helping to the formation of manners in youth. The schoolmaster himself is really made a power in the land, and if he can give that ethical and civilising instruction which I have no doubt he will be able to give under the Bill, the whole of England will be leavened, because the people will feel, if the first Clause of this Bill is carried out, that they are paying for something that they are going to get.
    I am extremely glad to be able to agree with the noble Marquess who spoke last as to the enormous advantage of medical inspection, and I think I can reassure him in regard to the question of cost. In our county, at any rate, it has not been anything like so serious a matter as he anticipates. I expect that he will find in his own county that there is a medical inspector at present attached to the county council. There is, at any rate, in the counties with which I am acquainted in the South of England, and the advantage to be derived from such an arrangement is very much greater than would appear at first sight. I should like to relate an incident that occurred within my own experience only last week. There was a child who, we had reason
    958
    to suspect, was not being properly fed and properly treated. It is extremely difficult, as everyone who has had practical experience knows, to get evidence in a case of that sort. If you put the matter in the hands of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, you raise every sort of prejudice, and very often have great difficulty in proving your case. But if there is a medical officer attached to the central authority, who can make an inspection of the school, it is possible, as was done in this case, to tell him privately of particular children, and he is then able to give an unbiassed opinion which may alter the whole future life of the child for the better. That was a case which occurred in my own school only a week or two ago, and I mention it because the expense of taking such action is infinitesimal. If a proper roster is made in a county, the medical inspector can devote his time to the inspection of the schools in a very economical and satisfactory way.
    As to the general question of religious teaching in the schools, I should not think of joining issue. There are, of course, many ways in which that might have been dealt with. I think it is dealt with in a way such as the majority of the voters at the last election desired. No one who went about, as I did, in districts which had for years returned Conservative Members, but which now return Liberal Members, can doubt that there were two subjects uppermost in the minds of the electors—free trade and education. In all my experience I have never known so strong a feeling as existed in the whole of the South of England as to the absolute necessity of an alteration of the Act of 1902. It is for that reason that I support to the fullest extent the Bill now before your Lordships' House.
    *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG WORTH: My Lords, we have had several eloquent and convincing speeches upon this Bill, but I think if there is one thing more than another which has forced itself upon the attention of the House, it is that we have arrived at a most grave and serious crisis as regards this important question, and I believe that the dangers are much greater than has been supposed by some previous speakers. It is an

    959
    undoubted fact that there is very great danger of this contemplated legislation being not merely an attack upon the Church of England or upon the Establishment, but an attack upon all religion in the country. What are the circum stances of the case? I am not going into any political observations of a Party nature, but we must face the facts of the case. The present Government have come into office supported mainly by men of extreme views—views of a very Socialistic nature. The gentlemen who profess these views are, to put it mildly, not very friendly towards religion in general, or towards England as a country—at all events as she is now governed. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but at all events this is a question which must shortly be faced, and I think that everything points to the fact that there is a far deeper and more insidious attack against religion in general than upon any one Church in particular. Indeed, the whole tendency of the Bill seems to point in this direction. The most rev. Prelate in his eloquent speech pointed to a great object-lesson in the town of Huddersfield, and as he said, if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that the attack made by this Bill, if it passes into law, will develop in one far greater than a mere attack upon denominational religion. According to most of the speakers who support this Bill, it would seem to be merely a question as between one Church and another, or between the Established Church and the Nonconformist bodies; but if we look at the Bill it will be seen that the matter goes a great deal further than that.
    It is said that the main clause of the Bill upon which everything turns is Clause 1, which lays down that after a certain date a school shall not be recognised as a public elementary school unless it is a school provided by the local education authority. That, of course, is a very far-reaching and drastic change, but if we go a little further into the Bill we shall find an even more important clause, which in my opinion is almost the keynote of the Bill. That is Clause 7, which says that the parent of a child attending a public elementary school shall not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at the school-
    960
    house except during the times allotted in the time-table exclusively to secular instruction. In other words, the religious teaching of the schools is not to be considered a matter of obligation, and therefore, by deduction, not a matter of very much importance. It will be-seen at once that this cuts two ways. It is not as though the clause aimed at any particular Church, or any particular doctrine; it cuts out the obligation to-attend any sort of religious instruction. Of course, this is a matter of very important detail. If this clause has the force of law, in many instances the children will! not attend at all. If it is merely optional, they will certainly not attend on a fine afternoon for the purposes of religious instruction; they would rather go to play. If, on the other hand, you pass some measure by which they shall be occupied in other work in the school you at once establish in their minds a general dislike and distrust of religious education; you are giving them a choice between something they do not care about and something they do not like, and the whole thing will result in their doing their best to escape from, religious instruction. What are we to Kay about the father and mothers of these children? Will they direct their children, although their attendance is not obligatory, to attend the Scripture lesson or the religious instruction? Possibly they may do so, and I dare say they will in more cases than many people think for. It has been brought out in debate that there is a very deep religious feeling among the parents of the poor children who attend the elementary schools, and no doubt in many cases the parents will bring pressure to-bear upon their children to attend. But I think it is equally certain, when we regard poor human nature, that an even larger number perhaps will say:
    " I think my children have quite enough school: I do not mind their attending; religious instruction at 9 o'clock, or whatever the hour may 1 e, if I can spare them. But I can very ill spare them, and I think it is very hard that they should be taken away for so many hours in the day for schooling which does not seem to do them very much good. I really do not see my way to allow them to attend more than they are absolutely obliged."
    In this way I think it is almost certain that little by little the children will drift

    961
    away from the religious instruction, and the great danger is that the idea will be implanted in their minds that this is a matter of little importance, which they may treat with carelessness, if not with contempt. If this is carried out throughout the country we shall be face to face with a very serious problem. It is needless for me, especially in your Lordship's House, to enlarge upon the terrible consequences of what is sometimes called godless education. It would no doubt result in demoralisation of character on the part of the youth of England, and have the most terrible and unspeakable effect upon religion altogether. It is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that the word "religion" really means "restraint," and if you take away all sense of religion from poor children who, from their hard circumstance in life, are not in a position to get such good ideas of behaviour as their more fortunate brethren, if you take away all religious restraint from them, you will find them gradually not only relapsing into carelessness of demeanour, but into temptation and indulgence in various vices, and committing crimes, beginning with small offences and gradually going on to greater. There will be no restraint except the restraint of the police.
    One of the most serious results of this Bill, I fear, will be a general decline of patriotism. There will be a carelessness of that duty to one's country which I think is one of the chief duties, if not the chief, among those which regulate one's relations to one's fellow creatures in this world. We have seen in the case of our new allies, the Japanese, who I think may be fairly considered one of the most religious people upon earth, how religion has helped them, and what it really means to them, and I think it may be fairly argued that their religious instincts, more than anything else, brought them safely through their terrible struggle with the Russian nation. We may also see in quite another direction the connection of religion and patriotism, and perhaps I may venture to call to memory an example in an old ally of ourselves, the Turks. The Turkish soldiery are, without any doubt,
    962
    some of the finest in the world, and they are, according to their lights, although not Christians, one of the most religious-minded people, certainly in Europe, if not in the whole world. It has been said that the Turks, taking them all round, are much better Christians than the Christians. I am not going to argue that patriotism is a question merely of Sunday school teaching, because it is a large and deep feeling which may be brought out by religious observances and which may be brought seriously into contempt by neglect of those observances. It is needless for me to dwell upon the very serious consequences to the future generations of this country to take away from them in any way the exercises of religion in their education as children.
    I should like to pass for a moment from that consideration to this curious Clause 4 in this Bill. That clause deals with the special facilities which, under certain conditions, are to be given for religious instruction of a special character which is confined to children living in an urban district, an urban district being defined as a district of not less than 5,000 population. I would ask what in the world is the difference between the importance of saving children's souls or seeing to their higher education in an urban area and doing the same thing in a rural district? You might just as well say there was to be a distinction drawn in regard to education between children with dark hair and children with light hair. I fail to see why numbers should enter into the question at all as far as I am able to judge from merely looking at the Bill, but anyone who looks a little more deeply into the question will see that the reason for this is apparent, and in fact, it is somewhat obvious. It is simply that this Clause opens the door, so to speak, to admit certain people whose objection to the Bill might be dangerous if they were congregated together in urban districts. There might be members of the Roman Catholic religion or the Jewish faith who seriously objected to the provisions of this Bill, and their objection might not only be an objection in words but an objection with a good

    963
    many votes behind it. This Clause seems to open such a door and it gives an opportunity to the supporters of the Bill to get out of what was perhaps a serious danger.
    In regard to the Bill as a whole, looking at it all through, it seems to consist of a number of very contradictory clauses. One clause hangs upon another, and one seems to contradict the provisions of another, and what is given on the one hand in. the way of concessions is Very much taken away on the other by the hard machinery and details as to how such concessions are to be secured. This Bill reminds one of a game which used to excite the wonder of our childhood known, as "thinking of a number," where you tell the person to whom you are showing the trick what number he thought of. You ask the person to engage in several simple problems of mental arithmetic, the whole secret of the trick being that each arithmetical calculation cancels the one immediately preceding it, so that you come to nothing every time and you may make the number thought of a matter of certainty. There is nothing very finite about this Bill and it is extremely difficult to understand what it does mean. As soon as you have mastered one clause a subsequent clause appears to cancel the previous one. The Bill no doubt deals with a very complicated subject in which his Majesty's Government, or whoever are the real promoters of the Bill, could not see their way exactly as to the result when it came to be carried into effect, and therefore by this very adroit method of having clauses which seem to contradict each other they have adopted a system which affords a ready or at all events a possible means of getting out of the difficulties which they did not foresee when the Bill was originally drafted.
    I should like to say a word or two about the ballot. The Bill provides that there is to be a ballot to ascertain the wishes of the parents of the children as to whether or not they would like extended facilities for special religious teaching. That seems to me rather absurd, because I do not see how you can really make sure of obtaining the ballot or of
    964
    adducing any real and reliable opinion from it when you have taken it. I suppose the ballot, inasmuch as it is supposed to be secret, is as good a way as any other to adopt for this purpose, but there is this very remarkable fact in the Bill, and I do not say this in any invidious sense, but it is certainly remarkable that there is no sort of clause as far as can be seen which is drawn for the protection of that ballot, in order to eliminate as far as possible any chance of the people who engage in the ballot being tampered with. It might possibly be to the interests of men holding extreme views, who had a strong municipal position in any town, to have a ballot in order to register a decision against extended religious facilities. After all, this ballot does not come under the same head as an election ballot, and it is not a Parliamentary or a municipal election. It is merely a ballot for an expression of opinion, and though I do not mean to suggest that improper steps would constantly be taken to influence people's votes, I think, at all events, it is somewhat of a blot on the Bill that apparently no protection is taken in regard to obtaining a fair view of the parents on this very important subject without any possibility of their being tampered with.
    There is another point which has been very lightly touched upon, viz., the financial considerations. That is such a complicated subject that I do not propose to deal with it except in a very brief manner. There is one thing which I think we may prophesy with great safety, and it is that in whatever form this Bill passes the rates will most certainly go up by leaps and bounds. That is always the case, because in one way or another when these matters get into the hands of the municipal authorities, they get very much into the hands of officials. And this leads to what I am sorry to say cannot be characterised by any other name than jobbery and robbery of the ratepayers. This kind of thing is bad enough under the present Act, as I can testify in regard to my own county council, but undoubtedly these things will be very much worse in the future. As a matter of fact, I think it may possibly lead to a strong objection on the part of the public to

    965
    this Bill, for after all is said and done men do not like to have to pay more than they are obliged out of their own pockets. If the effect of this Bill is to raise the rates enormously and to add to the heavy burdens under which people are groaning, the Government will find a larger and more serious opposition to this measure than they bargain for.
    What, my Lords, ought to be done in regard to this Bill? There are three Obvious courses. Your Lordships' House might first of all reject the measure, but it has already been practically settled that that course shall not be taken; although I think your Lordships would have every right to take that course, yet it would probably arouse such a storm in which the issues would be confounded that obviously it would do far more harm than good. In the second place, we can amend the Bill. The third course is that we might pass the whole Bill as it stands. That course might possibly raise a tremendous opposition in the country, and might have a good effect in that way. Still, I think the best course to take is to amend the Bill in Committee. The most reverend Prelate indicated the points on which he would suggest amendment. May I, with great deference, suggest another point which I do not think has been mentioned? It is that it might be a good thing if it were possible to define what is really meant by undenominational teaching. We are accustomed to use the words Cowper-Temple teaching, which is fairly well known, although it has never been accurately described. I understand that it means simple Bible teaching without any dogma. It would be a good thing—although it may be a matter of some little difficulty and it would have to be done by far wiser heads than mine—to have a clear definition of what is actually meant by these words, because the great danger is that if there is no definition, as regards undenominational teaching, you may get any sort of danger from teachers who may, in reality, make fun of religion, treat it with contempt and, in fact, teach something very much nearer atheism than religion. I hope, my Lords, in any case, that when the proper time comes in the ensuing autumn months, we shall be able to amend and put into some
    966
    kind of proper form this very complicated and serious Bill. I hope we shall be able to take away from it the evils which undoubtedly exist in it, and by our Amendments, in some shape or form to conduce to a settlement of this most vital and important religious question.
    *THE DUKE OP NORFOLK: I agree that this Bill is not one which merely infringes the privileges of many distinct religious bodies, but one which endangers the religious interests of the country in every branch. I agree with the noble Lord who said that the dangers of this Bill are very insidious and far-reaching. There are many things about it that might make people accept it at the first glance because they might not be able to see how far-reaching the dangers which underlie it are. I wish to emphasise what has already been said, that in opposing the Bill which we shall be bound to do in its various clauses in Committee, we do feel that we are fighting not for any special opinions of our own, but for the religious life of the country as a whole. We feel the dangers which are confronting us. The noble Lord the Marquess of Londonderry spoke of certain facilities which were specially introduced in order to modify the hostility of Catholics to this Bill, and he said that we were beginning to see how futile they wore. I may say that we saw that from the very beginning. The moment this fly was thrown we saw that it was made of tinsel. Speaking as an English Catholic I wish to express my strong sense of the able and steadfast way in which the Catholic Members from Ireland, disregarding political temptations which must have pressed sorely upon them, fought, and nobly fought, for the children of this country and for the Irish children in our great towns.
    I have not risen with any idea of going into the merits of the Bill. There are, however, one or two points in my mind which I am anxious to make very clear. I suppose that we all have had very considerable heart-burnings as to the advisability of rejecting this Bill on its Second Reading. I venture humbly to agree with those who have already expressed the opinion that such a course would be unwise. I do not say that

    967
    in the smallest degree from the point of view of the Bill itself, but merely on the general grounds of procedure which in such cases as the present appears to me to be wise for this House to adopt. I cannot, however, but think that there is a certain sense of unreality underlying our debate to night. We are discussing ostensibly the Second Reading of the Bill—whether we are going to pass it or not. We all know that we do not intend to reject it on the Second Reading, and yet we are all aware that if we went to a division the Bill would be rejected by a vast majority. I do not think anybody doubts that statement. Although no one would be more glad than I should be to make manifest by my vote the strong alarm which this Bill has caused in my mind and my great antipathy to it, I do not think that course would be wise. It is unhappily the fact and it is often lamented—although I do not think that it has ever been met by any suggestions as to how things could be otherwise—that it is generally very late in the session before any important Bills come to this House. If any great measure of importance which had been discussed for months in the House of Commons was, when it came to this House, rejected after a two nights' debate, certainly serious questions would be raised in the country as regards the constitutional position of this House. What I would venture to suggest is that we must face the fact that we have very often to allow measures to pass their Second Reading in this House which, on the whole, are measures we should feel it our duty to oppose; if they are practically forced upon us by circumstances and by the necessities of the case in public life, we must pass them; but it must not be assumed that because we pass a Bill on the Second Reading we necessarily accept the principles of the measure. We cannot be called upon to adopt both courses. For myself I do say most emphatically that I for one shall feel absolutely unfettered as regards my conduct in Committee by the fact that I allowed this Bill to pass without challenge on its Second Reading. If there were any doubt upon that point, I should have no hestiation in moving the rejection of the Second Reading, and if I pressed my
    968
    Motion to a division, I venture to think the Lobby I selected would be more crowded than the other. I am therefore glad that we shall not need to adopt that course, on the understanding that the passing of the Second Reading is no acceptance of the measure in any sense or way. When we come to the Committee stage, we shall be absolutely free and unfettered by anything which has passed, and shall be able to consider the clauses of the Bill and the whole principles of the measure with open minds and absolute freedom of action. I feel that if we did not take this course, bat decided to reject the Bill on its Second Reading, the storm which Lord Zouche spoke of as being possible if we rejected the Bill would break upon our unhappy heads in many quarters of the country from the very apposite reason. There is the strongest possible feeling in the country that this measure is a very extraordinary and inexplicable one, and that it has not had a fair chance of having its qualities, good or bad, brought out. The political necessities of another place have been operating with extraordinary severity. Important Amendments have for the moment attracted attention and consideration, but they have never been debated at all. I think your Lordships will feel that it is your constitutional duty to remedy that very serious defect in the conduct of this measure. There are a vast amount of people in this country who are watching with anxious eyes to see what the House of Lords will do in regard to this measure. We are sometimes told that in this House we are apt to give too much attention to questions affecting the interests of our own class, but I think it would be a blot upon our history and a disgrace to our position in the country, if upon such a question as the religious well-being of the children, we shrank in any way from taking a strong and firm attitude, such as when the autumn session comes we shall feel it our duty to assume.
    I venture to submit these words because I cannot deny that undoubtedly, so far as Catholics are concerned, if this Bill is in any sense to meet our views it will have to be very drastically amended indeed. There is no doubt

    969
    about that point and we have no doubt as to the firm line which we intend to take. We are glad, and we thank God to know, that in taking that line we shall be supported by all those who, whilst not only upholding some particular religious opinion, feel with us that they are fighting for the religious freedom and well-being of the children of this country as a whole. The noble Lord the Marquess of Londonderry spoke of his determination to support the Church to which he belongs. The most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a speech of remarkable clearness and ability to which we all listened with delight, brought forward instances of the noble generosity of those who in upholding the belief of the Established Church had made gigantic sacrifices for that which they believed sacred to themselves and sacred to the well-being of the country at large. I did not mean to go into these points, and fortunately for the House, I have no statistics in my pocket, but I also could tell a story of the enormous sacrifices made by the members of my own creed. I could not quote such large sums because our population is not so large, and we have to struggle and work for perhaps the very poorest population in this country, and I think that is a very strong point. I have heard it said that in many board schools there has been adopted a system of discouraging the attendance of the rather ragged and dirty children of the extreme poor. If that is the case there may be good reasons for it, but our policy has been distinctly opposite to that, for we have tried to bring the benefits of education to the extreme poor who, after all, are the people who most need it. From poverty people are most likely to drift into crime and to become a curse to their country, and I challenge contradiction when I say that no religious body in this country has done more by going into the slums and rescuing children from the gutter and educating the children of the extreme poor, and placing within their reach the benefits of education, than the Catholics. In regard to this struggle against poverty and misery and sin, I venture to say that when the annals of education in this country come to be written as a whole, it will be found that in the most essential part of the
    970
    struggle the Catholics have been foremost in the fight.
    I apologise for having spoken at greater length than I intended, but I really wish to emphasise the fact that we believe that the great sacrifices we have made in the past are now in jeopardy, that the facilities dangled before us are absolutely futile for our own children, without some drastic reform, and that this is really a critical time for the souls of the children throughout the country. I implore your Lordships to consider that it rests with you to make it perfectly clear that if, for the reasons I and others have suggested, we do allow the Second Reading of this Bill to pass, we are determined when we meet in the autumn to face the responsibilities of the high trust we hold and take care that no single child in this country shall have its religion put in jeopardy.
    LORD BURGHCLERE: The House has heard with admiration the speech of the noble Duke who speaks with such authority for the Roman Catholics of the country. The country will be pleased that the noble Duke, who speaks for the Catholic Church, and the most reverend Primate, who speaks with equal authority for the Church of England—
    DUKE OF NORFOLK: I was not assuming any official position.
    LORD BURGHCLERE: I think the noble Duke has taken a very wise and moderate course in not moving the rejection of this Bill upon its Second Reading. But, taking into consideration the difficulties which always arise in this House from the late period of the session at which Bills of this description come before us, I nevertheless hope there will be time to ascertain what the opinion of the country itself is upon the measure which has been placed before us. Noble Lords have decided to put off until the Committee stage their objections to the various details of this measure, and I think that course is most right and just. I venture to think that it is always difficult for a speaker in your Lordships' House, when a great and widely-discussed measure such as this has been before the country and the House of Commons for

    971
    several months, to find even some nook or corner where the foot of the explorer has not already trod. But if it is difficult on ordinary occasions, it is still more difficult to-night after the lucid and exhaustive speech of the Lord President of the Council, who, to my mind, went minutely into the details of the Bill, and also to a great extent answered the objections which were subsequently brought against it.
    I listened, as your Lordships have listened, with great respect and attention to the two speeches which followed the speech of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. We have had a speech from the noble Marquess who represented the Board of Education in the last Government, and also a speech from the most rev. Primate who speaks with such authority for the Church of England. When I heard that they were to be the speakers who would follow the Lord President of the Council I thought at first that naturally the noble Marquess would deal with the lay side of the question, and that the most rev. Primate would deal with the clerical side. But after listening to the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate, to some extent at any rate it appeared to me that the positions were reversed. The noble Marquess, was at times, if I may venture to say so, even more clerical in his dealing with the Bill than the clericals themselves. The noble Marquess used very strong language with regard to the effects of the Bill on the Church of England, and it was language which he did not find in the speech of the most rev. Primate. The noble Marquess said the Bill was an attack upon the Established Church, that it would assist Nonconformists at the expense of the Church, and that the Bill was a stepping-stone towards disestablishment. I trust from the bottom of my heart that the Bill will not be a stepping-stone across that fateful river. I will, however, remind the noble Lord that the Bill of 1902 was, to my mind, one which, more than this measure, provided a stepping-stone which might lead more directly to disestablishment.
    One question was brought forward both by the most rev. Primate and by the noble Marquess with regard to the qualifi-
    972
    cations of teachers, which I venture to think did not seem to me to be entirely grasped. I agree with the noble Marquess and with the most rev. Primate that it would be almost a disastrous thing if the religious teaching in this country was given by teachers who did not believe in what they taught. At the same time, I venture to say that this Bill contains no such conditions as that. It is perfectly true that local authorities are not allowed under the Bill to impose-any religious test upon the teachers, but if the teacher is willing to undertake the religious teaching in the school, undoubtedly the local authorities will satisfy themselves that he is not unqualified to give that teaching, and if he-is unqualified they will be obliged to get someone else who is qualified to undertake it.
    The most rev. Primate pointed out how much money had been expended on the Church schools, and he asked if those schools were to be confiscated. I do not wish for a single moment to raise any polemical discussion in this House, but in another place the confiscation of these schools was one of the first complaints which were brought forward against the Bill, and subsequently those who preferred that charge came forward and demanded that these schools should be confiscated; if confiscation it be. I would also venture to point out that in any arrangement that is made between the provided schools and the local authorities it will be the fault of the owners of those schools, and their fault alone, if opportunities are not given for religious teaching on two days in the week. Then the most rev. Primate said that the appointment of the teachers should be in the hands of the parents.
    *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: What I said was that those who had local responsibilities in regard to the schools as managers or in any other capacities, ought to have, directly or indirectly, some voice in the appointment of the teachers.
    LORD BURGHCLERE: The most rev. Primate admits that the voice of the parents in this matter is beneficial.
    *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Indirectly.
    LORD BURGHCLERK: But have the parents nothing to do with the election of the local authorities, and can they not make their voices heard with regard to those local authorities with whom the appointment of the teachers finally rests? The most rev. Primate seemed to me—and I hope I am not misrepresenting him—to have a lingering desire to see once more the Act of 1870 established. It may be that the Act of 1870 was a good one, and that it might be beneficial at the present moment, but I would point out with all submission that it is impossible to restore the Act of 1870, because that Act was killed by the Act of 1902. Therefore after the Act of 1902 has been in operation, I venture to think it would be quite impossible to restore once again the Act of 1870. It is a truism, no doubt, but it is a matter which I will venture to comment upon. It was admitted by the most rev. Primate and by the noble Marquess that the Government in framing this Bill on this particular occasion, under the particular conditions existing, was confronted with great difficulties. I think it will also be admitted that those difficulties were not of their own making. I will also venture to say that they were not of their own seeking. But they arose from recent events in connection with the Act of 1902, and mainly from events which have taken place during the last 100 years. Of course, my Lords, if it were possible to make a tabula rasa of the whole education question, if we could remove all the accumulation of difficulties which religious strife and secular feeling has piled up around this question, it might be possible that the Government of the day could have formulated a measure which would have been perfect perhaps for one generation, and perhaps some years hence its imperfections might be found out. They might be found out twenty-five years hence under totally different conditions. In this case that was not possible, and the Government have had to deal with the facts as they are, and I venture to think that the merits and the demerits of this particular Bill arose from the necessity and the honest
    974
    necessity to endeavour to steer a safe course amid the many rocks which surrounded them during their voyage.
    The most rev. Primate referred to the past history of education in this country. He referred to the Bill of 1847, and to the attempt which was made upon this question by Mr. Bright, but I observe that the most rev. Primate never referred to what took place just 100 years ago when Mr. Whitbread brought in his Parochial Schools Bill in the House of Commons. What was the nature of the Bill which was brought in in that year? It was a Bill to place the whole education of this country upon the rates. It was a Bill to enable the State to take up education, and moreover, it was a measure which enabled Bible teaching, and practically Bible teaching alone, to be given in all the schools in the country. That Bill was rejected by your Lordships' House, and what was the result of that rejection? The result was that the education of this country was thrown upon voluntary agencies. In the first place the British and Foreign Schools Society took up the matter for several years, until a secession occurred which was the cause of the foundation of the National Society which exists up to the present day, and which was constituted in order that the children of the poor might be taught the principles of the Established Chuch. Those socieies went side by side, and it was the religious strife then stirred up which perhaps has given rise to all the subsequent difficulties. I venture to say that it was the rejection of Mr. Whit bread's Bill in 1807 that practically brought about the present religious difficulty because it meant that the State refused to take up the educational work of the country and left it to the voluntary system, and that was the origin of all the voluntary schools. Perhaps if the Bill had been passed the circumstances under which the Church of England was established would have been different from what they are to-day. If in the simpler religious atmosphere which existed at the commencement of the 19th century Bible teaching had been established in all the schools of the country by the State, I have not the slightest doubt that the great religious movement for which I myself

    975
    have the greatest respect would have brought about denominational teaching and you would have had at the present moment in all the schools, as well as in particular schools that have denominational teaching on certain occasions, the Bible teaching which you yourselves desire. But we have to deal with facts as they are. I only mention these historical facts because they occurred at the great crisis when religious education was rejected, and I trust from the bottom of my heart that this House will not now repeat that same mistake at a crisis which, to all those who desire to see religious teaching in this country, is, to my mind, a much more serious crisis than that of 1807.
    I have said that the Government were surrounded with difficulties in bringing in this Bill. Many suggestions have been made as to an alternative scheme, but I have never heard of one that was at all workable. It has been suggested hat we should have full popular control and, at the same time, adopt the policy of secularising the schools. In my opinion the secularisation of our schools is against the popular will of the country, because the people desire religious education in the schools and they desire to have a Christian education. My noble friend the Lord President pointed out that if you wanted an evidence of what the voice of the country was at the last general election you had it definitely placed before you by that overwhelming vote against the secular system of education the other day in the House of Commons. Who is it that wishes to have secular teaching in the place of what I would call Cowper-Templeism? For the moment I would put on one side those who do not believe in any religion whatever. How many of the parents are there who prefer to see secular education rather than the establishment of undenominational education in all our schools? I venture to say that they are a very small and unimportant section of the community. Of course I honour their consistency, and I admire their courage, and I venture to say that those who wish the children of this country to have any religious teaching at all, if they prefer secularism to religious education, are exhibiting a
    976
    courage of a very different type. I would ask if that is the final view of the Church at the present moment? Is that the view of the most rev. Primate? Is that the view of the larger portion of the Church of England at the present moment? Are they prepared to say that they would rather see secularism established in every school in the country than simple Bible teaching or Cowper-Templeism? If they are so prepared, all I can say is that I regret it, and they take a very great responsibility upon themselves, for it would be difficult and almost impossible, if the Church of England demanded that secular teaching should be given in every school, for the Government of the day to take it upon themselves to resist it. If, on the other hand, they do desire undenominational teaching, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot denounce this Bill on the one hand because it institutes Cowper-Templeism, and on the other hand with the same breath denounce secularism. The choice is solely between undenominational teaching on the one hand and secularism on the other. The country resists secularism and chooses religious teaching, and therefore it is not necessary for us to have an alternative scheme to the Government Bill.
    It has been said,—and I admit that it is a very plausible and attractive argument —that all denominations should have the right of entry into these schools, so that every denomination might have its own particular teacher. That argument has an attractive side, but I would ask your Lordships to consider whether such a proposition is workable. Is it possible? Would it not, on the one hand, disorganise the schools of the country, and on the other hand tend, in a great measure, to destroy the discipline that at present exists in the schools? I venture to say that it is unworkable, because if you admit one sect you must admit all the sects, and in the large majority of the schools of this country there are not sufficient separate rooms in which the teaching of these sects could take place. It would destroy the discipline of the schools, because you would be importing an untrained teacher to give the particular denominational instruction desired. I heard the other day in Birmingham of an instance where this

    977
    provision had been, to a certain extent, tried, and when the teacher came in to give the denominational instruction the discipline of the school was so thoroughly upset that they had to call in the regular teacher to keep order whilst his untrained colleague was explaining the religious teaching which he had come to offer them. How are you going to carry that out in schools where there are several sects? How are you going to provide enough permanent teachers in the country to keep order while the untrained teacher comes in to explain the particular teaching which he is going to give? I venture to think, my Lords, as I have said before, that the right of entry into the schools is a rather attractive proposal, but it is unworkable, and we may at once dismiss that solution of the problem.
    Then it has been proposed that we should return to the dual system which existed in this country before 1902, —that we should return to the system of board schools on the one hand and voluntary schools on the other. I venture to say that the Bill of 1902 which placed the voluntary schools on the rates for the first time has now made it absolutely impossible for us to revert to the system that existed prior to that date. What remains? I venture to say that this and this only remains—we should have also the dual system of management; we should make Cowper-Temple teaching universal in the schools, with special facilities for those denominational bodies who wish denominational teaching, within school hours, at the expense of the denomination, in all transferred voluntary schools; and give, moreover, extended facilities where all or at any rate the greater part of the children and their parents belong to one particular denomination alone. Those are the two principles of the present Bill, and I venture to think, in the absence of a more moderate arrangement of the religious difficulty between the various churches concerned, that this solution is the only practical one that I, for my part, have seen put forward. You will say it is a compromise. Of course it is a compromise. It is impossible in this country, with all its past history and all that has been built up, to reverse in a moment all that has gone before. Every measure of this
    978
    sort must be a compromise, and even compromises have their advantages. The Bill of 1870 was a compromise which lasted for thirty years. The Bill of 1902 was a compromise, and how many years did it last? How many years was it likely to last? Like all other compromises, this Bill does not completely satisfy either party in the matter. For my own part, the fact that both Parties find something to complain of suggests to me, at any rate, that the Government have been steering a middle, a right, and a judicious course.
    I have heard complaints made to-night and before to the effect that if you go to the very root of this Bill you will find vital objections. In the first place, the most rev. Primate said that local authorities need not take over voluntary schools at all, and that therefore the voluntary schools that existed at the present moment, that is, the non-provided schools, would not be taken over by the local authorities. Now, if there is one complaint I remember hearing about the Bill of 1902 from the farmers of this country it was that it very materially raised the rates, but I venture to think that if the local authorities were to refuse in all the rural parishes to take over a school which was fit and proper for the teaching of the children, and commenced setting up and building new schools, they would soon hear complaints from the ratepayers which would very speedily drive them from the position they were taking up. Therefore, it comes to this, that in those schools it rests with the owners whether denominational teaching is to be carried on. As I understand the Bill, I believe I am right in saying that it rests with the owners of those schools to make their own terms with the local authorities as to whether two days a week should be given to denominational teaching or not. I believe there are about 8,000 single school districts in the country which have non- provided or voluntary schools. I have often heard it put forward as a reason why we should pay special attention to the maintenance of voluntary schools in these villages, that since the year 1870 the Nonconformist bodies have never taken upon themselves the obligation

    979
    of building schools, and therefore in those villages a difficulty has arisen which it is impossible to avoid and which, after all, is the main crux of this Bill. That is the difficulty which exists in regard to Nonconformists who say that they are forced to send their children to denominational schools where they have to listen to tenets of which they do not approve. That is not the fault of the Nonconformists, but it is largely the fault of the Act of 1870, which, as the most rev. Primate pointed out, was an Act in favour of voluntary schools and in no way in favour of other schools. That Act gave priority to voluntary organisations. Time was allowed in order that voluntary schools might be built in various areas of the country and grants were made towards the building of those schools. At the same time it was laid down under the Act that no other schools should be established in those various areas where already voluntary schools existed to meet the requirements of the children. How, then, can you say it is the fault of the Nonconformists in these various villages that during all this time they have never built schools of their own? And how can you say that they are at all to blame for the existence of voluntary schools everywhere in these villages at the present moment?
    Another objection which has been particularly brought against this Bill is that it will establish Cowper-Temple teaching in all the voluntary schools. We are told that that teaching is incomplete; we are told by some that it is the establishment of a new religion. I venture to ask how can you call undenominational teaching a religion? You might as well call the foundation of a house the house that has been built upon it. Undenominational teaching is the foundation upon which you can erect teaching, whether it be that of a temple, a church, or a chapel. I venture also to think that elementary Christian teaching is especially adapted to elementary schools. I admit at once that Roman Catholics may regard this Cowper-Templeism with a different eye from other Christian sects. I observed the other day—and it shows how broad
    980
    is this basis of undenominational teaching—that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education told us in the House of Commons that he knew of Catholic teachers in board schools who, at the present moment, gave undenominational teaching to the children with satisfaction to themselves and satisfaction to the children of the parents, and without any harm to their own religion. The other day the most rev. Primate initiated a debate of great importance with regard to the syllabuses which, at the present moment, are used in the various undenominational schools, and on that occasion I ventured to suggest, with all humility, that surely the time had come, if it was admitted that you are to have undenominational teaching in all our schools, when sectarian rivalries might be set aside, when the representatives of the Church of England and the Free Churches might meet together and issue a syllabus which would be accepted as a satisfactory foundation, and a Christian foundation, by all sides. I know it has been said that this is impossible; it has been said that we wish to enforce a compulsory syllabus upon all the schools of the country. For my part I really cannot see why the State should not take upon itself the duty of formulating a syllabus for all the schools of the country in the same way as the London School Board issued a syllabus which-was agreed to by both Churchmen and Nonconformists. But if that be impossible I will withdraw that suggestion and ask why you should not form a model syllabus which has the assent of both Nonconformists and Churchmen which might be issued to all the schools. I think if a syllabus of that description came with such authority behind it it would undoubtedly be accepted by nine-tenths of the schools of the country. I observed in the papers yesterday a letter from various Nonconformists, gentlemen of great authority, representing all the various Free Churches in which they said that they were perfectly willing that the Bible teaching in our schools should be read in the light of the Apostles' Cread. In the syllabuses of the country at the present moment you have the history portion of the Old and New Testaments, the Decalogue.

    981
    the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the Parables and the Miracles of the New Testament. Now, if these form the portion of our Christian religion which is to be read in the light of the Apostles' Creed, surely you could not have a surer foundation upon which to build in after time the higher dogmas of the different creeds.
    We are told that the Bill is unjust. I am told that facilities are not given in provided schools. I am told that it would be a just Bill if you gave the same facilities in the board schools and the provided schools as it is proposed to give in non-provided schools. Those facilities have not been given for thirty years past and they have not been asked for; 30,000,000 of Christian children have been educated without them, and I challenge anyone to show that any definite accusation has been brought that any single one of those children has suffered in his or her religious education on that account. These schools were not affected by the Bill of 1902. The Bill which is brought in to-day is a corrollary of the Bill of 1902. The voluntary schools, on the other hand, and the non-provided schools, were affected by the Bill of 1902. They were put on the rates, and the problem the Government had to meet was not to bring about some new system in all the schools of the country, but how justly to settle the difficulty which had been created by putting the denominational schools on the rates. They propose to settle that question in this Bill and to settle it justly. We are giving public control over public money, and without infringing on the rights of any denominational schools. They are able to have two days a week for their denominational teaching. That is the only problem before the country, and that is why the non-provided schools have been left out. They are schools which have been for thirty years past excepted with general consent and I venture to think with general approval. I contend that this Bill meets this particular difficulty. It gives denominational teaching on two days in the week in schools that were denominational before. Where four-fifths of the parents of the children demand it the Bill gives denominational teaching and denomina
    982
    tional teachers with the denominational atmosphere which has been asked for by those who support that demand. Moreover, it provides that should the local authority in any way take an arbitrary line, and refuse to take over these four-fifths schools, there is an appeal to the Board of Education who may step in and give relief by making that school a state-aided school.
    In conclusion, I venture to ask, can it be said, in view of the great difficulties which the Government had to encounter that this is an unjust Bill? It is not a perfect Bill; what Bill is perfect? It is a Bill which possibly may be amended. Every Bill may receive Amendments except the Bill which the noble Marquess opposite was concerned with in 1902, when no Amendments were allowed in this House. It meets the-demand which was made at the last general election; it does away with the injustices which were brought about by the Act of 1902. It does away with all those injustices without substituting others. If that is true, and holding, as I do, that it is the only practical solution which can be applied to this vexed question which is of the highest national importance, I venture to hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill and that it will ultimately become the law of the land.
    *THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships for taking up the time of the House at this early stage of the debate, but my excuse is the Resolution which stands in my name, and which, as your Lordships no doubt are aware, I do not intend, to press. The Resolution which I have placed upon the Paper is in the following terms—
    "That this House, before asserting to the Second Reading, desires to express its opinion that the system of public education in this country should be confined to instruction in secular subjects, and that facilities should be provided in all State schools, within school hours, but not at the public charge, for religious-teaching in accordance with the wishes of the parents of the children."
    May I at the same time ask your Lordships' kind indulgence—an indulgence which has always been granted to those who, like myself, have taken little or no part in the debates in your Lordships'

    983
    House. I hope that, although the Resolution which I have placed upon the Paper has found no favour on either side of the House, nothing which I shall say will be misconstrued or in any way give offence to noble Lords on either side. In suggesting such a Resolution of a secular character I should like to explain, if I may, that it is not my intention to belittle the importance of keeping religion alive in this country. But it is in order to remove religious discussions from the sphere of politics that I have placed this Resolution on the Paper. When an Education Bill is brought before the country, we hear practically very little of its educational side. The educational side of education appears to be of no importance whatever, although perhaps that seems somewhat contradictory. The part of the Bill which is discussed in every shape and form is that which deals with religious instruction. The reason, why I placed this Resolution on the Paper is that I wish to make the State fair and just to all its subjects of whatever denomination. If I was to begin from the beginning of education in this country, I am afraid I should be told by noble Lords opposite that I am prejudiced, because we must all admit that it was the Church of England which first gave education in this country, and it is just because the Church of England occupies that strong position to-day which it inconsequence deserves that there is a strong feeling hostile to that great position, and it is for that reason too that Churchmen are prepared to fight for what they consider to be their rights. I do not ask for more justice for them than other denominations ask for themselves. All I ask is that the scheme which is embodied in the terms of my Resolution may at all events so present itself, even if not approved by your Lordsips' House, that in the years to come it may be the foundation-stone of a State secular system which will give an equal welcome to all religious denominations. I notice that in another place this subject was discussed, and I am aware that it would be useless for me to say that in the House of Commons the secular education Resolution met with approbation. I have always felt that so long as we attempt to build Education Bill upon Education Bill we shall fail.
    984
    What I want and what I very respectfully ask the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, to consider is whether it would not have been far more practicable to have wiped out all the old systems beginning with the Act of 1870,and to have introduced a system which would have taken no thought and consideration for existing conditions. There are many arguments in favour of the establishment of the State system. I am not prepared, and it would be bold of me to attempt to do so, to give in detail any suggestion of any of the schemes of such a system. It is a matter of indifference to me, so far as I can understand it personally, whether religious instruction is given by specially qualified teachers, under an education authority, or whether the right of entry is given to clergymen of various denominations. But one thing, my Lords, we must bear in mind that all these concessions will be of no value whatever unless we insist that religious instruction shall take place within school hours. It is no use saying that children can go and play outside when religious instruction is being given. It is no use saying that even a moral code of instruction of which we have heard so much, is sufficient. It is no use making any of these concessions; you must either say that no religious instruction can be given in a school at all, or you must give equal facilities to all those who represent various classes of His Majesty's subjects. I know that in this House we have had the rare privilege of listening to the brilliant speech, if I may respectfully say so, of the most rev. Primate. If there was any Member of this House who in any way underrated the importance of religious instruction, after that speech he would have been entirely converted; but may I say that I am certain that in the future this Act of 1906, whether it is amended in Committee or not, will have to give way to a much wider and more far-reaching Act at no very distant date?
    I have trespassed very considerably upon your Lordships' time, but I wish to say, before I conclude, that I noticed in one of the leading journals which was kind enough to give me some notice that one exception which that journal took to my suggestion was that I asserted the rights of parents

    985
    and ignored the rights of teachers. Now, I venture to say that the rights of parents and the rights of teachers are hardly to be mentioned in the same breath. The right of parents to have their children educated in whatever faith they like is one which I think no Member of your Lordships' House will deny. It is for that very reason that I feel that the principle which this Bill embodies will prevent many of the most sacred ideals which generations of Englishmen have held most dear being realised. I do not wish, and it would be out of place on my part to presume to dictate to your Lordships whether I think this or that point has been neglected. Although I withdraw my Resolution and do not even press it for discussion, I do so not because I have lost conviction in regard to the principle which it embodies, but because I think I shoud be very grievously wasting the valuable time of your Lordships' House by pressing it, and I fear that the time as it is is far too short fairly to discuss the important measure which is now before the House. It is said that this scheme of secularising all schools of the State would cost much more money; we are also told that it would cost too much to take over all the voluntary schools. But is that not an admission that voluntary schools have rights, and not only have they rights of conscience but rights of property? Whatever happens in the future I hope the Government will make up its mind to go to the expense of taking over the voluntary schools and making them State schools, thus taking education out of the hands of local authorities, and placing it in the hands of a central body or department. Whatever may be the ultimate decision it would be quite easy if, instead of dividing the country into local areas, it was divided into educational districts, under the control of the head office at Whitehall or wherever else it might be. I know my scheme is unworkable under existing conditions, but I feel certain that the time will come, and I feel sure we shall live to see that time, or at all events the next generation will see it. when all education will be national, and when this religious dissension which is so painful and which has made religion a subject of electoral addresses
    986
    and has caused it to be dragged into the contest of the polling booth, will cease.
    There are only two more remarks which I have to make — the first is than in the Army school regulations in Section 65 provision is made for the clergymen of various denominations, at hours at the discretion of the commanding officer, to come in and give religious instruction. I should like to know why that system which prevails in the Army schools cannot be extended to schools of another character. Finally, my Lords, I will, with every respect to your Lordships' House, add this one remark. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill wound up his speech by saying that he hoped the time would come when differences would cease between the various sections of those who are in disagreement over this particular Bill. All I say is that so long as this religious controversy is made the subject of Party politics, so long as measures of the kind now before your Lordships' House are introduced into Parliament, so long will religious dissension and acrimonious discussions continue. It is no use crying "Peace, Peace," when we know full well there is no. peace for those who prize liberty of conscience. I apologise to the House for detaining your Lordships for so long.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: I make bold to intervene in this debate not, I hope, without justification. Speaking in the name of my diocese, and unless I did that I should hold my peace, I may state the fact that the diocese of St. Asaph has done much, and if this Bill as it stands becomes law would suffer much, in the cause of education. In 1870, Mr. Forster said that if all the country had been as well equipped with schools as the diocese of St. Asaph was, it might have been unnecessary for Parliament then to intervene. A further testimony to the work done in that diocese was given by Mr. Gladstone when in 1873 he opposed the formation of a school board in the parish of Hawarden, because he preferred voluntary and free action where it was possible. A study of educational progress in Wales reveals how large a part these voluntary efforts of Churchmen formed in creating and stimulating that educational zeal for which the Principality

    987
    is now conspicuous. And Churchmen in Wales may feel an honest pride in the fact that their sacrifices and generosity have not been sectional, and that the Intermediate Schools and University Colleges of to-day have drawn the bulk of their donations and subscriptions from Churchmen. The Bill now before your Lordships' House lends fresh emphasis to what I have said. Part III. is hardly an integral part of the Bill but an appendix, which by its very independence and detachment marks with gratitude the efforts of Wales in this and other causes. As a Welshman therefore in discussing this Bill, I turn first to this postscript in which for Welshmen lies a differential interest.
    I approach the discussion of Part III. with an open mind. Its supposed authorship must not be laid either to its credit or discredit. If it can be proved that Part III. is for the best interest of education in Wales, it would be unjust to withhold support by reason of some supposed taint in its parentage. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that a Central Board for Welsh Intermediate Education was formed under the provisions of the Act of 1889, the functions of this Board being to provide and pay for the examination and inspection of the county schools, the organisation of a pension scheme, the collection and circulation of educational information, and the arranging of conferences of governing bodies or of teachers. It may fairly be urged that we have here a precedent and an example for constituting a somewhat similar body to deal with education of all kinds in Wales. A farther indication, if not confirmation, of the application of a like principle may be found in the Act of 1902 (17 (5)), which enables county councils to unite for the forming of a Joint Education Committee, So far for precedents.
    I now come to the much more difficult question of the general acceptance in Wales of the principle involved in Part III. It is true that the following resolution was adopted at Cardiff last March—
    "That this Conference is of opinion that it is expedient to create a Council for Wales, respecting Welsh Education Authorities, which
    988
    shall have powers to supply, and to aid the supply of education of all kinds in Wales and Monmouthshire."
    That resolution, while accepting the principle, did not of course in any way commit its supporters to the acceptance of Part III. in the present Bill. Personally I must frankly say that at Cardiff I was not able to go beyond the suggestion that a Committee should be formed to consider whether "the formation of such a National Council was expedient." I should be tampering with accuracy if I led the House to believe that Churchmen in Wales were unanimously in favour of such a Council. They are absolutely unanimous in support of any proposal which would further the interests of education. But it would be idle to conceal the fact that a large section in Wales, by no means confined to Churchmen, view this proposal with a distrust which is not unnatural. It is matter of common knowledge that the authorship of Part III. is attributed to the President of the Board of Trade. It may be within the recollection of the House that three years ago an attempt was made to bring about an educational concordat in the diocese of St. Asaph. In these and subsequent negotiations I found the President to be a man whose word I could trust, and one who showed throughout a readiness to reciprocate a spirit of concession and generosity. Having said this of the leader, I am equally bound to give my opinion of his followers of whom I have an intimate experience in Wales. The extreme section—you have their affinities in England—approach this question in a narrow and a persecuting spirit, and I say without hesitation that fair-minded men in Wales view with misgivings the bare possibility of handing over education to those who would impart into its management the destructive elements of bias and bitterness. While, therefore, I recognise that this proposal is not without relevant precedents to support it, I am not prepared to say that as it stands the people of Wales are unanimously in its favour.
    Apart from considerations which may be regarded as personal or ephemeral, Part III. raises questions of a constitutional character. These have not received due

    989
    discussion in another place. Devolution is involved in this proposal, but that does not in itself condemn the proposal. If there is to be devolution, then one thing must be made secure. The question of responsibility must be established on intelligible lines. The bottom fact in all these proposals is money, and it may be well to remind the House that the total education grants under this proposal which would be handed over to the Council amount to £800,000 a year. Part III. therefore involves the transference of great financial responsibilities. One aspect of this problem can be illustrated from actual experience in Wales. The practice of the Welsh Central Board raised the question of dual responsibility. They claimed that the Art and Science grants should be paid over to them, and allocated upon the results of the examinations held by their own Welsh inspectors. The Board of Education held that they were responsible to Parliament for the money, and that they therefore must be responsible for the examination which determined its allocation. The result was friction between two sets of inspectors, and the undoubted fact that the inspection by the Board of Education was more searching, and the standard more uniform, than that of the inspectors appointed by the Welsh Central Board. It is obvious that as long as the Board of Education were responsible for the grants they must be responsible for the rules and examinations by which the grants were distributed. The same principle applies to the Welsh Council with even greater force, because the interests involved are much larger.
    The Bill proposes that Parliament shall, in each year, pay to the Council of Wales these grants which amount to £800,000. That proposal as it stands is, to my mind, impossible. If the Treasury pay the grants, what responsibility can they undertake for their distribution? According to the Bill, the powers and duties of the Board of Education are to be transferred to the Welsh Council. Therefore the Welsh Council will dictate the rules and provide the inspection for the distribution of these grants. What power of supervision or control is left to the Treasury? For example, they will have no power
    990
    and no duty, to receive or decide any complaint made by a particular district, or by one type of school, or by individual schools, as to the allocation of the grants by the Welsh Council. This proposal eliminates any possibility of an adequate control by the Board of Education, and the report to Parliament which the President of the Board of Education could render would be the shadowy result of a general impression. If then the Welsh Council are to have full control of these grants they must have full control over the administration. I have stated this difficulty somewhat fully, because it can only be met by a solution which involves constitutional considerations. The debate in another place made clear that these powers and duties cannot be transferred to the Welsh Council while at the same time attaching responsibility to the Board of Education. What is the solution offered? That a Minister, not the President of the Board of Education, be appointed who shall have financial responsibility and financial control, and that this Minister should have complete responsibility for the Code—in other words, for the regulations by which the grants were to be distributed. For Welsh education, then, there will have to be all the arrangement and the staff which such a Ministry necessitates. The financial outlay under this head will be very considerable. And most important of all, if you are going to have this separate Ministry for Education in Wales, are you going to, and can you if you wish, stop there? By "devolution" I understand power delegated by a ruler who still remains ruler. This proposal on the other hand is described as "autonomy" which certainly means sometime more than delegation. By an "autonomous" community I understand a community subject only to its own laws. It seems to me that "devolution" might improve local efficiency, while leaving the ultimate and controlling authority intact. But "autonomy" represents a disintegrating process, which will not stop there. But there are other difficulties in this proposal for a Welsh Minister of Education. He is not to be a Welsh Minister of Education only; he is to be Secretary to the Treasury. By tacking on the Welsh appointment to some other

    991
    appointment, you bring in again the dual difficulty. Furthermore we are told that appeals with regard to the question of unnecessary schools, and the question of facilities, cannot be safely trusted to the Welsh Council, or to the Minister, and therefore they are to go to the Board of Education. Here again you let in the difficulty of dual jurisdiction.
    I have touched upon the question of responsibility; let me add a word upon that of finance. If the Council is established, with a Welsh Minister of Education, with full responsibility for code and finance, by what standard are the grants paid to Wales to be regulated? It is clear that Wales will have to establish its own standard, and that the English Treasury will have to provide any supplementary estimates which the Welsh Minister recommends. The creation of a new rating authority in Wales also raises a very difficult point, and I am not at all clear that Wales is unanimous in desiring the creation of such an authority.
    I must apologise to the House for the length with which I have dealt with this question. My one anxiety in doing so has been to regard the question simply from the point of view of the interests of Welsh education. I am not prepared to condemn the principle of a large measure of devolution, provided such a measure safeguards a just administration, and secures efficiency with economy.
    When I pass to the general provisions of the Bill, I recognise that the Act of 1902, while dealing with a very large part of the education problem, did not, as Mr. Balfour himself said in another place, solve the whole, and I believe that the country at the last election made it clear that the questions of control and tests could not remain where the Act of 1902 left them. Any just criticism of this Bill must begin with its historical context, because the controversies of to-day have their roots deep in the past. The main controversies touching the present Bill turn upon the religious question. How was this question left by the Act of 1870? The compromise of 1870 recognised voluntary schools as public elementary schools, while from the rate-aided schools all Catechisms and distinctive formularies were excluded. Let us suppose
    992
    for a moment that in 1870 the State had refused such recognition, and that the voluntary schools, as such, had ceased to exist. Does any reasonable man imagine that such a restriction upon religious liberty as the Cowper-Temple clause would ever have been entertained? What, therefore, we are now asked to do is to tear up the compromise of 1870 and to enforce only that half of the bargain which was alien to Churchmen and acceptable to Nonconformists. That request seems to me unjust, and indeed, the cause of the inconsistencies, the contradictions, and the artful injustices that characterise Part I. of this Bill. Clearly if the religious question is to here-opened, a permanent settlement can only be secured by going back to first principles. It cannot be said that the present Bill does that. The last thing which this Bill suggests in its treatment of the religious question is the idea, of principle.
    Upon one point the verdict of country was clear. If ever the country gave a precise mandate it did so at the last election against a secular system of education. If, then, religious instruction is to have a place in our public elementary schools, it ought to be an honoured place. This Bill on the other hand, by its restrictions and prohibitions, treats religious instruction as a negligible quantity. Imagine arithmetic being treated as a subject which the teachers, need not teach, the authorities need not provide for, and the pupils need not learn. What would the mathematics of the next generation be like? I cannot believe that character is less important than mathematics. It may be contended that this Bill, by selecting one form of religious instruction which, can be taught at the public expense, adequately satisfies the claims of religion. It seems to me that the imperfections and illogicalities of undenominationalism have been fully and unanswerably demonstrated. Of the many inconsistencies in this Bill one of the most glaring is its treatment of the dual system. The first clause of the Bill apparently puts an end to the dual system, and yet the Bill establishes practically four types of schools—the old provided school, with its Cowper-Templeism, the transferred

    993
    school with its ordinary facilities, the transferred with its extended facilities, and the state-aided school, which is able to contract itself out of all the disabilities inflicted by this Bill.
    The Bill has, by almost universal consent, established its title to one epithet. It is an unjust Bill. How could it be otherwise? Its framers have listened to those who in the past have made little, if any, sacrifice in the interest of popular education, and who appear to see in this educational controversy an opportunity for the furtherance of political designs, and for the indulgence of sectarian animosities. Little wonder that the Bill follows a tortuous course under such guidance, and the interests of education are merely used as a screen behind which an ugly blow may be dealt at the Church of England. To those who are importing this vindictive spirit into our legislation I am tempted to quote Shakespeare's warning—
    " Heat not a furnace for your foes so hot that it so singe yourself."
    Criticism of such a measure is indeed easy. One fact stands out beyond all question: if this Bill passes in anything like its present shape, so far from settling the problem, it will leave it in a more inflamed condition than ever. My great objection to this Bill is that it does not move upon the lines of any intelligible principle. The ink of the clauses in which a uniform system of public control and the abolition of tests are provided is scarcely dry before some limiting and restricting clause is introduced. Personally I venture with great respect to express a hope that the Amendments in this Bill will indicate a clear line of principle.
    Now, it may be said, have you any alternative to suggest? I recognise that the claim for justice becomes stronger when it is not only critical but constructive. We desire a policy of fair play for all and privilege for none. The rich man determines the faith to be taught to his child; the poor man must have the same right. The starting point of any just settlement must be that of equal rights for all parents. Is the State to teach relig on? Justice answers this question clearly. Either the State must teach all religions, or none. The first plan, although fair and
    994
    defensible, is impracticable. There remains the other alternative, that the State is not to pay for the teaching of any religion, but to give the fullest freedom and toleration to parents and denominations to provide at their own cost the religious instruction desired by the parents of the children. This is a facility to which no objection can be taken in a free country. The instruction must be given in school hours, and the teachers must be permitted if they like, to give it. I need not point out that such a scheme is poles asunder from secularism.
    I have not touched upon the questions of property or of trusts. Common justice can urge the strongest objections to the provisions of the Bill in regard to both. But the main and sustaining motive of Churchmen through the whole length of this bitter controversy has been the one desire to make sure that the children of this country shall be "virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a Christian, life." That is no ignoble motive. In this, too, they represent the expressed verdict of their countrymen. The gravest indictment of this Bill is the unanswerable fact that it places religion in a position of humiliation. It selects for recognition and endowment a form of religious instruction which may vary from little to nothing, and it places this unsatisfying residuum outside the compulsory hours of attendance. If those who are responsible for this measure were really in earnest in a desire to secure religious instruction in our schools, would they have gone out of their way to enact that that vast army of teachers who are the most competent to give religious instruction, and the most influential to impress it upon the mind of the child, shall be forbidden, even when willing and desirous, to take part in that teaching which they have hitherto regarded as their highest privilege?
    For about the space of four years this land has resounded with big, swelling words about conscience and priestly tyranny. In the name of liberty the Government have composed a Bill which intrudes upon the realms of conscience and ignore every principle which deserves the name of liberal. The noble Earl the President of the Council said, in a speech marked, if I may say so, by great moderation and seriousness, that the

    995
    question of religious instruction was greater in importance than any other question that now occupies public attention. But, my Lords, I ask, how have the authors of this Bill treated religion in our schools? They have first of all torn off from her sacred form those robes in which saints and apostles have clothed her, and then they have thrust her out as a dishonoured guest into a shabby anteroom, where even those attendants who would, as of old, render her willing service are forbidden any longer to do so. It seems to me that such treatment is intended only to be temporary and preparatory to the complete exclusion of religion from our elementary schools. And this comes from those who claim to have a mandate against secularism. It is possible that this Bill may find a place among the written laws of this land. But, unless the people of this country have changed their character, it cannot stay there long, because it transgresses that unwritten law of justice, established on high, which is not of to-day or of yesterday, but lives for ever.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I hope, my Lords, the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph will pardon me if I decline to follow him into the region of priestly tyranny, or to discuss a possible Minister for Wales, a dual control for Wales, a council for Wales or how the staff for Wales is to be paid; and if I venture, as a dweller in the right rev. Prelate's diocese, to express great regret that he should have thought it necessary in your Lordship's House to call attention to what he has been pleased to term the narrow and persecuting spirit and the bias and the bitterness of the extreme section of that great Liberal Party to which it is my pride and privilege to belong. If the House will permit me, I should like for a few moments to call attention to the speech delivered to-night by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. That speech was a great speech, insistent with sincerity, with dignity, and with conviction, worthy of his most sacred office, worthy of the occasion, and worthy of the great hereditary House in which it was delivered; but all through it there seemed to run a curious note, difficult to define, but rising and falling like the leit motif in
    996
    Lohengrin, ever present like those great Australian rivers which rise to the surface and disappear again into the earth and discharge themselves into the unknown sea.
    It seemed to me in that speech, if I may be permitted to say so, there was an inability to judge the depth, the sincerity, and the reality of the Liberal and Radical Party with regard to this great question of education. [A laugh.] I expected that laugh. I know it is always said, and it has been said to-night, I think by Lord Londonderry, that we are not agreed on our policy as regards this important question. Well, my Lords, that may be so in matters of detail, I acknowledge. But these huge majorities that we have had in another place show that on the three main principles of the Bill, which have been so well explained by the Lord President of the Council—that we must have religious and not secular education, that there must be public control where public money is spent, and that there must be for teachers abolition of religious tests—on these three great points, I say without fear of contradiction there is no practical difference amongst us of any sort, description, or kind. I should be the last to deny the great and good work that the Church of England has done for the cause of education. Whatever opinions we may have of what the Church has done in days gone by, it is, I think, an absolute truth that Church people in their laudable endeavour to provide schools for the children of this country have done what a great many people have done who dabble in bricks and mortar, that is, they have overbuilt themselves. In consequence of that comes the intolerable strain and the absolute impossibility of maintaining the schools which they have built. I will take a single instance. I live in a small manufacturing town of about 25,000 people, mostly a poor artizan population. There is a voluntary Church school managed by the clergyman of the parish —a man not nominated in any way, but selected by his parishioners, and the selection is confirmed by the patron of the parish. He is a man of godly and saintly life, he is very popular amongst his parishioners, and

    997
    his school is extremely well conducted in every way. To keep that school going costs £1,270 a year, and the voluntary contributions come to £158 a year, or a little under one-eighth of the whole expense. And that was called a voluntary school. Now the most rev. Primate called attention in his speech, I think, to three London schools—the St. John's school, and I think the St. Michael's school, and the Brook Street school at Kennington. As regards the St. John's school the most rev. Primate said that it would require £1,200 for necessary repairs. As regards the St. John's school, I think, although I have not had time to verify it, that the material condition, whatever the moral atmosphere may be, leaves something to be desired. The most rev. Primate told us that he was afraid parents would not ask for extended facilities. This is a Church school, I believe one of the best of the many well-managed schools of London. An excellent clergyman— a High Church clergyman, I believe— has direction of the school, and is very popular and very much respected in the neighbourhood. What is the reason why the most rev. Primate is afraid that parents will not ask for extended facilities? He also told us that children passed the council schools to go to the Brook Street school. Any man who has had anything to do with London life knows very well that there are thousands and even tens of thousands of children who pass voluntary schools every day of the week to go to council schools. Why is that? I do not think there is any denominational reason in it—none whatever. The fact is that some of the schools are more popular than other schools. Some teachers are more popular, more respected, and more loved by the children than other teachers.
    I now come to another point. The London County Council was given entire management and control of the schools in London. I am not going to argue whether that is right or wrong. When these schools were given over the first thing that the Education Committee did was to send their inspectors and valuers round to see what the material conditions of those schools was. Amongst those schools there were 113 schools which were in no way suitable for the
    998
    purpose, and they were put on one side. Out of 438 Church schools there were 318 the drains of which were unsatisfactory, and of that number 109 were in a very dangerous state, thirty-seven were in a very serious case, and in twenty-one cases the managers refused to allow the county authority to make any inspection whatever. Therefore we do not know what the state of those twenty-one schools was, but I may say that out of the 109 schools which were described as very dangerous for the children to be taught in, eighty-two belonged to the Church of England and accommodated 35,500 little children. If that is the state of things, and it was proved in the Council itself last Tuesday week, I ask, is it a state of things which ought to be allowed to continue, and with which it can honestly be said that it is criminal and almost sacrilegious to interfere? We have been told by the right rev. Prelate that this Bill is a gross breach of the agreement entered into in 1870, and I think I am right when I say that the Archbishop applauded that statement. What was the agreement of 1870? It was, first, that the board schools should supplement the voluntary schools.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And not supplant.
    EARL CARRINGTON: The second thing was that voluntary schools were to receive generous grants and give denominational teaching without rate aid; and, thirdly, that the board schools were to get rate aid, but that religious education, if any, must be undenominational. What did the new arrangement of 1902 do? The Tory party put the voluntary schools on the rates, but, my Lords, they violated the prime condition that all rate-aided schools must be undenominational. That was done by the Act of 1902. What does this ' Criminal Bill ' do? It simply restores the agreement come to by the members of the Church of England, by the members of the Holy Catholic Church, by the Nonconformists, by the Jews, by Liberals and by Tories alike, that if you accept rates you accept undenominational teaching. We have heard several times to-night what this Bill really is. Of course it has the three great principles

    999
    which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. It gives full public control, it abolishes religious tests, and it insists on religious instead of secular education. Rant can be paid for all the Church schools that we propose to take over. Religious education is to be taught on two days a week in some of the schools and every day of the week in others.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May be taught; not is to be taught.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I am very much obliged for the correction. What is insisted upon in the Bill, as I understand, is simple religious teaching which, to most of us, means the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles' Creed—the simple religious teaching that we have learnt at our mothers' knees. [A noble LORD: It is not in the Bill.] Religious education can be taught on two days a week at some schools and every day in the week in others.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Out of school hours.
    EARL CARRINGTON: Church schools are to be kept in repair and are only to be required from 9.45 a.m. to 5 p.m. for five days in the week. These schools are at the disposal of the owners the whole of Saturday, the whole of Sunday, and every evening, subject to the occasional use of the building for evening schools, and this, my Lords, is called robbery and spoliation. I have one more word to say. It is idle to deny that our task is a difficult and delicate one; but, after all, difficulties are opportunities, and this opportunity the Liberal Government is determined to seize and to go through with its great work. It may be that some of us before our task is accomplished may go down in the stress of the fight and our comrades may place us on their shields and bear us shoulder high to that great Eternity which all must face; but, surely of us it may be said, as was said of our fathers who have gone before, "these Christian Liberal and Radical men and women have not lived and fought and died in vain."
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that no such tragic fate as the noble Earl in the closing words of his speech seemed to anticipate awaits him in the discussions on this Bill. The worst that can happen, my Lords, is that instead of being a very bad Bill, it may be made a little better. It will be the work of your Lordships' House to try to bring that about. But before I enter upon that matter let me say one or two words about the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Earl told us that the Liberal Party to which he is proud to belong are agreed at any rate about general principles. I believe that the Liberal Party are only agreed about general principles because they imperfectly understand them. Let us consider for a moment what is the sort of general principles to which the noble' Earl refers. He spoke of liberty of conscience. Whose conscience? Has he or the Liberal Party thought of that? Is it the conscience of the teacher or the conscience of the child—because if it is the conscience of the child he is entitled not only to receive the Cowper-Temple teaching which may be provided for him by the majority of the electors at the local election, but also the definite religious teaching for which his parents ask. Or perhaps the principle is public control, but that, as has already been pointed out by the most rev. Prelate this afternoon, must extend in both directions if it is to be true public control. If the local education authority is to be allowed to give as little religious education as it pleases, it ought also to be allowed to give as much as it pleases. Or, perhaps, the general principle to which the noble Earl referred was what is called the neutrality of the State in matters of religion. If the State is to be truly neutral we have no business to devote the resources of the State to the maintenance of one kind of religion and that alone. So that I really believe the general principles to which the noble Earl professed his adherence are really imperfectly understood by the noble Earl and the Party to which he belongs.
    This subject is one of most profound importance, and one upon which we have had a most interesting discussion today. The truth is that when the Liberal Party have left general principles they

    1001
    have really shown themselves to be profoundly divided. Nothing is more striking or significant of that circumstance than the eloquent and in many ways admirable speech which the President of the Board of Education delivered in another place on the Third Reading of the Bill. I think the President of the Board of Education is a good deal to be pitied in these discussions, not merely because of their arduous character, but because of the great difficulties he has with those of his own household. In that speech he was at last driven to resistance, and turned upon some of the materialists and indifferentists of his followers in matters of education, and urged them to remember that vacation schools and the health of the children are not the only things to be considered, but that there are such things as conscience, sin, and immortality, which were to be reckoned as of higher import. Let me assure the noble Earl who has just sat down that it is not a question of rates or of how education should be maintained, much less is it a question of drains. It is a question of the religious instruction of the children of the country, and the rights of parents to have religious instruction given to their children. To my mind, whether that religious instruction is provided by taxes, rates, or voluntary subscriptions, is a matter of lesser importance. The essential thing is that the children should receive this instruction, and that they should receive it according to the wishes of their parents. If it were the case in our country that we were united in, religious matters—if we were even like the sister kingdom of Scotland, where, roughly speaking, the mass of the population adhere to one form of religious belief, no difficulty on this question would arise. There are very few noble Lords whom I see around me who would doubt that the proper solution is that definite religious education should be provided by the State for all the children; but in our case, no doubt, there is a great difficulty. There are profound differences of opinion upon religious matters, and the question becomes urgent if religion is essential, which has been practically admitted in this debate. It was urged by the Minister for Education in another place. It was repeated, I think, by the Lord President in his speech this evening. It was
    1002
    emphasised and illustrated in burning words by the most rev. Prelate. If, as I say, religious education is essential, then the question arises, who is to decide what that religious education shall be? We have a solution. We say that the parents must decide. It is a simple solution. It goes down to the very foundation of society. It is the rock upon which all society is built, namely, the affection and therefore the responsibility of parents for their children. It has been said that the rights of parents have only been discovered for the purpose of controversy on this Bill. Nothing is more untrue. The rights of the parents, of course, go back as far as the Conscience Clause of the Act of 1870. It was the first and a very imperfect assertion of that right. It was wholly insufficient because it was of a negative character. All that you said to the parents by the Conscience Clause was this—,If you are not pleased with the kind of religious education provided at the school your child must go without."That was a very unsatisfactory solution, because the parent not only has the right to avoid the religious education to which he is opposed, but he has also the right to have for his child the religious education in which he believes. In addition to that the rights of the parents were secured by a method which was illogical and incomplete, but which to some extent met the difficulties of the case. We lived under a state of alternate schools. There were the schools where Cowper-Temple religion was taught and the schools where definite religious education was provided. Where a parent was lucky enough to live in an area where both schools existed, he could send his child where there wa definite religion or to the school where the religion taught was undenominational, as he pleased. That was never a complete solution. It was very partial in its operation. It depended not on the rights of parents but upon the private individuals who subscribed to and built the schools, and it finally broke down. After the Act of 1870 the cost of education rose so enormously as to make it impossible for private individuals any longer to compete with the State, but the rights of the parents remained. They are indestructible, and we have to meet them now

    1003
    in some other way. I have said that it is not true that the rights of the parents have been invented in order to meet the needs of this controversy. They have always stood out as an essential part of the policy of the Church of England and of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. There was a voluntary committee which sat by direction of the two Archbishops so far back as 1894, and consisted of many men of weight and responsibility like my noble friend Lord Cross, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, and the right rev. the Bishop of Southwark, and others. They reported among other things—
    " We maintain Church schools in the interests of parents who have a right and duty to secure for their children instruction according to their own religious belief."
    That report was presented to the two Archbishops—it was in the time of Archbishop Benson—and the two Archbishops presented a memorandum to His Majesty's Government at that time, in which they said there ought to be kept in view in all legislation affecting public elementary schools the right of parents to determine the character of the religious instruction provided for their children. That was the policy of the Church of England as formulated by its two principal Prelates for the time being. It was also the policy of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. People talk a great deal about mandates now, and speeches which are delivered at or about the time of a general election are always supposed to have a very special importance and significance, and therefore I quote with all the more confidence a speech which was delivered in your Lordship's House by the then Prime Minister and Leader of the Unionist Party on the very eve of the General Election of 1895. This was what was said—
    "the other principle we have defended in I our votes is the supreme value of religious education given according to the religion which the parents themselves profess. To that principle again, I believe this House deliberately adheres, it values it and it will do all in its power to promote the giving of religious education in pursuance of the unalienable right of the parents to decide the religion in which his child shall be educated."
    That was the most official formulation of the policy of the then Unionist Party by its leader, in which was embodied in the most emphatic form the assertion of
    1004
    the right of the parents. That policy was repeated by the last Conservative Prime Minister. Mr. Balfour, in introducing the Bill of 1902 said:—
    "I do not stand here to plead for any particular form of denominational education. I do stand here to say, and, so far as I can to see, that every parent gets the kind of religious training for his child he desires."
    So that the chain is quite complete-From first to last in the Church of England and in the Unionist Party we have put forward the right of the parent as one of the most important and leading features of our policy in reference to-religious education. I do not know that in their hearts the present Government very much differ from that view. I think that if we could only get into the recesses of Mr. Birrell's mind we should find that he, too, thought the rights of the parents ought to be respected. I noticed the other day that he repudiated, and rightly repudiated, absolutely secular education. He said the parents would not endure it. So that he was aware, as everyone else is aware, that the ultimate arbiter in these questions must, and ought to be, the parent.
    Let me ask how far does this Bill carry out, what, I cannot help believing, is really in the heart of the Government, viz., the supreme importance of religious education, and the right of the parents to decide what that form of religion shall be. I am not going at this late hour through the clauses of the Bill in detail, but your Lordships must have listened with profound interest to the speech of the most rev. Prelate when he described, how utterly insufficient was the security afforded by the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 for the religious education of the children in accordance with the wishes of their parents. There is no doubt, as the noble Earl said, interrupting a previous speaker most courteously, that Clause 3 is in its present form mandatory. That was one of the few concessions which was wrung from the Government by our friends in another place. But although Clause 3 is mandatory, there is no security that it will be put into operation. That remains absolutely unmet.. I think the noble Earl the Lord President will agree with me when I say that as the Bill stands it is absolutely open to any local authority to

    1005
    refuse to take over a voluntary school. Therefore, supposing we had a local authority of what I may call the Huddersfield order, as was described by the most rev. Prelate, all that they would have to do in order to secure the kind of religious education of which they approved in their district would be to refuse absolutely to take over any voluntary school. That is not at all an impossible thing to happen. I observe that my authority is a very distinguished Irish Member, and as it has not been contradicted I imagine it is absolutely true. Mr. Healy, speaking in another place, said that the Chairman of a local authority in Yorkshire had declared that he would not rest until there was not a single denominational school in existence in its area. What have we got to expect? The Chairman of the local authority can do what he threatened to do under the Bill if he can carry his council with him, and if the particular local authority is Huddersfield I do not suppose he will have any difficulty. He can merely refuse to take over any voluntary school and then the whole elaborate provisions of Clause 3 are absolutely futile, and the protection to denominational schools is entirely wanting. The noble Earl who has just sat down said in a confident way that this would be secured and that would be secured. It is not the case. They may be secured if the local authority is friendly, but if is not friendly there is no such protection. It is in order to protect the children who are unlucky enough to live in the area of a hostile local authority that we shall have to ask your Lordships to agree to some Amendment when the Bill gets into Committee.
    I wish to say one word about Clause 4. Your Lordships have hoard in great detail how Clause 4 is hedged round with all sorts of elaborate limitations which I am afraid will go far to render it nugatory. I think it was Lord Burgh el ere who said that if schools were not treated properly under Clause 4 they had an appeal. That is to say if they can fulfil all the conditions, if there are parents of four-fifths of the children in favour of continuing the school as a denominational school, if it is in an urban district, if that urban district contains more than 5,000 people—then if all these conditions are fueled and the local authority refuses to give extended facili-
    1006
    ties the school can appeal. Has the noble-Lord looked into the Appeal Clause? Has he followed it and understood it? I can assure him I do not say this with any view of treating him with disrespect, but he will remember that none of these clauses have been explained. They were pitch-forked into the Bill in the-middle of its passage through the House of Commons, and in such a condition that they could not be explained to that branch of the legislature. As I read the Appeal Clause there is no appeal given to a school when once it has been transferred. For an appeal to lie at all it must be a school which makes this application before it is transferred. That is a very important limitation. Then the appeal must be entered before January 1st, 1908, that is to say, practically, within a year after the passing of this Bill, if it does pass into law. It will be exceedingly difficult to get things forward to such a point that an appeal will be possible in a year—and, remember, the local education authority have no motive to hurry matters, because in another clause they have complete control over the school during the year. They can do as they like in the intervening period. Why should they make things easy? If things, are slightly delayed there will be no time for appeal.
    *THE EARL OF CKEWE: Which clause does the noble Marquess allude to as giving complete control in the interval? I think it is Clause 12 to which the noble Lord was alluding, the one where a school refuses to come to any arrangement.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the noble Earl means is that the school will be carried on as a denominational school during that period. I was inaccurate and apologise to the noble Earl, but all the same the point of my argument remains. No doubt it will be carried on for a year as a denominational school, but if the local authority choose to delay matters for a year no appeal will lie. But lastly, my Lords, and this I cannot really believe that the Government intend, no appeal will lie if the local education authority refuses to entertain the application altogether, because if they do there will be no local inquiry. I think it is one of the examples of the amazing drafting of this Bill. It is because this Bill has not been introduced

    1007
    and carried through as an ordinary Bill, but because it has been introduced under conditions which have never been seen in Parliament before, and has been battered about from side to side as pressure was put on, the President of the Board of Education has tried to find salvation first in one Amendment and then another, until he hardly knew where he was; and then when the thing ought to have been put right in the House of Commons the guillotine came down, and the Bill in this extraordinary form has been sent up to your Lordships' House. But supposing the appeal does lie. Even then the unfortunate denominational school is not out of its troubles. The Board of Education has complete discretion even then as to whether they will entertain the appeal or not, and if they do entertain the appeal it does not follow that the school will be allowed to continue as originally started. It may be deprived of all help from the rates and be relegated to the new category of State-aided schools which has been founded for the purpose of this Bill. Finally any arrangement so settled only lasts for five years. I wonder whether your Lordships have realised what that means. If any complaint is made during the course of the five years that the local education authority is not really carrying out the decision of the appeal, then the unfortunate school runs the risk of being deprived of this rate. At the end of five years what happens? The school will be a transferred school and then no appeal will lie, when the local education authority once more refuses, and it would refuse, extended facilities.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Marquess is entirely inaccurate in saying that.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In what am I inaccurate? Am I incorrect.in saying that no appeal would lie in the case of a transferred school?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: NO. The noble Marquess is incorrect in saying the school would continue as a necessarily transferred school. Provided the conditions are maintained it will be continued at the end of five years.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is expressly provided that the arrangement only lasts for five years, and at the end
    1008
    it is to be reconsidered and the school will then be a transferred school. [MlNISTERIAL cries of "No."] Yes, it will. It will be in the hands of the Local education authority. If I am wrong the noble Karl or some other Member of the Government will correct me, but I say that being a transferred school no appeal will lie. There is no doubt whatever that a great deal more light requires to be thrown on the drafting of this Bill, and before it has left your Lordships' House I hope it will receive it. What I have said is directed only to show that not only are the limited conditions, such as have been pointed out by previous speakers, extremely onerous, not only do they deprive Clause IV. of the greater part of its efficiency, but even in the Appeal Clause an extra blow is struck at these unfortunate denominational schools.
    I have troubled your Lordships with these observations in order to show what, in my judgment, is to be said of the drafting of this Bill, but I should like to say one word upon the speech delivered by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, earlier this evening. He told us the conditions upon which he for one accepted this Bill. He told us that it was only upon the express understanding that he was not to be held to approve of the principle of this measure. I do not know whether I value that particular phrase very highly, but this I do know, that so far as I am concerned, and 1 speak, I am quite certain, for all those who sit with me on this bench, we agree with the noble Duke in thinking that no objection could legitimately be made to Amendments, however drastic they may be, merely because we have agreed to the Second Reading of this Bill. We maintain a perfectly free hand, and we earnestly hope that in the discussion yet to come in your Lordships' House something may be done, nay, a great deal may be done, in order to place once more upon its proper footing the right of the parents to preserve for the children definite religious education.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: My Lords, when I look at the clock I feel I should be only interposing between you and well-merited rest if I ventured to enlist your attention for more than a few moments, but at the same time you will perhaps allow me at this moment to interpose, because it seems to me there

    1009
    are one or two considerations which need to be in our minds in order that we may not merely anticipate those Amendments which I suppose will be brought forward in the autumn, but that we may, as far as possible, clear our minds as to general principles which might guide us in the interval. It is a happy thing, I think, that the consideration of the Amendments of this Bill are left to a time somewhat later, after we have had an opportunity of recuperation and therefore consideration. I cannot help thinking that it would be a very great mistake if in a measure of such importance as this, affecting as it does, not merely the welfare of the present generation, but I imagine the welfare of later generations also, we should settle this matter with anything approaching political or polemical heat. There are questions which surely might very well be lifted above the range of more partisan controversy, and whether we differ from one another on points of religion or points of politics, yet upon this question of what is best for the uprising generation we ought, as far as possible, to seek a common policy and come to a unanimous agreement. I admit what has been said—who of us can deny it? —that when we approach the question we are immediately immersed in a religious controversy. There are sonic people who deprecate that, and who, like my noble friend opposite, desire to bring in such measures as would remove entirely from the sphere, as it wore, of political action the religious question altogether. But, my Lords, I entirely differ from those who imagine that there is evil in the religious fervour which is expressed on such a matter as this. It is surely important that we at least remain earnest in this matter of religion, and I venture to say the day would be a very sad one if this question of religion were met in any degree with indifference and there was no earnestness kindled in the discussion of what was meant by religious education. Therefore I am not afraid to speak of the earnest spirit which has been displayed on all sides, and I speak with a greater case and confidence this afternoon because I gather from the speeches delivered on both sides that it sides now to be an accepted fact that this Bill will be read a second time without a division. We are therefore in a calmer atmosphere and we can
    1010
    look at these questions with greater deliberation. We can separate ourselves from the domains of political party, and may I say also, from the control of any ecclesiastical or theological bias. If we can do that we may perhaps approach those principles which it seems to me are absolutely necessary for a just and permanent settlement of this great education question.
    There are only three policies possible to us. Two of these I may describe as logical, and the third may be described by some as illogical. The first logical settlement is that of the secularist, who says: ' Let us abolish this difficulty by simply saying we will secularise all education.'
    Now the amendment suggested by the noble Lord opposite was intended to do that, but I take it from what has been said on both sides to-night and the division elsewhere that we have abannonel altogether the idea of a secular settlement of this question. I think that is right. I think that the people of this country do not desire secularism, but that is a very different thing from saying that there are conceivable conditions in which you may be driven into it, and it is that fact which we need to keep in mind, because in the history of nations it has often happened that the very thing which the majority of the people have not desired has yet been brought to pass. I may illustrate it in this way. Two men are sitting on a seesaw, and if they are men of pretty well equal weight it is quite possible that a little man or child seated on the saddle of the see-saw may be able to determine the direction in which it may rise or fall, and it is precisely that position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. We find ourselves in the position in which parties are so evenly balanced, for although the majority may be mentioned as very high in another place, yet I think if you appeal you would find that public opinion is much more evenly balanced than we have any idea of. But the evil I point out is that there may be a danger in the future, and if we do not come to a reasonable settle merit in this matter, it may be settled in a sense which neither side of this House nor the country at large in any way do-sires. Some people are inclined to minimise this danger on the ground that

    1011
    there has been such determined opposition to secularism; but I venture to express the possibility that it might be otherwise, and therefore as a grave deliberative assembly, into whose hands has been entrusted a great responsibility concerning the destinies of the people, I do earnestly implore your Lordships to take no step which may in any sense jeopardise the determination and the combination of all parties in this country to maintain Christian teaching throughout the length and breadth of the land.
    I quite admit we may maintain that religious principle by the method described by the Lord President, by a concurrent endowment, and that would be a logical solution of this matter. It would be saying in effect that we are not discriminating between any of the religious bodies, but putting all upon the same platform; and although the objection would be raised that the rates would be used for religious purposes, personally I should have no objection on that score, because I do not share the intense conscientiousness of some people who are afraid to spend a penny of public money in doing that which the country at large desires should be done. That solution, I venture to say, is outside the range of practical politics at the present moment, and although I could quite imagine a number of people desirous and enamoured of it, I cannot help asking myself the question, is it possible? And if not possible, lot us take a wise policy and not sock one which we cannot obtain. I was very happy to hear on all sides, and particularly from the Members of Government to-night, that this Bill protects religious teaching in the country, but I confess that when I examine the Bill I cannot find the justification of this Utopian idea. It does strike me as a very strange way of maintaining simple Christian teaching in this country when it is pointed out that you may have a county council that will not allow it, that you may have teachers who may have conscientious objections about giving it, and that you may have parents who will not allow their children to receive it. The Bill, therefore, does not, as I understand it, give the very thing for which it seems to me we should contend most earnestly. If we could only go to people and say this Bill gives simple Christian teaching of such a
    1012
    character that itdoes not lack definiteness, that it is real and genuine, and that it is taught by people who earnestly believe in it—if you can go to people and say that is the meaning of this measure, I believe it would find acceptance from seven-tenths of the people of the country; but I cannot find that in the Bill. What I would earnestly pray your Lordships to consider is, whatever Amendments you may introduce into the Bill, and there are some I am sure all agree should be there, let us make this one strong resolution, that the Bill shall not leave this House till the right of religions teaching is secured to every child in the country. Do not leave it to the option of local authorities. The reason I say that is very simple. There are those who take very various views concerning the qualifications of Parliament to deal with religious questions. I confess that it has always seemed to me to be a very far fetched and unreal idea that Parliament has no right and no duty and no obligation towards the religious condition of the people of the country. My view is the very opposite of that. So long as we believe that the people of this country desire religious teaching, and so long as it is our settled conviction that they ought to have it, so long I think it is the solemn and bounden duty of the Government to see that it is put within their roach. If that is not secured by this Bill the people of this country will have a right to fool they are disappointed.
    What I plead for, therefore, is that the religious teaching which is contemplated in this Bill should not be left to the option of the local authority. We are told, of course, that the local authorities will be very good, and will do all that is right and just, but we have instances which show that they are not always disposed to give oven simple religious teaching. But what troubles my mind far more than that, is this. What is the ground on which we are asked to trust the local authority? It is the general conscience, which is supposed to be working in the minds of those bodies; but why imagine that the local authority is likely to possess a conscience, and deny the right of that conscience to the legislature of this country? It seems to me, that if little Peddlington has a conscience, the Houses of Parliament must have one on this matter; and therefore I

    1013
    say this question should not be left to the chance of elections for the local authorities, but should be settled by the determination of Parliament itself. But I ask for something else. I ask that religious teaching should be made real. I was happy to hear, and I am sure many amongst us will be very much reassured by hearing, that this Bill is intended to cover a religious teaching in which the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles' Creed shall find a place. If that is the case, many around us have misunderstood the Bill. I am very glad that it should be so, and I am thankful to see that there have been Nonconformists who have had both the courage and wisdom to declare that what they desire is, that the simple teaching shall be in harmony with the Apostles' Creed. That seems to me a very hopeful sign indeed. I am not amongst those who stand very strongly for what is called denominational teaching, because I understand by denominational teaching those points upon which one religious body differs from another, and which are, therefore, outside the range of these larger matters, upon which the greater number, I trust, of Christian bodies, are in accord. A denomination is that which is distinguished by its denominationalism. The denominationalism of the Baptist consists of the theory of Adult Baptism, but when you ask is there nothing in common, my plea is that there is, but I know there are these who say no, and that all that is loft is nothing at all. Of course, if we are to say that the teaching is to be such that you are never to say anything in your teaching that anyone also can possibly object to, then I admit the residuum is very small indeed, and, as I think, it disappears into thin air. But I do not think that is the reason, and I do not think it would be wise or dignified to enter into a mere strategic discussion of this matter in order to prove that there is a nebulous result left. You have the clear definition given to us by respectable Nonconformists that they are desirous to maintain a reality of religious teaching. If I were speaking my own opinion only, I should listen with the greatest respect to those, and they are many, who differ from me, but I am not faithless to my own communion when I say that simple Christianity does mean something real, and when I remember that it is precisely the authorised declaration of my own Church.
    1014
    Now, my Lords, I cannot help standing with a sense of what I would call deeper responsibility as I look into the meaning of this question as it is addressing itself to our minds today. I have the greatest reverence for those who are anxious that the faith which has done so much for them and for their ancestors should remain untouched and untampered with. I feel that the greatest respect and reverence should be paid to anyone who comes to us and says "these convictions are dear to me; you may not share them, but, believe mo, they are dear to me and to thousands more." Whether we agree with that attitude or not, it is entitled to the deepest respect and reverence. For that reason I would earnestly plead that whatever can be done to meet the rights of parents, or, shall I say, the sanctity of the religious convictions of other people, should be done in this Bill by increasing or improving the conditions of the facilities which are provided. I do ask whether we have not reached a juncture in the religious history of the world in which it is important that we should realise that that common Christianity which now is beginning to find such happy expressions from Nonconformists and others is a real thing, and for which it is worth sacrificing a good deal in order that we may agree upon it? The history of religious controversy is this, that the value and significance of dogmas which were of such vast importance and loomed so large in the minds of our ancestors, are becoming less and less. These things we have largely outgrown and we are beginning to see a wider and nobler prospect before us. Who now is going to enter into controversy concerning Calvinism and Arminianism? Why, these things are going fast into the past, but, as I believe, we are not left unguided by One who directs the destinies of nations. It seems to me that in our very difficulties there is an appeal from Providence round us not to make too much of our differences in our hour, and that as the changes of human thought advance so will the very simplicity of these truths become more and more apparent to us. Yonder, in the great world men are famishing for the great Truth we have the power to give, and it is of the most earnest importance that we should, as far as possible, show by our action to-day that there is something in the platform of our common Christ-

    1015
    ianity upon which we can unite, which is dearer to us than many other things which are dear also. Although it is true that I am as loyally attached to my communion as ever, yet when the hour of my country's danger is come, so do I feel it is now for us to come out and say while we are sincerely attached to our communion we do earnestly ask you to magnify those grounds on which we can agree to face a common danger.
    I said that there is the fear of secularism. It is before our eyes. It is for that reason I spoke. The power which moves for secularism will be kept in abeyance if it can be shown that the Christian men of this country, while over holding their personal convictions strong, clear and true, are yet ready to unite and resist a common foe, and to preserve the heritage of the children of this country. Let us surrender something, if necessary, for the maintenance of what is greater and more lasting still. There is much I should like to criticise in this Bill, but time is too short. My objection to the policy suggested by the noble Lord opposite is that it lowers religion beneath the place of acknowledged dignity which it ought to hold in this country. It betokens a policy which seems to say, "You can do as you please because the State has no responsible euro in this matter." But the State has something to do with it, unless we have fallen low and lost faith in the Living God. Forgive me if I speak the language which befits my own profession, but it does seem to me that the Resolution of this House ought to be something on those lines: "We who represent the people of this country, believing in the Living God ourselves, and remembering that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, resolve that no child within the country shall be allowed to grow up without the opportunity of knowing these elementary Christian truths," and it is because I believe that that is the only way in which we can save ourselves from the possibility of that secularism which would be so disastrous and destructive to national life and character, that I plead, at any rate, that whatever our own convictions may be we stand firm and determined that the simple Christianity of which I have spoken be maintained as an integral and necessary part of the education of the children of this country.
    LORD OVERTOUN: We all sympathise with the eloquent words that have fallen from the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken. He said that it might be well from a little distance to review the whole condition of this Bill. Now I think, hailing from Scotland, we can look from afar on the principles of this Bill. May I remind noble Lords that in 1872, when the Scottish education question was settled, we had then in Scotland schools belonging to all the Presbyterian churches, and though in the main the belief of all the Presbyterian churches is the same, still there is what has been often spoken of as a different atmosphere altogether in those Presbyterian churches. When our national system of education in 1872 was launched, all the Presbyterian churches made up their minds to give up their own denominational schools. I was asked the other day by a friend in England how much they got for all the schools they gave up. They not only got nothing, but they asked nothing; they handed them over as they were to the new school boards which were started in that country. The next question was, "Do you mean to say that the different churches had sufficient confidence in the new school boards that a proper religious education would be given when those schools would be taken over, to enable them to give up all that property, which would be worth a very large sum of money and which had been paid almost entirely by the members of the churches?" the answer was "Certainly. We have confidence in our fellow citizens and our follow countrymen," and the result is justified by the experience we have gained. I have often wished that the Church of England had followed a little more in the way of the Presbyterians in Scotland in order to obtain a national system of education. Those schools which are being handed over are generally known as voluntary schools, but I must confess that the word "voluntary" is very much of a misnomer, for they have not been entirely maintained or supported by the Church. And the support is of a very diminishing quantity, and therefore I think that the sacrifice, if they were to hand them over for general national education, would not be so great as is generally supposed.
    I am glad that the noble Lord who put on the Notice Paper a Motion as to the secularising of education has soon his way to withdraw that Motion. I am well

    1017
    aware that those who sympathise with Lord Malmesbury fear a little to drag the religions question into the controversy and might lie prepared to sweep it aside, but that is not the opinion of this country. If that question were an outside one, it might very well be laid aside, but I think no education is worth having in this country except it is based upon religious grounds. Doubtless there is a difficulty in satisfying all and finding a common ground on which to agree, but we are bound to face a difficulty of this kind when it involves such serious consequences. And I believe that if this crucial question were honestly faced we ought to be able to have it properly settled. Unless the children in our schools are taught about truth and their duty to God and man our educational system will stand entirely on a false basis. We call ourselves a Christian country and we speak of national education, but I strongly believe that except our education is founded on righteousness and the word of Clod it will not be of a satisfactory character at all. The fact that in another place the vote was as large as 477 against 63 shows how strongly and unanimously the people of this country fool on this great question.
    But we come to a difficult question. The right rev. Prelate and others who spoke near him seemed to slide into the error that religious teaching means the teaching of the Church of England. Now it has been frequently said that religious teaching viewed in that light is not Bible teaching. If religious teaching according to the Church of England is not Bible teaching, then it is a bad look-out for the Church of England, because we understand the Bible to be the basis of teaching of that kind. I am glad to note what has been said to-night by the right rev. Prelate with regard to the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. Let me remind you that they come out of the Bible. The Apostles' Creed is not accurately scriptural, but we accept it, and I believe the whole country accepts it as a statement of religious belief. In Scotland we have no religious difficulty, and I know that in some quarters where no religion was taught those in the neighbourhood, having put their heads together, managed to introduce a system that was satisfactory to everyone —a sound religious education, and I cannot help believing that if, say, half a dozen representatives of the Church of
    1018
    England and half a dozen representatives of the Nonconformists were to meet together and honestly try to find a common ground wherein those great truths we all believe in were clearly set forth without any sectarian teaching, it would not be difficult to arrive at a solid foundation of scripture teaching in the schools. The word "dogma" has been used tonight very frequently, but I strongly feel that we do teach dogma, and must teach it, because by dogma I understand those great vital doctrines on which we all rest our faith, and not denominationalism. I was somewhat surprised to hoar the right rev. Prelate to-night speak of the great Act of the last century as being Mr. Forster's Education Act of 1870. I am old enough to remember the bitter and fierce controversy that raged round that question in those days, and it is very refreshing now to hear leaders in the Church of England speak of it as a very great Act. I believe that if the principles that are embodied in the Bill now before us were carried out, in later years it would be accepted as a great measure that had disentangled many of the complicated questions we have to face in this matter. The right reverend Prelate was speaking of one of the schools to which the President of the Council referred, but it seemed to me in the argument he used he entirely gave away his case with regard to the London school. He said the children went to it not because of its denominational teaching but because it was a superior class of school, and that the tone was better; but the whole argument was that the children wanted to go to it or the parents wanted to send them to it because of its denominational teaching. The superiority of the school is possibly the consequence of a large amount of money spent on it and the higher class of teacher obtained. The right reverend Prelate held up a lurid picture of a teacher who did not believe in miracles, and especially the Resurrection of our Lord, and spoke of the danger of having such a teacher for the young. I believe there are many even of the Church of England clergy who hold such views but in general they are not objected to on that ground. And I do not think one case of the kind is enough to make a difficulty.
    May I say finally that the noble Marquess who spoke on the other

    1019
    side rather twitted the Liberal Party because of their differing on questions of detail, although they agreed on principles. I think that for a Party to agree in great principles is one of the signs of the solidarity of that Party, though they may and must differ in detail. But when the noble Marquess went on to speak of adherence to principle he laid down one great principle, that of the right of parents in regard to the teaching of their children, and I wondered what he and those who agreed with him, when they introduced the Bill of 1902, thought of the rights and wishes of Nonconformist parents. This Bill is an effort to right what has been a great wrong. There has been since the Act of 1902 a great sense of injustice among the Nonconformists of England,and it must be remembered that the Nonconformists in England constitute very nearly half the population of this great land. By that Act the education of the country was practically handed over to the Church of England. I have heard this Bill described as an attack upon the Church of England. It is no such thing. We do not seek to retaliate, but we sock to adjust equitably a great difficulty, and to restore a balance which was destroyed by the Act to which I have referred. We heard tonight that in 1870 an agreement was come to that there should be no denominational teaching in rate-aided schools. This Bill endeavours to set that right again. I do not deny, and none of us deny, that this Bill may be improved, but I believe it is a splendid effort to settle a very difficult controversy, and to put the education of the rising generation in England on a satisfactory and suitable basis.
    EARL WALDEGRAVE: On behalf of the Duke of Devonshire I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.
    Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    On Question, Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

    CROWN LANDS BILL.
    On the order for going into Committee on the Crown Lands Bill,
    LOUD CASTLETOWNsaid: Before going into Committee I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal a Question, of
    1020
    which I have given private notice, with reference to the purchase of lands and the expenditure of money which may be raised by the various departments, About a year ago a very vigorous attempt was made in Ireland to carry out some scheme of afforestation. Those who were interested in the matter saw the late Chief Secretary and the present Chief Secretary on the subject. We were pressed to try and bring forward a scheme, which we are trying to do at the present time, and we were also asked what funds would be required. We stated that the quit and Crown rents were being redeemed under the sale of land to the tenants, and that this fund would form a good basis under which afforestation could be carried out. We are very anxious to know whether Clause 10, which seems slightly ambiguous, could be construed as being a basis of such a fund. We are anxious, if possible, that this quit and Crown land as it is redeemed should not be swallowed up in the Treasury finances and be diverted entirely from what we consider is the purpose for which it ought to be utilised. They are practically rents which are received from lands which were confiscated a great many years ago, and which at that time were heavily afforested and of great value. We think we can fairly ask that some such scheme should be arranged and that these particular sums might possibly be devoted to this purpose. If possible, we would ask for some assurance that it might be utilised for the purpose of Crown lands or of land which might be turned into Crown land and then re-afforested by State aid, as is done on the Continent very profitably.
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): I am afraid I cannot tell my noble friend that these particular sums are likely to be or could be disposed of in the manner proposed, and I say that not at all from any want of interest on the part of the Government in the question of re-afforestation, for nothing can be more important in many districts, but these sums are capital receipts; they are not annual receipts at all. The amounts received in a given year are exceedingly uncertain, and they are of a nature which ought to be disposed of as capital sums. Under these circumstances I fear it would be impossible to make any alteration in the clauses as they stand.

    1021
    But, if my noble friend is looking for the re-afforestation of Crown lands there is nothing to prevent a portion of the income of the Crown revenues being devoted to that purpose. It is proposed in the first clause of this Bill to add the Minister of Agriculture to the Office of Woods for the very purpose of dealing, among other things, with this question of afforestation.
    LORD CASTLETOWN: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his kind answer, which quite satisfies me.
    House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

    MARRIAGE WITH FOREIGNERS BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order).
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: The first of the Amendments I have to move was asked for by Sir Edward Carson and agreed to by both Parties. The other is merely to extend the scope of the clause in a useful direction.
    Amendments moved—
    "In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'if it is desired for the purpose of complying with the requirement of the law of that country to obtain the certificate hereinafter mentioned."
    "In page 2, line 11, after the word 'of to insert the words ' any notice of an intended marriage or.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
    Amendments agreed to.
    Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Amendments reported: Bill read. 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

    FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is merely a Bill in two clauses which I think are practically agreed to.
    On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order).
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was promised in the House of Commons that this Bill should be carefully considered, and I have come to the conclusion, in which Lord Robertson, who is the greatest authority, concurs, that the suggested Amendment would be incompatible with the idea of statute law revision. There are certain other Amendments of a formal character, and if the Committee will allow me, I propose to move them en bloc.
    Amendments made.
    Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing" Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Amendments reported. Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

    MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    EAKL BEAUCHAMP: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may say it has only been able to reach your Lordships' House at this period of the session by agreement between both Parties.
    Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
    *THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I should like to express satisfaction with His Majesty's Government for having taken up this Bill, and I trust that by the suspension of the Standing Order it may pass as quickly to-morrow as certain other Bills have passed to-day.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with several of the Amendments agreed to; one other agreed to, with an Amendment; one disagreed to on an Amendment made in lieu thereof; and certain others disagreed to, for which they assign a reason: the said Amendments and reason to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 199.)
    House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock a.m., till half-past Three o'clock p.m.