Sitting of 2 August 1906

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

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to.
  Crown Lands Bill, 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, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING.)
  Petition from Halifax, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions from Higham Ferrers, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS.]
  Petitions from Rotherhithe, for alteration; to lie upon Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions from Derby, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND.)
  Copy presented, of Forty-second detailed Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST.)
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the President for 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Fifty-fourth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland, being a Special Report on the alleged increase of Lunacy in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAR STORES IN SOUTH AFRICA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission on War Stores in South Africa, together with Appendices and Minutes of Evidence (four volumes) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address March 13th; Mr. Lamont]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 302.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LIGHTS UPON VEHICLES).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address March 21st; Mr. Marnham]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address March 27th; Mr. Talbot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]
  EDUCATION (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address April 4th; Mr. Thomas O'Donnel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]
  ILLITERATE VOTERS (GENERAL ELECTION, 1906).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address May 9th; Mr. Crooks]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]
  PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address May 14th; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
  MAGISTRATES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented relative thereto (Address May 14th; Mr. Bennett; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]
  MIDWIVES.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address July 25th; Mr. Helme]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309.]
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered July 18th; Mr. Thomasson; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 310.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended July 27th, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]
  WALNEY LIGHT DUTIES.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered May 9th; Major Seely]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Return presented for the year ended March 31st, 1906, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (REGIMENTAL DEBTS)
  Copy presented of Further Regulations under The Regimental Debts Act, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTEER BRIGADES.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address July 2nd; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Registrar of the Land Registry for the years 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, as to the work of constructing a General Register of Title for the County of London [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  HIGHER EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which and the manner in which Local Authorities in England and Wales have applied funds to the purposes of Education other than Elementary during the year 1905–6 under any of the following Acts; Education Act, 1902; Welsh

  1321
  Intermediate Education Act, 1889; Public Libraries and Museum Acts; Local or Private Acts."—(Mr. Birrell.)

  POOR-RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Return ordered, "of Statement of the amount expended by boards of guardians for Poor Relief during the half year ended Lady-day, 1906; and similar Statement for the half year ended Michaelmas, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 325, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Runciman.)
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, &c., 1905–6.
  Return ordered, "of the amount received during the year ended 31st day of March, 1906, in respect of each administrative county and county borough in England and Wales for Local Taxation Licence Duties, and penalties and forfeitures recovered in respect of such duties, and for other duties and payments which are directed to be dealt with in the same manner as the Local Taxation Licence Duties (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 280, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Runciman.)
  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return ordered, "of the amounts of all Public Revenue derived from taxes levied by Parliament, and from any other sources, which are not paid into His Majesty's Exchequer, for the years 1904–5, 1905–6, and 1906–7 (estimated), with the totals in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 223, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Bowles.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether there are dormant ledgers kept at the Savings Bank Department: if so whether non-interest-bearing accounts, on which no actual transactions have taken place for a number of years, are transferred to these ledgers either regularly or from time to time; and whether interest-bearing accounts, on which no actual transactions have taken place for a number of years, are transferred to these ledgers either regularly or from time to time.
  1322
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There are ledgers kept at the Savings Bank Department to which non-interest bearing accounts which have not been operated on for a considerable period are transferred as opportunity arises. No such transfer takes place in the case of interest bearing accounts.

  Dublin City Mail Cars.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General when will the present contract for the conveyance of the mail by car in Dublin City expire; or have the present contractors a lease of the undertaking.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The contract for the mail cart services in Dublin will continue in force until one of the parties gives twelve months' notice to determine it.

  Dublin Mail Contractor.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state under what circumstances are officials of the General Post Office, Dublin, allowed to visit the mail contractors' premises; and if it is with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General that an officer of the General Post Office is in attendance at the contractors' office several evenings each week.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My officers visit the contractors' premises whenever necessary; but it is not the practice for an officer to attend at the contractors' offices several evenings each week.

  Overtime in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will say the amount of overtime at present being performed in the Dublin General Post Office (postal and telegraph branches) from the 1st to the 20th of July; and if he can state the cause thereof.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the amount of overtime worked in the Dublin General Post Office, he will make arrangements to have the staff increased by placing on the establishment some, at least, of the learners at that office who are at present waiting over two years for appointments.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General will he say why the vacancies that exist on the sorting and telegraph branches in the Dublin General Post Office are not tilled up; and, considering that these vacancies have now existed for some time, that there are large numbers of learners still unappointed, and in view of the amount of overtime which is being worked, will he see the appointments are filled up forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I may, perhaps, be allowed to answer the hon. Member's three Questions on this subject together. The number of hours of overtime performed on week-days by the indoor force in the sorting and telegraph offices in Dublin from the 1st to the 20th July inclusive were 2,577 and 1,591 respectively. I regret the amount of overtime which has been necessary, the greater part of which was due to the withdrawal of officers for season pressure, for substituting officers on leave, and for loan to provincial offices, that is to say, to causes incidental to the summer season. The staff of the Dublin office is at present under revision, and I am not able to appoint the learners to established posts until the revision is completed.

  Purchases of the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of years' purchase paid by the Congested Districts Board for the various estates which they have acquired, and the date of each such purchase, indicating the area of each estate and the entire amount paid for it.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Except in the case of Glendale, the estates were bought after negotiation and the lowest possible price was paid. The figure given was not, therefore, a precise calculation of so many years purchase. For information on the other points alluded to by the hon. Member, I must refer him to page 9 of the Congested Districts Board Report for 1905–6.

  Scottish Local Government Board.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the Members of the Local Government Board of Scotland; who appoints them; and under what
  1324
  authority and under what conditions they hold office as to emoluments, meetings, expenses, and termination of office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The names of the appointed members of the Local Government Board are—Mr. J. Patten MacDougall, Vice-President; Mr. Ewan MacPherson; and Dr. Leslie MacKenzie. If the hon. Member will refer to Sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, he will find the rest of the information desired.

  Konia Bagdad Railway.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the extension of the Konia Bagdad Railway to Khor Abdullah which lies on the sea to the north-east of Koweit in the Persian Gulf; whether there is good anchorage at Khor Abdullah 8 to 10 fathoms deep within 300 yards of a bluff solid enough to bear the terminus of a great railway; and whether the British Fleet has surveyed Khor Abdullah, which belongs to the Sheik of Koweit.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I have no information as to whether any decision has been taken in regard to the extension of the Konia Bagdad Railway to Khor Abdullah. No proper survey of Khor Abdullah haw over been made by the British Fleet, and I have no information which would enable mo to make a statement as to the depth of water or the configuration of the land in that locality.

  British Concession at.Niu-chwang.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Concession on the north side of the river at Niu-chwang, granted in the spring of 1899, has over boon taken over; and whether it is now intended to take steps to complete the acquisition of the same.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) No report on the subject of the Concession has been received since April, 1899. The limits of the Concession were then still under discussion with the Chinese authorities. Inquiry is being made.

  Leigh Cockles.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the Fishmongers Company in stopping the sale at Billingsgate of all cockles from Leigh; whether he is aware that this was done in consequence of an allegation that a basket of bad cockles had originated from Leigh; whether he is aware that the basket from which the cockles alleged to have caused typhoid were supplied was not owned by any cockier at Leigh, and that the cockles at Leigh observe the regulations necessary for the protection of the public as laid down by Dr. Klein; and whether he proposes to take any action in regard to this exercise of authority by the Fishmongers Company, in view of the loss inflicted on the cockle fishermen at Leigh.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have communicated with the Fishmongers Company on this subject, and find that they have taken the action referred to in consequence of their being satisfied that the cockles at Leigh had not observed the regulations laid down by the company for the protection of the public. The company state that they have no information with reference to the basket of bad cockles referred to in the Question. I have no control over the company in the matter.

  Stobs Camp.
  SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what arrangements were made by his predecessor in office at the time of creating rifle ranges at Stobs Camp for the safety of shepherds, farm servants, and other pedestrians using the public right of way and drove road crossing the slopes of Penchrise Pen from the River Slitrig to the Allan Water and Teviot Valleys; and whether the precautions provided by law in cases of dangerous proximity are applied at these ranges for the safety of persons using these ways.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) When firing is being carried out on the ranges danger flags and two look-out men are posted; the latter are in signal and telephonic communication with the
  1326
  firing points; and when persons wish to cross the range firing is stopped. No complaint has been received since the ranges were taken into use.

  Empire Day at Malta.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on Empire Day, Colonel Fortescue, of Pembroke Camp, Malta, had his full band, who are almost entirely Protestants, playing at a Roman Catholic fête at the Jesuit College in Malta; and whether, seeing that the bandsmen themselves were unwilling to attend these proceedings, he can say by whose authority and for what reason they wore compelled to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No information has been received at the War Office as to the matters alleged in the Question.

  Artillery Experts' Reports.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table the Reports of Sir Frederick Stopford and other Artillery experts referred to by the Under-Secretary of State; and whether the entire approval of the Government's proposals with regard to the reduction of the Artillery expressed by these officers, extended only to the figures or to the principle of the changes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The answer to the first part of this Question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative on both points.

  Militia Uniform Contracts.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with the view of encouraging local industries, he will consider the question of placing at Inverness contracts for the furnishing of the Militia uniforms required in the Highlands, as has for many years been done by the Admiralty in the case of uniforms required by it for local use.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Uniforms are not provided specially for the Militia but for the Army generally. Tenders for the supply of material and

  1327

  the making up of uniforms are open to the whole country. At the present time upwards of thirty contracts for clothing and clothing material are running in Scotland. It would not be practicable to arrange for independent local provision of uniforms for Militia battalions.

  New Constitution for the Transvaal.
  SIR HENRY KIMBEE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the Letters Patent intended to be granted by the Government to the Transvaal giving it self-governing powers, there will be contained any power to His Majesty to revoke or alter its terms afterwards; and, if there be no such express power in the grant, is there any constitutional law by which such a grant once made can be derogated from.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Answer to both Questions is in the negative.

  Native Prisoners in South African Mines.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Natal have proposed to let native political prisoners to mine-owners and other employers; whether his attention has been called to the declarations on the subject made by Lord Carnarvon when Secretary of State; and if further communications on the matter have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Natal since the assurances given by him to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Natal Government have introduced a Bill permitting the employment of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for any period exceeding three months by contract between the Government authority and any municipality, or public body, or company, or individual. It does not therefore apply specifically to political prisoners. I have seen the statement of Lord Carnarvon. The Secretary of State is not aware that any assurances have been given that His Majesty's Government would interfere in a matter properly within the control of the Parliament of Natal and of the Ministers responsible thereto.

  Cork Registrar of Title.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland who is at present discharging the duties of registrar of title for the county of Cork, and at what, if any, rate of pay; who appointed such person; will he lay upon the Table a copy of the document under which such person was appointed; are fees charged to applicants for registration; and, if so, under what authority and to whom are same paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) Mr. Henry Wright is at present discharging the duties of registrar of title for the county of Cork pending the passing of the Bill now before Parliament. He is not receiving any special salary in respect of those duties, but is in receipt of the salary appointed for the office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the East Riding of the County Cork and City of Cork for the performance of the duties of those offices, including local bankruptcy. The Lord Chancellor is unable to recommend the payment of any salary to Mr. Wright as local registrar of title, nor would the Treasury assent to any such payment to him. Mr. Wright was appointed in succession to Mr. Standish O'Grady, but the law officers of the late Government advised that his appointment was irregular, as Mr. Wright was not qualified under the statute regulating the performance of the duties of the office, and the present Lord Chancellor takes the same view. I have no objection to laying upon the Table a copy of the document purporting to appoint him if the hon. Member should move for it. As regards the latter portion of the hon. Member's Question, no fees are charged for first registration in respect of purchases completed through the Land Commission since the 1st January, 1892, Section 23 (1) (b), of The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891. With regard to purchases completed before that date, fees are charged to all such applicants as did not apply for registration before the 1st of January, 1893, Section 22 (2). Fees are charged for all subsequent dealings with registered land under Section 8 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Consolidated Rules of 21st December, 1891, 20th December 1893, and 24th August, 1896. All fees are taken in stamps, which are purchased from the Inland Revenue. The insurance

  1329
  fees which are payable under Section 92 of the Act are placed to the credit of the trustees of the Insurance Fund.

  Ballysadare Foreshore.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a farmer named M'Gloin recently recovered damages for trespass against a fisherman named Cavanagh for mooring his boat in Ballysadare Bay, county Sligo, at a place marked as foreshore upon the Admiralty chart, and upon which it was proved the tide ebbed and flowed at all ordinary tides; and will he inquire as to the facts from the coastguard officer who gave evidence for the defence, and direct that the coastguard shall be watchful to prevent claims arising by user of foreshores by the farmers whose lands abut on the bay so as to secure to the fishermen their privileges of landing boats and nets on the shores vested in the Crown.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have asked the coastguard officer to report on all the matters mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, and when I have received the Report I shall be glad to communicate with the hon. Member.

  Loss of the "Horace."
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the sinking, on the 17th May last, of the sloop "Horace," by collision with the steamship "Zero," In the River Humber, resulting in the death of Harold Grimbleby; why no Board of Trade inquiry has been held; and whether he has received a request from the parents of the dead man for an inquiry to be held.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A request for inquiry has been received from the representatives of the relatives of the man who lost his life by the collision between the sloop "Horace" and the steamer "Zero." Depositions were made by the masters of both vessels before the Receivers of Wreck and an inquest was held at Hull. As the collision was found not to be the fault of the "Zero" and the master of the sloop has no certificate, the Board of Trade would not be justified in incurring the expense
  1330
  of a formal inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts. I am advised that the master of the "Zero" attempted to manœuvre his vessel into position so as to lower his boat on the spot where the men were expected to be, and only desisted from putting his boat in the water when he saw the sloop's boat with the survivors in her. But the coroner stated after his inquiry that it would have made no difference if half a dozen boats had been launched.

  Leixlip Mails.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the outgoing mails from Leixlip, county Kildare, leave at 6 p.m. and 4 a.m.; and whether he could make such a rearrangement of mail departures as would enable the people of that district to send replies to morning letters by a mid-day mail.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a report on this subject and I will send the hon. Member an Answer in due course.

  The Stanley Revision.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Stanley scheme for improvements in the postal service included the payment of double time for Sunday duty to the staff; and, if so, when it is proposed to put this part of the scheme into effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No change has been made or proposed in the rate of payment for Sunday duty.

  Central Telegraph Office—Telegraphist's Complaint.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist, named Evershed, in the Central Office, London, applied for an exchange from night duty for one month, commencing July, on the ground of illness of his mother, and of the fact that he himself had barely recovered from a long period of sickness, and that he provided a competent substitute; whether seeing that although he furnished a medical certificate showing he was unfit for night duty, the Deputy Controller compelled him to perform the work and declined to accept the substitute, he will

  1331
  investigate the circumstances, and explain why the request for an exchange was refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The telegraphist in question had been allowed to exchange from night duty so freely that he had not performed any night duty for several years. It was not considered desirable that a particular officer should be thus indirectly exempted from night duty in permanence, and further substitution was therefore refused, after it had been ascertained by medical examination by the chief medical officer that there was no valid reason of health to prevent this officer performing night duty.

  Belfast Overseer's Promotion.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the memorial of January, 1905, regarding a promotion made the previous month to the class of overseer in the Belfast office; if he is aware that the postmaster of Belfast received several deputations of men who were passed over, and that when a second promotion was made to the overseers, class in February, 1905, the postmaster of Belfast assured these men that he knew of no reason, considering their record and work, why they should not be promoted, and assured them that had they not pressed their protest against the promotion made in the previous December they would not have had to complain of the promotions made in the following February; will he say whether he has received reports regarding these matters; and, if not, will he order an inquiry into the whole question.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I cannot review cases of promotion decided by my predecessor eighteen months ago.

  Belfast Telegraphists' Complaint.
  MR..SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to complaints made by the telegraph staff at the Belfast office regarding a smoke nuisance for which the proprietors of the Grand Central Hotel are responsible; and whether, seeing that assurances given by the hotel people that the nuisance
  1332
  would be abated have been totally disregarded, will he say what steps it is-proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The circumstances appear to be as stated. Further steps are being taken for the abatement of the nuisance complained of.

  East Finchley Telephone Exchange.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any steps have yet been taken to establish a Post Office telephone exchange at East Finchley or Finchley (Church End); when it is likely that the exchange will be ready for work; and will he consider the advisability of admitting intending subscribers, pending the completion of an exchange at Finchley, to the systems of neighbouring exchanges at the ordinary rates current.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.} Plans were prepared some time ago for the extension of the telephone service to Finchley, and the establishment of an exchange at Church End will be proceeded with as soon as the necessary way leave consents have been received from the district council. I fear that it will not be possible, pending the establishment of the exchange, to give residents at Finchley circuits to another exchange at ordinary rates; but I propose to open public call offices in the district at an early date, and these will I hope tend to minimise the inconvenience until the exchange is ready.

  Hampstead Telephone Exchange Employees.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether a large number of men, formerly engaged in connection with the constructional work of the Post Office telephones have recently been discharged owing to slackness of work; and whether a substantial reduction has been made in the employees of or connected with the Hampstead Exchange on this ground; and whether this is duo to any falling off of subscribers to this Exchange or generally throughout the telephone service of the northern suburbs.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In the last two months thirty-two workmen have had to be paid off in the Hampstead district in consequence of the completion

  1333
  of the main duct work on which they were employed. There is no falling off in the number of subscribers to the Hampstead or other telephone exchanges in the northern suburbs.

  Torquay Election-Corrupt Practices.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of the Public Prosecutor in instituting proceedings to rely upon an ex parte statement made by the complainants or their solicitor, or to take any, and, if so, what steps to verify the charges made; whether any, and, if so, what steps were taken by the Public Prosecutor to inquire into the facts of the case alleged against Mr. Blackler, who was recently prosecuted at the Exeter Assizes on a charge of corrupt practices at the Torquay election, and against whom the grand jury found no bill; and whether any machinery exists, in a case such as that of Mr. Blackler, for providing for the costs of the accused out of the public funds.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The Attorney-General answers this Question at the request of the Home Secretary. The director of public prosecutions makes such inquiries as are practicable in all cases submitted to him. In the case of Mr. Blackler, the statements of the witnesses were taken by a firm of solicitors, known to the director, and in whom he had confidence, also an opinion of counsel was forwarded to him advising that in his opinion there were grounds for proceeding under Section 2 of 46 and 47 Vic, c. 51. This afforded evidence which in the judgment of the director justified a prosecution. Process was applied for and granted. The accused when before the bench offered no defence or explanation. The magistrates, eleven in number, committed him unanimously to take his trial at the assizes. I am aware of no machinery providing for the payment of the costs of accused persons who may be acquitted by the verdict of either grand or petty juries out of public funds.

  Imprisonment in Default of Paying Fines.
  MR. CAMERON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, during 1904, 107,625 persons were sent
  1334
  to prison in default of paying fines; and, if so, whether he is prepared to effect such alterations in the law as will give such persons the right of claiming a few weeks' grace before conviction, when they give bona fide and satisfactory addresses, or can produce reasonable security.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of persons received in prison in default of paying a fine during 1904 is correctly stated by the hon. Member. The law contemplates time being allowed defendants to pay the fines imposed on them, and only last year a circular was issued from the Home Office to all courts of summary jurisdiction urging that full effect should be given to the merciful provisions of the law. I have no reason to doubt that the considerations urged in the circular are generally borne in mind, and that a person with a settled home is rarely or never refused time for the payment of a fine; but if information is given me of any case in which they have been disregarded, I will have inquiry made. It should be remembered that while 107,625 persons were received in prison during 1904 in default of a fine, the total number fined was 550,490. Both figures, I may add, include many cases where the same person was fined several times during the year, and therefore appears several times in the registers of the courts or of the prison.

  South African War Stores Scandals.
  MR. HIGHAM: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in connection with the inquiry of the Royal Commission on the scandals connected with the purchases and re-sales of stores in and after the late South African War, how many clerks are engaged upon the audit of the accounts; what fee per day is being paid for each clerk to the firm which permanently employs these clerks; when the audit began; and when it is expected to terminate.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The work to which the hon. Member refers, which was undertaken by direction of the Royal Commission on War Stores in South Africa, was not so much an audit of accounts as an inquiry by a firm of chartered accountants into the accounts of the War Office with reference to transactions during and after the war.

  1335
  The accountants began their work on July 29th, 1905, and concluded it, by submitting a report to the Royal Commission, on March 19th, 1906. The number of professional clerks employed by the firm was thirty from July to September, and forty from October onwards, with an addition of twenty clerks supplied by the Civil Service Commissioners for the more mechanical work. These numbers were gradually reduced as the inquiry drew to a close. The fees stipulated for by the firm were at the rate of three guineas a day for chief clerks and one and a half guineas a day for other professional clerks, but owing to the unexpected length of time occupied by the work, an abatement was made on the settlement of the account by which these rates were somewhat reduced.

  Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the efforts being made by the officials of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society to convert that society into a company under the Companies' Acts, and thereby change the character of the undertaking; whether he is aware that the persons insuring in that society, numbering about 3,000,000, consist mainly of people of small means who insure their children; and whether the Registrar of Friendly Societies can take steps to secure that these persons shall have an opportunity of being heard and of having their views considered (either through attendance and voting at meetings or otherwise) before any such conversion is authorised.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, on the 24th ultimo.

  Income-Tax Repayments.
  MR. SIMON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to paragraph 120 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Income-tax of last year, referring to the pressure under which claims for repayments are dealt with at Somerset House; whether he is aware that claims of this nature involve still more extreme pressure upon
  1336
  the local offices; whether he can state the number of first claims for repayment dealt with by local surveyors in the same period of pressure as is referred to in the above paragraph; and, if not, whether he will cause this information to be provided; whether he is aware that during this same period of pressure local surveyors have also to provide for the large expansion of work caused by the earlier delivery of schedules of unpaid amounts of Income Tax as provided in the new Regulations issued by the Board of Inland Revenue in 1904; whether frequent and heavy overtime without pay is performed by the clerical staff in these local offices during such periods; and whether it is proposed to take steps to relieve the pressure in these offices corresponding to the steps recently taken to relieve the pressure at the head office at Somerset House.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The number of first claims for repayment received at Somerset House, after being dealt with by the local surveyors in England and Wales, between 1st March and 30th June, 1906, was about 40,000 (a slight decrease as compared with the number of the preceding year), an average of 163 such claims for each of the 246 surveyors' district. Speaking generally, it is a fact that the work in surveyors' offices is heavier in the winter and spring than in the summer months, but there is no reason to suppose that the clerical staff, which has been largely increased in recent years, is insufficient to meet the demands upon it, nor are there any good grounds for supposing that frequent and heavy overtime without pay is performed by the clerks at the busy periods of the year. The surveyors are in the habit of applying for overtime allowances for their clerks in times of pressure, and all applications received are fully considered and dealt with on their merits.

  School for Training Pupil Teachers at Oxford.
  DR. MASSIE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that one of the schools proposed to be used in the scheme for training pupil teachers in Oxford is held in a private house and was opened only a few months ago, and that the head-mistress holds an elementary

  1337
  school teacher's certificate only; that the use of this school will introduce, for the first time in Oxford, sectarian controversy into the training of pupil teachers, the school being an institution of an extreme sectarian type, objected to by a large class of ratepayers; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As I stated on 30th July in reply to a Question on this subject, the Board of Education have not recognised any particular schools for the purposes referred to, but are awaiting special Reports by their inspectors, and other information, before any decision is arrived at. I will see that the various matters referred to by the hon. Member are borne in mind, and that no scheme is sanctioned which will recognise inefficient provision or needlessly arouse controversy.

  Hampshire Rivers.
  MR. W. D. WARD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any other, and, if so, which rivers in Hampshire will be brought under the management of the Avon and Stour Conservancy; and, if no decision has at present been reached, whether there is prospect of a decision being reached at an early date.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No decision has yet been come to with regard to the application of the Avon and Stour Board of Conservators for an extension of their district, but we shall endeavour to arrive at a settlement of the matter with as little delay as possible.

  Hagley and Clent Street Improvement.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the inconvenience occasioned by the refusal of his Department to sanction a loan of £435 applied for by the Bromsgrove Rural District Council in respect of private street improvement works carried out and completed in the parishes of Hagley and Clent, and to the fact that the plans and specifications for such works received the sanction of a court of summary juris-
  1338
  diction, sitting at the court house, Stourbridge, he will consider the possibility of revising the decision of which complaint is made.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) A local inquiry was held on this subject by one of the inspectors of the Local Government Board, and it appeared that the works could not be regarded as satisfactory. I have carefully considered the matter, but I regret that I do not see my way to sanctioning the loan desired.

  Indian Food Crop Yields.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how the yield of food crops per acre in each province in India for the year 1904 compares with the figures for the years 1880 and 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Figures for 1880 are not available, as provincial estimates of the yield per acre of the principal crops were not framed until 1892. The latest volume of the Agricultural Statistics of India gives a comparative table of the estimates for the five years ending respectively with 1897 and 1902. I will cause a copy of the volume to be sent to my honourable friend if he desires it.

  Coolnakisha Evicted Tenant.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if William Agar, formerly of Coolnakisha, Old Leighlin, Carlow, has any prospect of being restored to his former holding on Sir Thomas Butler's property.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they will have William Agar's application for reinstatement inquired into as soon as possible. The Commissioners understand, however, that Agar's former holding is in the occupation of another tenant. Proceedings for the sale of Sir T. Butler's estate have not yet come before the Commissioners.

  Ferna Bridge.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Myles O'Reilly Coat of Arms on the bridge of Ferna, county Cavan, is now

  1339
  placed upon a level with the roadway, and if left in this position will shortly be demolished; and will he, with a view to preserving this historic emblem, have it placed higher up upon the bridge, and thus remove it from danger of destruction and secure that it can be seen by passers by.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board have no information upon this subject. The matter is one for the local authorities, to whose notice the Board, without delay, will bring the hon. Member's suggestion, which well deserves to be considered.

  Irish Poor Law Commission.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the great importance of the subject to the whole of Ireland, he can see his way to reconsider his decision regarding the constitution of the Irish Poor Law Commission and appoint to it an independent member of the medical profession who is thoroughly conversant with the whole principles, honour, and interests of the Poor Law medical profession in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No vacancy exists in the Irish Poor Law Commission, which has now practically completed its labours. The vacancy which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is in the Royal Commission on the Poor Law for the United Kingdom, and, as to that, I would refer him to the reply given by the Prime Minister yesterday to the Question of the hon. Member for West Waterford.

  Drumgriffen Turbary Eights.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether William Browne, Gardenham, Drumgriffen, county Galway, is entitled to rights of turbary under the agreement purchasing his holding from Major William W. P. Joyce, dated March 1st, 1905; whether he is aware that the purchase of this holding was conditional on such rights being secured to him; and whether the Estates Commissioners can take steps to see that they are so secured.
  1340
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that there are before them two agreements for purchase, signed by William Browne, dated March 1st, 1905. One of these relates to the purchase of one-fifteenth share of a turf bank, comprising altogether seventy-three acres. When the case comes before the Commisssioners for ruling, they will take all necessary steps to secure that Browne's share of this turf bank is properly vested in him.

  Lavally Parish Committee.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will reconsider their decision not to give a grant to the electoral division of Lavally, county Galway, for the purpose of a parish committee scheme; and whether he will consider the advisability, in case the Board decide to give a grant, of the nearest established committee administering the grant, thus avoiding the necessity of establishing a new committee for the electoral division which the Board consider inadvisable.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) This matter will be brought before the Congested Districts Board for further consideration at their next meeting on the 8th instant.

  Irish Army Ordnance Labourers Pay.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has been arrived at as to the increase of pay of labourers in the Army Ordnance Department in Ireland; and, if so, from what date will the increase take effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question is a large one. It is not at all clear that the wages of these labourers are below the market rate paid for the corresponding class of labour by private employers in Dublin, but the point is now under close investigation.

  Army Hay Contracts.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the hay and straw purchased for the Army are entirely homegrown; or, if not, what proportion is imported.

  1341
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The contracts do not contain any specification as to sources of supply, and accordingly it is not possible to give any definite reply to the Question. Most probably by far the greater part is home-grown.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  War Ship Tonnage.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the aggregate tonnage of British war vessels of every class and type is equal to the aggregate tonnage of the war vessels of France, Germany, Russia, and Italy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,: I am informed that the aggregate tonnage of British war vessels of every class is 2,041,113 tons. The aggregate tonnage for France, Germany, Russia, and Italy is 2,708,461 tons. The Answer to the Question is, therefore, in the negative.
  *MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Answer would have been equally true at any time of the last fifteen years, and that these tonnage comparisons are most misleading?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  *MR BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in obsolete protected cruisers we have over double the tonnage of the nations named in the question?
  MR. ROBERTSONwas understood to say that he had only to answer the Question put to him.

  Tinned Meats for the Navy.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can inform the House of the quantity of American tinned meat at present in stock at the Deptford, Plymouth, and Gosport Victualling Yards; whether this meat was to the order of the late Government; whether it is at present served out to the Navy; what is the intention of the Government
  1342
  with regard to its disposal; whether he will state the amount of jam purchased by the late Government which has recently been condemned at the Deptford Victualling Yard; what was the original cost; who are the contractors; and whether they can be held responsible.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The quantity of American tinned meat at present in stock at the victualling yards mentioned is approximately 1,680,0001b. The bulk of this meat was purchased in 1903–04, when supplies of Australian meat were unobtainable owing to drought. Men serving in His Majesty's ships have for the present been allowed the option of drawing Australian or Argentine corned beef in place of American, but it has not been thought necessary to consider special measures for the disposal of the stock of American meat. As regards the last part of the Question, a quantity of jam, amounting to 269,0001b., has been reported as unsuitable for issue, and the matter is now under investigation. The prices paid for this jam range from 28s. 7d. to 34s. 5d. per cwt. In these circumstances I do not feel in a position to give the names of the firms concerned.
  MR. LUPTON: How long has this jam been in stock?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should think about two years.

  H.M.S. "Montagu."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether two of the ships' companies employed in the attempt to salve the "Montagu" have not been able to go ashore or obtain leave for over two months.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Leave will be given to these ships' companies as soon as the work on the "Montagu" permits.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will now bring to an end the expenditure on the attempt to salve the "Montagu;" whether he is aware that the battleship "Duncan," In the abandoned attempt on July 23rd, struck the ground twice and was imperilled by the tide race; whether one cruiser and one

  1343
  destroyer employed at various times in the salvage operations have grounded; I whether a lighter was sunk; and whether he has any further information of casualties to the Navy in connection with these operations.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The question of further attempts to salve the "Montagu" will be decided after the next Spring tides. The "Duncan" Touched ground once only, the damage being very slight; she was at no time imperilled by the tide race. The only other casualties of any importance which have occurred in the operations are the loss of a lighter, which has since been recovered, and the loss of two ships' poats.

  Torpedo Boats.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many of the eighty-seven torpedo boats figuring in the recently issued Return are upwards of fifteen years old; how many are capable of attaining in practice the speed of a modern battleship, and how many are armed with the obsolete 14-inch torpedo; and what is the number of torpedo boats and destroyers building and projected for the chief naval Powers.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Of the eighty-five torpedo boats now on the list fifty-five are upwards of fifteen years old. These might be expected to attain a speed of from seventeen to eighteen knots. Of the remaining thirty, seventeen could probably reach twenty knots and thirteen over twenty-three knots. Sixty-four of these boats are armed with 14-inch torpedoes, but the torpedoes are of types which are not considered obsolete. The number of destroyers building for Great Britain is eighteen, and fourteen are included in the programme of new construction for this year. As regards the other great naval Powers, the position is as follows. France: Under construction, fourteen destroyers, thirty torpedo boats. Projected, eleven destroyers, eleven torpedo boats. Germany: Under construction, fourteen destroyers. Projected, four destroyers. Russia: Under construction, sixteen destroyers. Italy: Under construction, four destroyers, fourteen torpedo boats. Projected, ten
  1344
  destroyers, fifteen torpedo boats. United States: Under construction, no destroyers or torpedo boats. Projected, three destroyers. Japan: Under construction, twelve destroyers.

  Naval Canteen Inquiry.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the promised inquiry into the abuses of the naval canteen system has been instituted; whether it is now proceeding; whether it proposes to hear any evidence before coming to a conclusion; and whether, before its conclusions are acted upon, this House will be afforded some opportunity of considering them.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A Committee has been appointed to inquire into the system of naval canteens, and it will take such evidence as may be necessary. It is probable that any proposals which may be formulated by the Committee will be tested experimentally in some fleet or squadron, and the hon. Member will have the usual opportunity of bringing up the question in the House on Navy Vote 2.

  Sheerness Reserve Division—Firing Practice.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has now completed his inquiry into the manner in which quarterly firing practice was carried out by the Sheerness Reserve Division in April last; whether, in order to comply with the admiral's orders,. H.M.S. "Vindictive" fired the whole of her 6-inch heavy gun ammunition in ten minutes, while only two ships were permitted to use a proper range for this purpose; whether the responsibility for this-waste of training and ammunition lies, by King's Regulation, upon the roar-admiral commanding the division; and, if so, what steps the Admiralty have taken to enforce this responsibility and to ensure that such waste shall not recur.
  MR. EDMUMD ROBERTSON: As the result of the inquiry now completed, it would appear that the hon. Member has been misinformed, and that there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that there was any waste of ammunition, or that the firing practice was in any way hurried.

  Battleship Construction—Wages at Portsmouth.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the regulations in force as to extra pay to workmen employed in the construction of battleships at Portsmouth working in confined spaces; and whether wing compartments are treated the same as double bottoms, so far as extra rates are concerned.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Workpeople engaged in cleaning and painting double bottoms or working in confined spaces, are paid 1½d. an hour in addition to their ordinary rate of pay while so employed. Wing compartments are treated in the same way as double bottoms where the conditions as regards space, nature of access, and ventilation are the same.

  Shoebury Shell Dangers.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether further inquiries have now been made by the War Office into the statement brought to his notice last month, that on the 4th June a shell from Shoebury fell within twenty yards of a party of nine who were fishing in the bawley "Edgar," from Leigh-on-Sea; whether he is aware that prior to the matter being brought to the notice of the War Office, Sergeant-Major Gunnett had already been to Leigh-on-Sea to interview the skipper of the bawley "Edgar," with reference to the incident, and had ascertained all the details; and that those responsible for the firing still allege that the incident did not take place; and, if so, can he state why Sergeant-Major Gunnett visited Leigh to interview the skipper before any complaint or allegation had been made to the War Office.
  *THE SECRETARY OV STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,: A Court of Inquiry will be held to investigate fully the alleged incident. As regards the visit of Sergeant-Major Gum-net to Leigh which took place on the 20th June, I may point out that my hon. friend gave notice of his Question on the 18th June and that the attention of the Commandant of the School of Gunnery was drawn to it on the 19th June.

  Newtowngore Ex-Soldier's Pension.
  MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the case of Thomas Henry Bryson, formerly of the Royal Engineers and now of Newtowngore, County Leitrim, who enlisted on 29th December, 1877, and is in possession of the Zulu medal, with the only clasp given for the war, and is disabled with rheumatism, which he contracted whilst on foreign service; and whether, seeing that his pension is only 1s. per day, while other pensioners who served in the the same war have 2s. per day, he will reconsider his case with a view to increasing his pension.
  *MR. HALDANE: This man was invalided from the Royal Engineers after a service of five years, 332 days only, on account of rheumatism, which commenced at Chatham after he had served for just over a year and before he served abroad. His present pension of 1s. a day is the highest which can be granted to him under the regulations.

  Curragh Camp Stabling.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether on the 3rd July last, sixteen polo ponies, the property of officers of the 19th Hussars, stationed at the Curragh Camp, were brought to and provided with stabling at the Marlborough Barracks, Dublin, till the end of the week; if so, whether the taxpayers are bound to provide free stabling for horses kept by officers for their own amusement; and if the taxpayers are not so bound, what stops does he propose to take to prevent a recurrence of the incident in question.
  *MR. HALDANE: When Government stabling is temporarily vacant and not actually required for accommodation of Government horses, the private horses or ponies of officers may be accommodated provided that no expense to the public is thereby incurred.
  MR. CLANCY: And is there no expense to the public?
  *MR. HALDANE: None.

  British Indians.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State

  1347
  for the Colonies whether the Government will make further representations to the administrations concerned, to the effect that the exaction of a literary test in English from British Indians is unfair.
  THE UNDER-SECRETAKY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,: As at present advised the Secretary of State is not prepared to make representations on the subject to the Colonial Governments.

  South African Murders—Rev. George Maddison.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Rev. George Maddison, a Wesleyan minister, of Johannesburg, who was assaulted by natives in the early part of this month, has died of his wounds; and what action is proposed for the protection of Europeans in South Africa.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A statement to this effect has appeared in the newspapers, but I have received no official information. It is the duty of the local Government to afford all reasonable protection.
  *MR. REESasked if this was not the third death by violence offered to a party of Europeans of which Mr. Maddison was a member, and Mr. Churchill requested him to give notice.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the number of white, yellow and coloured persons respectively who have been murdered by Chinese coolies in the Transvaal during the first six months of the year.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I unintentionally misled the House the other day when in answer to a supplementary Question I said the majority of the murdered persons were whites. The number of persons murdered by Chinese coolies in Witwatersrand and Pretoria districts during the first six months of this year is:—

  Whites

  2

  Coloured

  4

  Yellow

  21

  Total

  27

  Disfranchised Cape Colony Voters.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many voters were disfranchised in Cape Colony after the war, and when these electors will regain their votes.
  MR. CHURCHILL: According to a Cape official Return, printed in 1904, the number of persons disqualified from voting at Parliamentary elections owing to convictions for treason in ten districts principally affected by rebellion was 7,072. The sentence in the case of ordinary rebels was for five years. The next biennial registration takes place in 1907, and it is understood that the number of those who will not be able to be placed on the register then is inconsiderable.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, of the Chinese coolies who applied for repatriation, a certain number are anxious to withdraw their application, but have been refused permission to do so.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Instructions have been given that the cases of coolies who change their minds must be most carefully investigated by the superintendent, and a record kept. If he is completely satisfied that they wish to remain in the Transvaal they are not to be repatriated against their will. I am informed that their have been four such cases. There is no reason to apprehend that any have been refused permission to withdraw their applications.

  Repatriation Notices.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the terms of the amended repatriation notices are readily intelligible to the coolies employed in the South African mines; and how many of them have intimated a desire to avail themselves of the facilities thereby promised.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that the amended notice has not been understood. He has received no report as to the number of applications made under it.

  Transvaal Civil Service.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what are the respective numbers of British and Boer civil servants at present serving in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know what the numbers may be, nor whether such classification is possible.

  Transvaal Bywoners.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the estimated number of bywoners in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot undertake to make an estimate.

  Transvaal Second Chamber.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the High Commissioner will be consulted as to the persons to be nominated for the Second Chamber of the Transvaal Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is our practice to consult freely with the High Commissioner on all matters of public importance which concern the territories under his charge.

  Manhood Suffrage in South Africa.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether manhood suffrage exists in Cape Colony or in Natal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

  British Cotton Growing Association and the India Office.
  *MR. REES: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will present the correspondence between the India Office and Government of India, and the British Cotton Growing Association which has taken place since the presentation of C. 1982 of 1904.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,: The Government of India a few months ago published in India the correspondence which had taken place
  1350
  subsequent to the date referred to. I shall be happy to present it to Parliament if my hon, friend will move for it.

  Indian Country Spirit.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will communicate to the House the results of the deputation of Major Bedford, I.M.S., to investigate the avoidably noxious properties of common Indian country spirit.
  MR. MORLEY: When the Report reaches me, I will consider whether the Papers can be presented.

  Assault of Sergeant Maxwell at Allahabad.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has any information regarding the assault committed last month by natives of India upon Sergeant Maxwell at Allahabad.
  MR. MORLEY: No information on this subject has reached me.

  Bengal Tea Land Assessment.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Eastern Bengal proposes to increase the assessment of land under tea in the Surma Valley by 50 per centum; and whether, in view of the fact that the tea industry has suffered for years past from currency legislation, war taxation, high duties, and increased cost of labour, that prices are low, and the condition of estates in the Surma Valley unsatisfactory, he will cause inquiries to be made by the Government of India as to the justice of such increased assessment.
  MR. MORLEY: I would refer my honourable friend to the Answer I gave to a similar Question in this House on the 31st July.† I have no reason to suppose that due regard has not been paid to the circumstan(ces of the tea industry, and I hardly think it necessary to interfere with the discretion vested by the Law in the local Government.

  The Opium Traffic
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps he has taken, or intends
  † See (4) Debates, clxii., 698.

  1351
  taking, to give effect to the unanimous Vote of the House of Commons against the opium traffic between India and China.
  MR. MORLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question in this House on July 17th, as to the action which His Majesty's Government proposes to take in the matter, viz., first to ascertain exactly what the proposals and inclinations of the Chinese Government are, and secondly, to see whether they can in some way meet those views.

  British Trade in Manchuria.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard and to develop British commercial interests in Manchuria, in view of the importance to this country of neutral markets on account of our Free Trade principles.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: His Majesty's Government understand that there are no longer any restrictions on the movements of foreign traders or merchandise in Manchuria. A Consul-General will be appointed to reside at Mukden, and there is also a Consul at Newchang. It will be their duty to see that British traders receive the equal treatment with the nationals of other countries to which they are entitled, and to afford them such assistance as they properly can. A few weeks ago Mr. Hosie, the Commercial Attache at the Pekin Legation, was sent specially to Newchang and Mukden to report on the position in Manchuria.

  Disturbances in Persia.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official information on the subject of the disturbances in Persia, especially as to whether any persons, and, if any, how many, have taken refuge at the British Legation; and whether he can state what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to bring about a better state of things in that country, in view of Great Britain's political and commercial interests there.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government are being kept fully informed of the state of Affairs in Persia, and the latest telegraphic information received is to the effect that some 12,000 persons have taken refuge at the British Legation at Teheran. His Majesty's Government have urged upon the Persian Government the advisability of taking immediate measures to put a stop to this state of affairs by giving satisfaction to the reasonable demands of the refugees. We have been informed that the resignation of the Grand Vizier has been accepted by the Shah.

  The Servian Regicides.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what precautions have been taken, and what guarantees have been obtained, to enable the British Minister at Belgrade to avoid coming into contact with regicides; how the British Minister will be able to carry out his duties efficiently if he avoids all relations with regicides; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence relating to the renewal of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Servia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have received from the Servian Government assurances, which they consider satisfactory, that His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade shall not be brought into contact with regicides. It does not seem necessary to lay any Papers.

  Morocco Police.
  *MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Ministers at Tangier have power to use the police, which are being formed under European instructors in the coast towns of Morocco, to stop the public sale of slaves in those towns.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The European police to be formed in Morocco being under the Sovereign authority of the Sultan will not receive directions from the Corps Diplomatique at Tangier. His Majesty's Minister at Tangier is fully aware of the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the issue by the

  1353
  Sultan of stringent orders to the police in the coast towns for the suppression of the slave traffic.
  *MR. ASHLEYput two supplementary Questions which were understood to have reference to the appointment of inspectors and was referred to the General Act of the Algeciras Conference.

  European Land Owners in Morocco.
  *MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recommendations of the Algeciras Conference, approved of by the Sultan of Morocco, have in any way altered the conditions under which Europeans can obtain titles to land in that country.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to Article 60 of the General Act of the Algeciras Conference, which has been laid before Parliament. It lays down that in conformity with the right recognised as belonging to them by Article 11 of the Madrid Convention, foreigners shall not, except for proper reasons, be hindered from acquiring land throughout the whole of Morocco, while "In the ports open to trade, and within a radius of ten kilometres round such ports,"the consent of the Sultan's Government is granted "In a general manner, without such consent having henceforth to be obtained specially in respect of each purchase."
  In reply to a supplementary Question, Sir Edward Grey said the Act would not have a retrospective effect, and consequently would not apply to land sold at Tangiers before it was passed.

  Disquietude at Bengazi.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent disquiet at Bengazi, and the reported refusals to allow European travellers to pass through that district, he will consider the advisability of the Commission engaged on the delimitation of the frontier at Tabah being employed to delimit the Tripolitan frontier.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A proper delimitation is desirable, but His Majesty's Government do not consider the present
  1354
  moment favourable for extending the scope of the Commission now engaged on the Sinai frontier.

  Mecca Pilgrims.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the conveyance by sea of Egyptian pilgrims from Egypt to Arabia is made a monopoly of the Khedival Steamship Company, while natives of other countries are allowed to sail from the same ports by other lines; and whether Sir Auckland Colvin, formerly financial adviser to the Egyptian Government, is the chairman of the company in question.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Foreign Office are not in possession of any information on the matter, which is one that primarily concerns the Egyptian Government.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry? This matter has been going on for years.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: If any evidence is brought to my knowledge of the matters injuriously affecting British ships I will inquire.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: And other ships also. Is it permissible to give a monopoly for the benefit of English shipping to the exclusion of all other shipping?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I presume the interest of the shipping of the other countries will be safeguarded by their own Governments, should anything be done by the Egyptian Government which they deemed to be prejudicial to those interests.

  Seamen's Remittances—Deductions.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way to remit that part of the charge of threepence in the pound, levied on the remittance home of British seamen's wages from Hamburg and other foreign ports, which is now retained by the British Consuls in those ports.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand that arrangements have been come to

  1355
  with the Treasury which will enable us to give up the part of the charge referred to, which amounts to twopence in the pound.

  Transvaal Constitution.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Letters Patent will be issued; and when the new Transvaal Constitution will come into effect.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No precise date can yet be fixed for the issue of the Letters Patent, nor a date when the new Constitution will come into effect. Everything will be done to expedite the matter, and an Order in Council has been passed for preparing the list of voters by adding the fresh voters who will become entitled under manhood franchise. I should expect that the elections will be held not later than the beginning of next year.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the Letters Patent would contain any restriction on the importation of munitions of war into the Transvaal?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I do not think there will be any departure from the ordinary practice in the case of instruments of this character.
  MR. LYTTELTON: When will further Papers on this subject be laid?
  MR. CHURCHILLreplied that they would be out shortly. They were being gone through.

  Death Duties.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of death duties has been paid into the Exchequer each year during the past six years.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,: I would refer my hon. friend to the table on page 79 of the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year 1904–5 (Cd. 2033), which gives the" Exchequer receipt of each of the eleven years from 1894–5 to 1904–5. In 1905–6 the amount paid into the Exchequer was £12,970,000.

  Discipline in the Church—Cost of the Report.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately the cost of the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Discipline of the Church of England, including the volumes containing the evidence.
  MR. ASQUITH: The total cost of printing and paper is about £2,050.

  Collectors of the King's Taxes.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether collectors of King's taxes are required by the terms of their appointment to give all their time to the duties of their office; whether they are permitted to combine with those duties the ownership and conduct of house, beer, coal, and other agencies; and, if so, whether it is hold to be in the public interest that information obtained in the course of public duty should be used by these officers to further their private concerns.
  MR. ASQUITH: Collectors of taxes are not required to give their whole time to the duties of their office. They may engage in other avocations, including those mentioned. The use of information obtained as a collector of taxes for the furtherance of private interests would be regarded as a serious breach of official trust, and would be appropriately dealt with if brought to the attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or of the General Commissioners of the District, as the case may be.

  German Gipsies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that eight families of German gipsies, numbering seventy-five persons, led by a Bavarian named Peter Goi, arrived last March at Leith from Hamburg, and have since been a source of inconvenience and expense to the local authorities and people of Glasgow, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hull, York, Leeds, Wakefield, Barnsley, Sheffield, and Manchester, as well as to the intervening districts; if he can state who was responsible for the admission of these aliens; if he will reimburse the areas concerned the costs to which they

  1357
  have been put by the laches of the Immigration Department of the Home Office; and how soon he will rid the country of these foreign caravans under the powers conferred upon him by the last Parliament.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,: The bands of German gipsies referred to by my hon. and gallant friend presumably form part of those who landed in Scotland, as he says, in March, April and May. When it became apparent that the traffic in these aliens was being organised so that they could escape inspection I took steps, as announced to this House on May 10th, to secure that any further arrivals by the steamship line which was carrying them should be subjected to inspection. Those steps were successful in preventing any further arrivals. The admission of these aliens was not due to any failure on the part of the officials engaged in administering the Aliens Act, and that Act gives me no jurisdiction to deal with them.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How are we to get rid of these wretched people?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid no action can be taken unless people interested provide money for their passage to the Continent.

  London Ambulance Service.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what action the Home Office has taken, and proposes to take, in reference to the application of the London County Council for statutory powers to establish, or aid in establishing, an efficient and rapid ambulance service in London for dealing with cases of accident and sudden illness in the streets and public places.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have been making inquiry as to ambulance service in London and elsewhere, and I think it would be well if a conference were held at the Home Office between the parties mainly interested for the purpose of informal discussion, and I hope the hon. Member may be able to take part in the
  1358
  conference. Possibly it may be desirable to appoint a small Committee to take evidence and report.

  Rejections of Aliens.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Zalman Wein, a political refugee from Russia, who was refused permission to land by the officials administering the Aliens Act, also to the cases of Moses Enighorn, Itzig Levin, Sarah Kamisar, Cham Sharogrofsky, Yankel Truse, Jacob Pollack, Sinuha Tusman, and other similar cases all occurring this month; and whether in view of the denial of the right of asylum in these cases, will he say what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. GLADSTONE: All these cases were dealt with in my Answer on the 30th July to the hon. Member for the Loughborough Divisidh of Leicestershire, and I have nothing to add to that Answer. Both that Question and this were based upon newspaper statements which have been found to be inaccurate in many essential particulars.

  Imprisoned Suffragist.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to recommend the release of Mrs. Jane Sparborough, one of the suffragists sentenced to six weeks imprisonment on 6th July, in view of the fact that she is not a leader of the movement, and that her only offence appears to have been her reference to the word "Featherstone" under Mr. Asquith's window at a time when all the crowd had dispersed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to make any recommendation in this case. The prisoner can obtain her own release at any time by obeying the order of the Court, and in any case her sentence will expire on the 14th inst.

  Hindustani Interpreters for London Prisons.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in any of the London prisons,
  † See (4) Debates, clxii., 431.

  1359
  there are interpreters who can speak Hindustani; failing this, whether there are Government interpreters at the docks who might be sent to the prisons in case of need; and, if so, how many.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no Hindustani interpreter in the London prisons. The few Hindustani prisoners who are received can almost always speak enough English to make themselves understood: but if necessity should arise, the Prison Commissioners would procure the services of an interpreter.

  Merchant Shipping Laws in the Channel Islands.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply has been received from the Channel Islands authorities in reference to the question of extending the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Laws of the United Kingdon to those islands.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have so far been engaged in correspondence with the insular authorities on the subject of their law and practice relating to navigation and the certification of pilots. But I do not think they will object to pass legislation providing that every master of a ship must be properly certificated, and I am about to propose to them officially that this should be done.

  River Tay Pilots.
  MR. "WILKIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that by the regulations of the Trinity House, Leith, no one can be licensed to act as a pilot for the River Tay unless he has had at least three years service at sea in a square-rigged sailing vessel; and will he explain why two persons have been appointed who have not this length of sea-service while others have been refused.
  THE PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I am aware of the requirement referred to in the first part of the Question. The Trinity House, Leith, informs mo that they are unaware of any licences having been granted to persons who have not had the requisite sea-service, and if the hon. Member will give
  1360
  me the names of the two pilots to whom he refers I will make further inquiry in the matter and will let him know the result.
  MR. JOYCE: Seeing that steam has so prominent a part, will the right hon. Genteman see that their sea-service is equally divided between steamers and sailing vessels?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will look into the matter.

  Railway Carriage Doors.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, bearing in mind the number of accidents that arise on our railways from insufficiently fastened carriage doors, he will take steps to compel the various railway companies to attach an outside bar or fastener on every railway carriage, as is done on continental trains, an exception being made in the case of local traffic.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade are advised by their technical officers that the provision of such an appliance as that referred to by the hon. Member would not be desirable, inasmuch as it would tend to prevent the free egress of passengers from the carriages of the train in cases of emergency. The Board have, however, from time to time been in communication with the railway companies in regard to the use of inside handles to the carriage doors, and they have recommended the abolition of such handles on all trains other than suburban trains. The matter is not one, however, in which the Board have any powers of compulsion. It is believed that the greater proportion of the accidents caused to passengers by falling from trains are probably duo not to the insufficient fastening of carriage doors, but to the doors being improperly opened by persons in the carriages.

  Electric Light Undertakings Audit.
  MR. T. DA VIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the ultimate purchase by the local authorities within the period fixed by Parliament, in pursuance of the powers given him under the Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation Acts, granted by Parliament to companies

  1361
  in the administrative county of London, he will appoint, as auditor of the accounts of such undertakings, the auditor of the Local Government Board, who already audits the electric lighting accounts of the boroughs holding Orders within such area, or whether he will take steps to assimilate the two systems of audit in order to secure a uniform and reliable basis of comparison.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to refer my honourable friend to the Answer given on July 31st † to a similar Question which was asked by my hon. friend the Member for Camberwell. If my hon. friend has any suggestions which he desires to make on the subject of audit I shall of course be very happy to consider them.

  Seamen's Remittances—Deductions.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to remit that part of the charge of threepence in the pound levied on the remittance home of British seamen's wages from Hamburg and other foreign ports which is now retained by the Board of Trade.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This matter is still under consideration, but I hope to be able to inform my hon. and gallant friend of the decision before the House rises.

  West Ham Burgess Roll.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a public notice issued by the West Ham overseers stating that certain persons who occupy certain parts of houses and pay their rent to other persons residing in the same house were lodgers, and not entitled to be registered as householders, and have been omitted from the burgess roll as occupiers for the ensuing year; and whether the Local Government Board has any power over the overseers to compel them to place the names of all persons occupying parts of houses on the burgess roll, even if they pay rent to persons residing in the same house, in accordance with the Devonport appeal case.
  † See (4) Debates, clxii., 681.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,: I have seen the notice referred to, which states that in consequence of a decision given by the West Ham revising barrister last year, the overseers have omitted from the list of voters persons occupying part of houses and paying rent to other persons resident on the premises. The notice, however, informs all such occupiers desiring to be registered either as householders or as lodgers that they may claim to be so registered, and that all such claims sent in to the assistant overseer for registration before the 20th instant will be laid before the revising barrister. I understand that the overseers consider that the circumstances at West Ham are different from those in the Devonport case, and that at West Ham the sub-tenant is in most cases under the control of the landlord, and is in fact a lodger. The correctness of the view taken by the overseers will no doubt come before the revising barrister in connection with claims made by persons affected. The Local Government Board have no control over the overseers in the matter.

  Manitoban Harvest and the Unemployed.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the great harvest in prospect in Manitoba and to the appeal for 20,000 men to help to gather it; and whether he will in connection with the committees under the Unemployed Act supply the men to do at any rate a part of this work instead of farming at Hollesley Bay or other farm colonies.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have considered the suggestion of the hon. Member, but it does not appear that I could render any effective assistance with regard to it.

  Tuberculous Outbreak at Ipswich.
  MR. PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Ipswich Board of Guardians Farm Committee, dealing with the question of tuber culosis in the cattle of the workhouse farm; and whether, in view of the fact that after a report from the medical

  1363
  officer of health and two veterinary surgeons two animals were slaughtered and eight others have since then been condemned as unfit for food, and also all milk from the farm prohibited from being consumed in the workhouse, he will order a similar investigation to be made in the case of all workhouse farms and other farms which will supply milk to the workhouses throughout the country.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am in communication with the Ipswich Board of Guardians on the subject of the Report referred to.

  West Ham Unemployed.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will at once consider the advisability of making a substantial grant from the Government's grant of £200,000 to the West Ham Distress Committee, in consequence of the poverty in the borough caused by the want of employment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am giving consideration to the subject of the distribution of the grant, but I am not at present in a position to make a payment to any particular distress committee.

  Parliamentary Grant for the Unemployed
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the desire expressed by the chairman of the London Central Unemployed Committee that before the adjournment of the House in August they may be able to lay the foundation of their next winter's work; and, in these circumstances, will he inform the central committee as soon as possible what sum he proposes to place at their disposal out of the Parliamentary grant.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The subject of the distribution of the grant is receiving my attention; but 1 cannot at present.say when 1 shall be in a position to state what amount will be placed at the disposal of the central (unemployed) body.

  Poplar Union Audits.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a statement given in evidence
  1364
  at the Poplar inquiry that the accounts of the Poor Law Guardians of Poplar had been regularly audited by Government auditors, and that on no occasion had they drawn attention to any contract or price as improper or improvident; and whether he will consider the advisability of securing a more efficient audit by auditors instructed to call attention to such matters as part of their duty.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I understand that a statement to the effect referred to was made at the inquiry. I propose to consider whether any further instructions should be given to the auditors, together with other matters arising out of the inquiry, when the Report of the Inspector has been received.

  Penny Postage to the United States.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has had a substantial offer with a bank guarantee to cover the loss for three years, if any, of establishing penny postage between Great Britain and the United States of America; if so, will he say whether he has accepted that offer; and, if not, will he explain why.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: The correspondence in regard to this matter has already appeared in the Press.
  MR. MORTON: But why did you re fuse to accept this guarantee?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps I had better read the letters sent with regard to it. (The right hon. Gentleman then read the letters referred to.)
  MR. MORTON: But you take similar guarantees with regard to telegraph work.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, but that guarantee is given by individuals or localities which require special facilities that would involve a loss to the Exchequer. This is an entirely different question—one affecting two nations.
  MR. LUPTON: Still, it would be a great convenience to the public.

  Stornoway Mails.
  MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that during the last nine years the letters delivered and posted at Stornoway have almost doubled, whilst during the same period the parcels delivered and posted have far more than doubled, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a faster boat to be placed on the Stornoway mail service, the subsidy for which has remained unchanged for a great many years.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Although the amount of correspondence for and from Stornoway has increased, it is still very small compared with the cost of the mail service; and I should not be justified simply for postal purposes in incurring the heavy additional expense involved in order to secure the employment of a faster steamer on the service.

  Cape Colony: Duty on Catalogues.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has any information to the effect that a Customs duty of 7d. is being charged on each catalogue and price list entering Cape Colony; and, if so, why such information has not been given to the public, thereby saving inconvenience to the numerous firms doing business with Cape Colony.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Information has recently been received that a duty of the kind has been decided on; but in reply to inquiries for full particulars it is stated by the Post Office of the Cape Colony that in view of difficulties which have arisen the whole question of the taxation of printed papers sent to the Colony by post is being reconsidered by a Colonial Customs Conference. The result of this Conference is to be communicated to me by telegraph at the earliest opportunity, and in the meantime I am without the information necessary for the issue of a notice on the subject to the public.

  Newcastle-on-Tyne Postmen's Grievances.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called, by petition or otherwise, to the alleged grievances of the postmen of Newcastle-on-Tyne
  1366
  respecting the introduction of drill qualification as a necessity for appointment to the position of assistant inspectorship of telegraph messengers; and whether he can say if ordinary postmen of service will be allowed to occupy those positions.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A memorial on this subject has been received from the postmen at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The question raised is one which affects the whole country, and not Newcastle alone, and is under consideration.

  Post Office Uniform Contracts.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, with the view of encouraging local industries, he will consider the question of placing at Inverness contracts for the furnishing of the uniforms required for post office officials in the Highlands, as has for many years been done by the Admiralty in the case of uniforms required by it for local use.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Tenders for uniform clothing are invited every three years, by advertisements appearing in Scottish as well as English newspapers. The present contract was made this year, and no tender was received from Inverness. The next opportunity of tendering will be in 1909. It would not be expedient to make separate contracts for different localities.

  Telegraph Poles—Creosoting Contract.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether all the posts imported from the Baltic into Scotland for use as telegraph poles are landed and creosoted at Methil, in Fifeshire; whether he is aware that Inverness would, so far as cheap transit by rail and canal to the north and west of Scotland is concerned, be a better port of landing than Methil; whether he is aware that a creosoting plant exists at Inverness; and whether, therefore, he will consider the advisability of landing and creosoting at Inverness such portion at least of the Baltic posts as are required for uso in the north and west of Scotland.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Telegraph poles are not this year being creosoted in Scotland. Poles for use in Scotland have

  1367
  in previous years been creosoted at Methil, but the tender received for this year for the work was not satisfactory. It is known that, at Inverness, as indeed elsewhere in Scotland, there is creosoting plant, and it will be considered whether when the time comes for inviting tenders for next year, the work could profitably be done there.

  Windward and Leeward Islands Mails.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether, having regard to the loss and inconvenience caused to merchants and planters and others connected with the Colonies of British Guiana and the Windward and Leeward Islands from the absence of regular mail facilities since the abandonment of the West Indian mail contract on 30th June, 1905, and having regard to the fact that the Royal Commission which visited the West Indies in 1897, of which the right honourable the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was a member, emphasised in their Report the importance of the establishment of cheap and frequent means of communication between the different islands, and having regard to the fact that the Lords of the Treasury, in a Minute dated 14th June, 1890, recognised in how large a manner the convenience and business of the West Indian Colonies depended upon the punctuality and absolute regularity of their communication with Europe and with each other he will state what steps it is proposed to take to remove the present cause of complaint.
  MR.SYDNEYBUXTON: The question of providing regular mail facilities in the West Indies is receiving careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a definite announcement on the subject.

  Stornoway Post Office,
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state when it is proposed to proceed with the erection of a new post office at Stornoway, which was sanctioned some time since.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The original plans for the Stornoway office required modification, and the revised plans are now under consideration. The
  1368
  provision of a new office is a matter of urgency, and I hope that the building will be begun soon.

  Post Office Savings Bank Frauds.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state how many Post Office Savings Bank depositors have been defrauded during the current year under the new system of payment on demand; and has the amount lost by such depositors been made good by the Department.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: During the current year, fraudulent withdrawals on demand have been made from the Savings Bank accounts of 39 depositors, the amount in each case being necessarily less than £1. The total loss was £35 8s. 7d. This has been made good by the Department, except in sixteen cases, where the depositors elected to give a discharge, the amount so made good being £21 Is. 7d. The total amount withdrawn on demand during the same period was about £1,700,000, and the number of withdrawals over 2,000,000.
  MR. J. WARD: When the right hon. Gentleman says the loss was made good by "the Department," does he mean the Post Office, or the Post Office officials who were unfortunate enough to make the payments?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think in this case it was the Department, not the employees.

  Education Ballots and Inquiries.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education upon whom the cost of ballots and public local inquiries under Clause 4 of the Education Bill will fall.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,: The cost of public local inquiries will be borne by the local education authorities. The question of the ballots will be dealt with in the regulations for ballots which, as promised, are being prepared and will be in the hands of Members on Saturday morning.

  Regent Street.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to rebuild Regent Street with a colonnade on each side; and, seeing that the original colonnade in the Quadrant was removed, as it was found to be objectionable and to render the shops too dark, and that colonnades are out, of place in this dull climate, and are never built now even in the city of Paris, whether he will give this proposal his most serious consideration before agreeing to it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,: I understand that there is no intention of rebuilding the street with a colonnade.

  Licence Compensation.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has boon drawn to the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Kennedy in the case of Ashby's Cobham Brewery, prescribing that compensation authorities, in fixing the amount of compensation payable in the case of refused licences, must have regard to the particulars of the amount of trade done on the promises; whether the Inland Revenue would be willing to state any particulars known to them of the amounts of either spirits or beer supplied for a given period to any promises the licence of which has boon refused, if any compensation authority asked them for the information in such a case; and whether, in order to assess the annual value of all licensed promises for purposes of income tax under Schedule A, the Inland Revenue intend to adopt the same method of ascertaining their real value as is prescribed by Mr. Justice Kennedy for ascertaining the value in cases of compensation.
  *MR. McKENNA: The judgment is engaging the attention of the Board of Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue have no information in regard to the business done in particular house which would enable thorn to supply details of the kind likely to be of use to compensation authorities
  1370
  The Answer to the third part of the Question is in the alfirmativo—in so far as rests with the Board, and in so far as they may be able to obtain the necessary information which under the existing circumstances they do not possess. The assessments are, however, actualy made by the general commissionersl of each district and not by the Board.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: Surely some of the information could be obtained from the stock-books, which licensed victuallers have to keep and which are open to inspection by officials of the Inland Revenue?

  Richmond Park.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I bog to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that the speed limit in Richmond Park is constantly exceeded, to the danger and inconvenience of the general public and to the injury of the roads; and, if it is found impossible to deal with offending motorists, will he consider the advisability of closing the park to motor traffic.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HAKCOURT,): I am aware that the speed limit in Richmond Park is sometimes exceeded: from the fact that 44 motorists have been summoned and fined within the last three months the hon. Member will be satisfied that I am taking steps to deal with offenders. I am not at present prepared to consider the advisability of closing the park to motor traffic: it depends, however, on the conduct of motorists themselves whether some such step may not become necessary.

  Cheshire Cheese.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: I beg to ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether the Cheshire cheese supplied in the dining-room of the House is invariably the product of Cheshire, or whether it is an American or Canadian imitation; if the latter, whether he will undertake that Members asking for Cheshire cheese shall be able to obtain the same.
  MR. JACOBY: In reply to the hon. Member's Question, the purveyors to the Kitchen Committee

  1371
  guarantee that the Cheshire cheese supplied by them is a genuine article, and is the produce of Cheshire.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman instruct the waiters in the refreshment room not falsely to inform Members that the cheese which is called Cheshire comes from America?
  MR. JACOBY: I think the hon. Member mistakes the statement with regard to Canadian Cheddar, which is given with the one shilling dinner, as applying to Cheshire cheese.
  MR. STANLEY: I have not mistaken Cheddar, which is the product of an alien county, for Cheshire, which is a county in which I take a little interest. The Cheshire cheese, I was informed, was really a Canadian or American imitation of the genuine article.
  MR. JACOBY: Then the hon. Member was wrongly informed.

  Wye Salmon Fisheries.
  MK. WEIR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that in 1901–2 a bye-law was passed by the Wye Board of Conservators, and sanctioned by the Board of Trade, which prohibited under heavy penalty the use of the drift net in the commercial salmon fisheries of the Wye in Herefordshire for the fixed period of four years from that date; is he aware that, although the operation of this bye-law has proved disastrous to the fishermen formerly engaged in the salmon fisheries, the Wye Board of Conservators have ro-enacted the bye-law for a further period of three years from 16th August of the present year, and have applied to the Board of Agriculture for confirmation; will he state whether he has received any petitions or memorials praying that his sanction will not be given to such bye-laws; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table of the House before coming to a decision.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We have received from the Wye Board of Conservators an application for the confirmation of a bye-law
  1372
  prohibiting the use of the drift net in inland waters for a further period of three years. Certain communications have been received objecting to the confirmation of the bye-law, which will be fully considered by my noble friend before coming to a decision, but it would be contrary to practice to lay them on the Table.

  Sutherland Piers and Harbours.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the necessity of getting a grant of money for the improvement of the piers and harbours in Sutherland, so that the fishermen may be able to carry on their work without undue risk and danger.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Under Section 4 of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of 1897 money is available for those purposes, and the Board have made grants in any case whore, after inquiry, they were of opinion advantage commensurate with cost would ensue.

  Sutherlandshire Steamboat Services.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a regular steamboat service between Lochinvar and Thurso and intermediate ports in Sutherlandshire.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The proposal of my hon. friend will be laid before the Congested Districts Board, but I have further to inform him with regret that a steamer which ran during the recent spring fishing season from Loch Clash conveying fish from ports on the West Coast of Sutherland proved an almost total failure.

  Dunblane.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has received from the town clerk of Dunblane a list of offences, that are committed in Dunblane, and of which frequent complaint has been made to the Scottish Office that they are not being dealt with, and if he has had frequent letters and copies of correspondence submitted to him on the want of the services of the police for the Dunblane Police Court; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SHAW,): I answered a similar Question to this yesterday †

  Killafee Evicted Tenant.
  MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from an evicted tenant named Dominick Maguire, residing at Killafee, Carrigallen, county Leitrim; and if an inspector will be sent down to inspect the farm.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Dominick Maguire an application for reinstatement, and will have the matter inquired into by one of their inspectors in due course.

  Costrea Evicted Farm.
  MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what the Estates Commissioners intend doing with an evicted farm in the town-land of Costrea, Mohill rural district, county Leitrim, on the Ruthven Estate, which formerly belonged to Patrick M'Loughlin, and contained about 34 statute acres, the rent of which was £22, raised about the year 1874 to £29, when the tenant had to take a lease for 31 years, owing to which the tenant could not avail of the Land Act of 1881, and asked the landlord for a reduction, which was refused, and the tenant was served with a writ for three half-years' rent; is he aware that in 1884 the farm was sold and was bought in on behalf of the landlord for £2; that later on in the same-year the tenant was served with an ejectment and was afterwards decreed; and, seeing that possession of the farm was taken in November 1884, and has since been in the occupation of the estate bailiff, and that last December the Estates Commissioners sent down an inspector to inspect the farm, as the former tenant sent in an application for reinstatement, and that the estate is about being sold, will the Estates Commissioners get instructions not to sanction the sale, unless M'Loughlin gets the option of buying. † See Col. 1052.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that having inquired into the case of the evicted tenant am carefully considered their inspector'; report thereon, they decided in May last that the case was not one in which tho3 should endeavour to effect the restoration of the applicant to the evicted holding.

  Ferns School, Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the work of erecting the proposed two now schools in the parish of Ferns, county Wexford, may now be proceeded with.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education assume that the Question refers to the applications for building grants for the Clologue and Ballindaggin schools, near Ferns. As the Commissioners have now been authorised to proceed with the consideration of applications for grants in urgent cases, the application in question with others of a like nature will receive early consideration, but the Commissioners inform me that they are not in a position to give an immediate authorisation to commence building in these cases. The Commissioners will, I have no doubt, expedite the matter as much as possible.

  Irish Primary Education.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he intends to make any proposals to remedy the grievances put before him in connection with primary education in Ireland; and if he can give any indication of the nature of all or any of such proposals.
  MR BRYCE: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the lion. Member's Question on this subject on 19th July ‡ The questions involved are most important, but they are also most difficult.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland whether a policy of retrenchment in the cost of the constabulary force in Ireland has the approval of the present Irish Government; if so,
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxi., 408.

  1375
  what stops are being taken at present to carry it into practical operation; and if the Government, with a view to economy, will throw open the positions of district and county inspectors to intelligent, well-conducted constables who have gained their experience in the ranks.
  MR. BRYCE: For the Answers to the first two inquiries I beg to refer to my reply to the (Question of the hon. Member for the Birr Division on Tuesday last † The reply to the concluding inquiry is that every alternate promotion to the rank of district inspector is given to men who have risen from the rank of constable, and promotions to county inspectorships are made from the district inspectors. No change in this respect is at present contemplated.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. gentleman consider the desirability of making more promotions from the ranks?
  MR. BRYCE: That Question will be considered with others.

  Second Term Rent Appeals
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the several cases in which second term rents were fixed by the Land Commission since 1881 to the 31st March, 1906, the old rental was reduced from £2,690,702 Gs. Id. to£1,728,600 15s.11d.; whether in all 14,790 applications to fix first and second term rents were undisposed of on the last mentioned date by the Land Commission and county courts in Ireland; whether he can take any steps for a speedy hearing of those applications so as to ensure that purchase transactions will be carried out on properly fixed rents; and whether he can give any explanation of the delay in fixing rents by the Land Commission in the cases mentioned.
  MR. BRYCE: The Question correctly states the facts as shown by the Annual Report of the Land Commission recently presented to Parliament. The Land Commission inform me that during the throe months following 31st March last the number of fair rent applications undisposed of by the Commission was reduced by over 500. It is no doubt very
  † See col. 722.
  1376
  desirable that the fixing of fair rents should proceed as rapidly as possible, and I have no reason to suppose that the Land Commission are not taking all possible steps to that end. There is every reason to anticipate that with the progress of land purchase the number of outstanding applications to fix fair rents will continue to diminish.

  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of teachers who, having completed a two years course of training in 1900, are now paid a higher rate of salary than £63 per annum, inclusive of capitation; whether he can also state the number of teachers who completed a two years course the same year and are now in charge of schools having an average of sixty or over and are paid at the rate of £63 per annum, independent of capitation; and what reasons are assigned by the Commissioners of National Education for this difference of treatment.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they are prepared to give the information asked for, but it will take some little time to prepare. From the wording of the second part of the Question, the Commissioners assume that the word "Inclusive "In the first part should read "exclusive." the Commissioners also assume that the information is sought for in regard to male teachers only.

  Irish Intermediate Board.
  MR. BRYCEasked leave to explain to the House, in view of the anticipation he had hold out that the correspondence between Irish Government and the Intermediate Board of Education would be laid in a few days, that he had received a letter from the Secretary to the Board stating that as the members wore scattered all over the country it would not be possible to hold a meeting to draft a reply to his last letter; and the correspondence therefore would not be ready for some time. There was every desire on the part of the Government to publish the correspondence at the earliest possible moment consistent with fairness to the Board

  Newcastle (County Down) Foreshore.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the. President of the Board of Trade whether Lord Annesley holds a lease of the.foreshore at Newcastle, county Down, Ireland; and, if so, can lie say why others, who have made similar applications, have been refused, and on what grounds.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Lord Annesley holds a lease from the Board of Trade of certain foreshore at Newcastle, county Down. Without knowing the special applications to which the hon. Member refers as having been refused, I am unable to state the grounds of such refusal, but all applications are considered on their merits, with special reference to the interests of the public. I may add that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Board of Trade grant leases of foreshore to private individuals unless works are in immediate contemplation.
  MR. SLOANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had been in correspondence with the Board in regard to a particular case and he had personally brought it to his notice.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the incident had escaped his memory; he would look into it.

  Belfast Dock Accommodation.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether h is attention has been called to the correspondence which has passed between Messrs. Harland and Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners with reference to the failure of the Commissioners to take the necessary steps to provide proper dock accommodation at that port; whether he is aware that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have stated that within the past seven months, owing to the lack of proper dock accommodation, repairs and work have had to be refused by their firm which has resulted in a loss to the city of Belfast of anything from £200,000 'to.£250,000; whether Messrs. Harland and Wolff, in view of the position matters are now in, have offered themselves to erect a dock if the Harbour Commissioners would supply the ground; and whether, in view of this loss to the trade and working
  1378
  population of the city of Belfast, he will take steps either by remedying the present exclusive franchise system on which the Harbour Commissioners are elected, or by other means, to ensure that so large a sum of money and amount of work will not continue to be diverted from the city of Belfast.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand from the Press that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have addressed the Belfast Harbour Commissioners substantially in the terms described in the Question, and that the Commissioners have replied that they are using every possible exertion to expedite the works in question, and that they are prepared to consider any definite proposal on the part of Messrs. Harland and Wolff for ground to build a graving dock themselves. The Commissioners, whose constitution is fixed by Statute, consists of the Lord Mayor of Belfast ex officio and twenty-one members elected by a constituency of shipowners and ratepayers voting by ballot, and the Board of Trade have no power without legislation either to vary that system of election or to compel the Commissioners to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member. I fully recognise the great importance of this matter to the trade and industries of the city of Belfast and I will communicate with I he Harbour Commissioners on the subject.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a strong feeling in the North of Ireland in favour of assimilating the Harbour franchise with the Parliamentary franchise. Will he consider that?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have had no representations to that effect.

  Belfast Stock Exchange
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if the Dublin Stock Exchange is incorporated or has a regular exchange; and whether the Belfast Stock Exchange Association is incorporated or has a regular exchange.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Dublin Stock Exchange, limited, is registered as a company in Dublin under the Companies

  1379
  Acts and carries on business there. The Belfast Stock Exchange does not appear to be so registered.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right lion, j Gentleman aware that the Belfast Exchange consists of a small ring of stock jobbers who never served an apprenticeship to the business. Would it not be in the public interest to hold an inquiry?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have received no information officially.

  Howth Harbour and Ireland's Eye.
  MR. CLANCYI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state who is responsible for seeing that dangerous rocks on the coast are marked by buoys or light; and, if any authority is responsible, whether he will direct its attention to the unsafe condition of the sunken rocks between the mouth of Howth Harbour and Ireland's Eye.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Commissioners of Irish Lights are responsible for lighting and buoying the coast of Ireland, except within the limits of jurisdiction of local lighthouse authorities. As it is doubtful whether the place where it is suggested by the hon. Member that a buoy should be placed is or is not within the limits of the Howth Harbour Lighthouse Authority (the Commissioners of Public Works) I have called the attention of both the General and the Local Lighthouse Authority to the allegation as to the unsafe condition of the sunken rocks.
  MR. CLANCY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reply?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not yet.

  Cock Post Office Overseers.
  MR. A. ROCHE: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General whether overseers in the telegraph department of the Cork Post Office frequently act in the capacity of instrument operators; and, if so, whether a like system obtains in the Dublin General Post Office.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Neither in Dublin nor in Cork are overseers regularly employed on instrument work, but
  1380
  it is their duty to be ready to assist at any point where there is special need of their services.

  Cork Telephone Operators.
  MR. A. ROCHE: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the probability of vacancies occurring in the female operators' staff attached to the telephone department of the Cork Post Office in the immediate future; and, if so, will such vacancies be open to competitive examination and due notice given as to date of examination.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not aware that vacancies are probable in the near future, but in any case I have no reason to substitute open competition for the present method of appointing telephone operators at Cork.

  Cork Telegraph Staff.
  MR. A. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to ascertaining the numerical sufficiency or otherwise of the telegraph staff at Cork, he will grant a Return of the waits recorded in that office as having been given to officers in communication with it during the month of June, 1906; and whether, pending such Return, the contemplated reduction of the Cork operative staff will be deferred.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question of the amount of force required in the telegraph department of the Cork office is now under consideration, and the point mentioned by the hon. Member will be looked into in connection therewith; but I do not think that any advantage will be gained by such a Return as that asked for by the hon. Member.

  Killarney Postmen's Loads.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Posmaster-General whether any arrangement could be made to relieve the postmen at Killarney from the work of carrying very heavy loads of mails from the post office to the railway station, which is a considerable distance.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will cause inquiry to be made on the subject and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Dublin Ordnance Survey Staff.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether Mr. John Fagan, late of the Ordnance Survey, Dublin, who was recently, after eight years service, discharged on reduction of the establishment, has been refused the gratuity provided for in such cases by the rules; and, if so, will he explain why.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Under the Treasury regulations temporary civil assistants on the Ordnance Survey are only eligible for a gratuity on discharge or retirement if they have completed seven years service after sixteen years of age. This condition is not fulfilled in the case of Mr. Fagan, and I regret therefore that it is impossible to recommend him for a gratuity.

  The County Magistracy.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister by what process the Lord Chancellor has ascertained the political views of the existing justices of the peace; whether, in view of the fact that the Lord Chancellor regards the preponderance of Conservative magistrates as a great evil, it is proposed to impose a political test upon those who may in future be proposed for appointment as magistrates; and, if so, what method will be adopted to carry it out.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The fact that existing justices of the peace in the counties are by a a very great majority Conservatives is notorious and has never been disputed. What the Lord Chancellor regards as a great evil is this great disparity, and he would equally deprecate a similar disparity on the other side. The question in regard to a test is evidently not put seriously.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: How does the Lord Chancellor propose to make the disparity less without a test?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should think by redressing the balance of political opinion as well as he can.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: How is he to I find out?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no difficulty in finding out that which is notorious.

  THE TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  MR. SHACKLETONasked whether the Government, in order to finish the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill tomorrow, would carry the sitting if necessary beyond eleven o'clock.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir. I take a hopeful view of the case; but if the Committee stage of the Bill be not finished by eleven o'clock, we shall continue the sitting until it is.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the Census under any Act of the present session to provide for taking a Census of Production (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.— (Mr. Whiteley.)
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading [October 23rd] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MAJOR SEELY, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said he would, in the fewest words possible, describe the present constitution of the Committee of Defence, and the changes which he respectfully

1383
submitted to the House should be made in that body; also the present drawbacks and the advantages of the proposed change. The present Committee of Defence was formed upon the lines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He thought that was a true historical statement of fact. In 1894 negotiations took place between all those interested in the matter and between the two right hon. Gentlemen mentioned. A letter was written in February, 1894, suggesting that it was necessary for the safety of the Empire that there should be some such body set up. Under a Liberal Government a Committee of Defence was formed. That Committee, however, had no continuity in policy, for it kept no continuous record. It was not until 1903 that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition propounded, first at Liverpool, and then in the House, a scheme for a great Council of Imperial Defence. It was not necessary to remind the House how great were the issues involved in that Committee. How-ever much we longed for peace we could not retain it except by a readiness for war, and this readiness could only be obtained by co operation throughout the Empire. In 1903, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a statement to the House the result of which was the adoption of a.Resolution to the effect that, in the opinion of the House, the ever-growing interests of the Empire demanded the establishment of a Committee of Defence upon a permanent basis. After discussion, and with unanimous approval, a Committee of Defence was founded. This Committee was not quite the same as the one they had at present, but he ventured to assert, with great respect, that neither of them fulfilled the purposes they were designed to serve. What he would suggest was that they could not have a proper Committee of Imperial Defence unless that Committee included, not only representatives from the Colonies and India, but also representatives of the great political Parties in this country. He was aware that this proposal was somewhat novel to the House, but he would endeavour to show that it was not novel in other countries of the world. This
1384
England of ours, which had most complicated problems to deal with—greater far than any continental nation, the United States, or Japan—was the only country where great matters of Imperial stategy and defence were the sport of Party politics. We were the one country of all others where all must co-operate, —Liberals, Labour, and Tories alike— if we meant to maintain this great Empire under its growing burden of taxation and armaments. The modus vivendi with regard to the present Committee seemed to differ from that of the previous Committee. As he understood it the Prime Minister summoned from time to time the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and two representatives of the Services, bringing with them experts. In addition, two members had been co-opted as permanent members, viz., Lord Esher and Sir John French, gentleman who were fully cognisant of all matters of defence. He had made some inquiry into the methods which prevailed among foreign nations who had far less reason for such Committees than we had. He found that in Russia they had followed England's example and instituted a Committee of Defence somewhat on the same lines. In Germany there was no Committee of Defence unless it was the Bundesrath which also included representatives from all parts of the Colonies. In that case the Emperor was supreme and the Prussian Minister of Defence was the chairman. In France a committee had been formed upon our own lines in April of this year. That consisted of the Prime Minister, as chairman, the Minister for War, the Minister for the Colonies, and the Financial Minister. The President had power to preside over the Committee whenever he thought desirable. He (the speaker) had now dealt as far as possible with the arrangements made by foreign Powers for the purposes of defence, and he would point out to the House that whereas all of them were governed under a party system none of them allowed the party system to completely control questions of imperial defence. After endeavouring to show what was our present system and how dangerously it differed from those of every other country he would ask the attention of the House to

1385
some other special dangers which beset us in following our present policy. The present system was to the last degree wasteful, inasmuch as there was nobody to advise each party, and they bid against each other, and made proposals involving large expenditure upon the Army and the Navy. He believed that half the burden we bore was owing to the competition of political parties as to who should produce the best scheme. It made for extravagance, and what was more, it made for confusion and ignorance in the public mind, and tended to produce war. Most people in the country could not understand questions of Army administration and could not follow the system of Army corps. They said it was too complicated, and puzzled by the complication and the differences of experts, they gave up the effort to understand our system of defence Arrogance was the prime cause of war, and arrogance was the child of ignorance There was no curb under the present system upon warlike enthusiasm, and this tended to produce war. Our party system made the co-operation of the Colonies in this matter well-nigh impossibe, because they resented being the plaything of English political parties. Party Government might be a good thing, and was a good thing within these islands, but a party caucus was a bad thing with which to govern the Empire, and we came up against this bed rock difficulty when we went to our Colonies and asked for their co operation and contributions. He thought a new plan ought to be tried on the lines he had indicated. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition would say that the first difficulty was foreign policy, upon which strategy depended. To that he would reply that, since Lord Salisbury made his famous speech about the wrong horse, foreign policy had been removed entirely from the realm of party politics. This, therefore, was a peculiarly favourable moment to attempt the plan he advocated. It might be held, again, that one party might be for economy and the other for extravagance. Here, again, this was an opportune moment, for everything that had happened since the beginning of this new Parliament had shown how great was the agreement of parties on the broad lines of policy in regard to economy. The constitutional difficulty, he admitted, was the greatest difficulty.
1386
The responsibility of the Cabinet must be maintained. But the Committee of Defence was not, and would not be, an executive body and the centre of power. It would be, consultative and advisory, and he urged that it was vital to make that source of information and advice as wide as possible. The right hon. Gentleman himself had said that the Committee of Defence, when it came to a decision, did not bind itself or the Government or its successors, but was a source of information common to both parties. That being so, Cabinet responsibility remained, as it was absolute and complete. He believed much good might come from some such scheme as he had advocated. Its advantages were manifest. First of all, there was the advantage of economy if we had a continuous policy based upon a continuous source of knowledge, because we should not fly from one policy to another and a party would not waste millions of money in order to dish the other party. Such a scheme would also make for peace and render Imperial co-operation, which had broken down again and again, possible. He was convinced that the Empire could not continue unless it was held together by some bond, and there were only two—mutual profit and mutual sacrifice.
For various reasons the profit basis was inapplicable for the moment to this Empire. There remained the community of sacrifice. If we could bring the Colonies to co-operate with us in the defence of the Empire he was convinced that they would not shrink from responsibility, and there would then be an end to these senseless bickerings as to whether the Colonies had, or had not, subscribed enough. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the question to add the words ' upon this day three months.' "—(Major Seely.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid it was not the first time he had risen in this House to support the views of his hon, friend. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that the present Defence Committee, although a useful

1387
one, was not quite so effective as it might be, and had pointed out the process by which the Defence Committee had risen from its embryonic stage to its present and effective operation. Lord Rosebery recorded his idea that in regard to defence there should be no parties but only one great Parliament representing the general interests of the United Kingdom and the Empire. If that idea did not take with the British people, and this idea on the other hand became effective, he still believed that Lord Rosebery and the two right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench who were responsible for the Committee of Defence had done great service to the Colonies and the Empire in this regard. But our Colonies as well as the present Opposition in Parliament ought to be represented on the ideal Committee of Imperial Defence. It was most essential that the Colonies should be admitted to the councils of the Empire. A good deal had been said about the non-contribution by the Colonies to naval defence. But the House ought to know the position of the Colonies. It was true that the Colonies had had no education in matters of defence until the last fifteen or sixteen years. It was only about fifteen years since that Australia began to contribute to the Navy. Canada had not contributed at all to the Empire's defence until this year, when she had taken over the fortress at Halifax, and had become responsible for that, which had previously been a burden borne by the United Kingdom. The reason why the people of Canada had not contributed before was because they were a continental people and had no idea that their produce had to be protected on its way to this country. The statesmen of Canada had not been educated to contributing to Imperial defence. He was told by a right hon. Gentleman in Canada only recently that all the Powers in Europe were vieing with each other as to which should have the largest army, and that it was simply national glorification. But he pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that if Canada wanted to have markets for her productions in China or Japan and prevent the interference with that open door by Russia or some other Power we must have sufficient power behind us to enforce
1388
our claims. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there was a good deal in his argument. He could assure the House, however, that the change of public opinion in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand upon this question within the last ten years had been enormous. He appealed to the Prime Minister to consider very carefully whether it would not be well to invite colonial Parliaments to appoint permanent representatives to the Defence Committee. If the Colonies were admitted, members of both great political parties at home must be admitted, and the Government should have no fear in entrusting the larger secrets of policy to the Opposition which might confront them at any particular time. There was such a high patriotism in the House of Commons that this confidence was never likely to be abused. So far as the Colonies were concerned it was absolutely necessary that there should be constant evidence from the Colonies and India. They had something like it in the Council that advised the India Office. There should also, so far as foreign Powers were concerned, be a knowledge that should be common to statesmen on both sides. He believed economy would be greatly increased if a general knowledge of policy, which must more or less lapse when a Government went from office into opposition and lost its hold on the entire policy, were extended to the statesmen of the Opposition. There must necessarily be a loss to the country owing to the fact that right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the front Opposition bench were without information which would enable them to see the direction of the policy of the Government. They could not admit the Colonies unless they admitted the representatives of both Parties. They ought not to admit the representatives of both Parties unless they admitted the Colonies, or they would be without that great scheme of co-operation which he believed was the idea underlying the action of his right hon. friend as the Prime Minister of the time in establishing and inaugurating this Committee of Defence. If that were done they would have gone a good way towards lifting the Departments concerned with foreign and colonial affairs, and the Navy and Army, out of the sphere of acute controversy. He did not believe

1389
there was a single Member in this House who enjoyed controversy so much that he would not be willing for patriotic reasons to sink Party for the moment in order to secure freedom from those acrimonious debates which brought governments into difficulties, and, after all, served no purpose in Parlamentary life. Unless they had in Parliament ideals they would get nowhere. Many ideals that had been considered impossible had become in the end practical schemes. He believed this one would come to pass sooner or later, and he supported his hon. friend in pressing upon the Government the advisability of accepting his view.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question raised by the two hon. Gentlemen, everybody will admit, is of the supremest interest and importance to the well-being of the Empire. Obviously both the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and my hon. friend have been equally animated by a single-minded desire for the welfare of the Empire as a whole. They have not been advocating any mere Party question, and they have not looked at the subject under discussion from any narrow standpoint. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite surveyed the rise and growth of the existing Committee of Defence, which he told us had been of great interest to himself and others, and he mentioned the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who has been very keenly anxious to see some machinery tried for dealing with these great subjects. Twelve years ago, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman reminded us, the subject was in its infancy. I do not know that my ideas have undergone any fundamental change. It is the fact that since then the Committee of Defence, not precisely on the old lines, was established during the period when I was in office. I am not sure that the character of that Committee is even now perfectly understood by the House or by the public. I do not, in the first instance, regard it as in any sense an alternative either for Cabinet rule or Cabinet responsibility. The Cabinet of the day is and must remain responsible for the whole policy of the country, whether it be connected with the size of our armaments, the management of our Colonial affairs, or the direction of our foreign policy. But I go
1390
further than that, and say that the Committee of Defence cannot really be dissociated to the extent my hon. friends imagine from the Ministers of the day who are directly responsible to this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that in making the Prime Minister head of the Defence Committee we were violating the practice which had been universally observed in foreign countries, because, he argued, the Prime Minister of the day is a Party leader, the head of a Party opposed to another Party, and if you put him at the head of the Defence Committee without the co-operation of the other Party you make that Committee what the Cabinet by common avowal is, and must be, a Party organisation. The Committee ought, on the contrary, so runs the argument, to be above Party. I would ask, in the first place, whether it be really true that foreign nations have been able to eliminate this element of the Party system from their Defence Committees. I gather that we are to a large extent the initiators of this policy, and that other countries have followed in our footsteps, if I may say so—a great compliment to the work we have endeavoured to carry out. But in following in our footsteps have they been able to avoid what the hon. and gallant Gentleman regards as a grave danger and serious evil? I am not sure that he has made out his case on that point. There is no exact parallel between the position in the United States, for example, or the French Republic, and the position of the British Prime Minister. Neither is there any exact parallel between the position of so carefully constitutional a Monarchy as ours has become and any foreign Monarchy I know of. It is rather dangerous to make comparisons where an exact parallel is not possible. I will venture to suggest two things. I do not believe the President of the United States can avoid having a Party side to his duties—he is elected by a Party. He has, of course, great national obligations which overpower the Party aspect of his position, but I imagine it is never wholly and absolutely eliminated. On the one side, then, there must remain, some Party element in the position of the President of the United States, and on the other, am I not right in saying that the position of Prime Minister of this country is not

1391
wholly Party? I do not believe any Prime Minister has ever considered himself as merely a Party leader. He is a Party leader, he fights for his Party, and in the nature of the case indulges in the day-to-day polemic of Party warfare; but every Prime Minister is and must consider himself as the representative, not merely of his Party, but, for the time being, of the country as a whole. This is an aspect in our affairs which the Opposition of the day are quite ready to acknowledge, and which we are anxious to see as far as possible maintained. It would, I think, be a great travesty of the British Constitution to say that the Prime Minister of the day is merely a Party leader, and I do not think it is an accurate representation of any Party Government to say that the President of this or that Republic can wholly remove himself from Party ties. The second comment I have to make is that, as far as my judgment and knowledge go, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has exaggerated the Party aspect of the Committee's work. He told us that one great cause of the increasing cost of armaments in this country or France is the rivalry between two Parties, each of which comes into power resolved to find some scheme different from that of its predecessors, and better, but which it costs a great deal of money to put in operation. I believe that would be an entire misrepresentation of the attitude of successive Governments. I am not going to minimise any differences there may be on questions of armaments on the two sides of the House; but, depend upon it, there never was a Government in the world who wished to spend money simply for the purpose of preparing some brilliant and popular change in order to eclipse what their rivals had done, and to claim some special credit for it. There may be some Gentlemen in this House who may be under the impression that sometimes gets abroad, that Governments like expenditure. No Government does. There may be extravagant Governments, or Governments that are accused of extravagance; but there never has been a Government in the world which liked spending money, because nothing is so embarrassing to a Government, or produces such interal
1392
friction in a Government. Nothing produces such difficulty in this House or such unpopularity in the country. Let hon. Gentlemen put it out of their minds that any Government would be so absolutely idiotic as heavily to burden their finances, not for something that is of Imperial importance, but merely in the hope that it will produce popularity on the platform. I, therefore, venture to say that inasmuch as no Government indulge in expenditure merely for the sake of expenditure, you do not avoid expenditure by putting members of the Opposition, whether Radical or Unionist, on the Defence Committee. Then comes the question, how are you going to work this extended body? As I conceive the Committee of Defence, it is a body summoned by the Prime Minister to assist him in dealing with matters that are outside the purview of any single Department, and it is his business to decide the heads of what Departments and what experts are to be summoned to a meeting of the Defence Committee. It is quite true that the Parliamentary heads of the Army and Navy and the experts of those two Departments must be summoned, because almost every question of Imperial defence, and strategy closely touches both of them. But it is not always necessary to summon, for instance, the Foreign Minister, who is perhaps the hardest worked of all Ministers. If some matter arises which touches him, of course he comes. It is the same with the head of the Colonial Office. To always summon the heads of all the Departments to the meetings of the Defence Committee would be a waste of time and labour. There is that elasticity in the constitution of the Defence Committee, as I conceive it, by which the Prime Minister may decide for himself whose advice he will ask for as occasions arise. That being the constitution of the Defence Committee, so far as this country is concerned, the question comes, what is its relation to the Colonies? Of course, I think the Colonies should have at command a place on the Defence Committee, and that place is open to them as the Defence Committee is now constituted.
MAJOR SEELY: They will not come.
MR. A. J. BALPOUR: But they have come. We had a Minister from Canada who gave us most valuable information on certain aspects of the military defence of Canada. I remember also that the Australian Colonies consulted us on matters of defence, and we were able to give them assistance for which they were very grateful. I quite agree that the representatives of the Colonies would not come habitually. There is no need that they should come habitually. Remember that the interest of the great self-governing Colonies in the question of Imperial defence is largely naval; and if they are assured that we are keeping up an adequate Navy, so far as we are concerned we protect them from all over-sea dangers which they have to fear. Of this I am confident, however you may model or remodel your Defence Committee, you will never induce the Colonies to give us here complete control over the military forces which they maintain and for which they pay. We must accept facts. There is no use kicking against the pricks. We must adapt our military system to what is 1he ultimate constitutional necessity of the Empire. That of course, makes it less important that the Colonies should have permanent Members on the Defence Committee; but if ever an emergency arises in which they wish to co-operate with us the Defence Committee, as at present constituted, can adopt the means precisely suited to meet that emergency. Therefore, I am not at all sure that the gains which the hon. and gallant Member anticipates from his proposed reconstitution of the Defence Committee are at all likely to be attained by it, while the change itself would carry with it evils of a special character. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires that the Leader of the Opposition should once a week sit among the Ministers of the Government to which he is opposed and share their most intimate counsels and some of the most difficult problems with which they can concern themselves.
MAJOR SEELY: I hope I may explain that that was not my suggestion at all. That position, of course, would be ridiculous. What I contemplated is that the Leader of the Opposition should sit
1394
on the Defence Committee, say every three months, not to discuss details as to single battalions or single ships, but questions of great Imperial strategy.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quite apprehend the character of the work done by the Committee of Defence. It never discusses single ships or single battalions. These are questions for the First Lord of the Admiralty and the War Secretary. Even when we determined to make a change in Army armaments, deciding that there should be two types of guns— 18-poundors and 15-pounders—the matter never came before the Committee of Defence. It was decided by the Cabinet on the advice of the War Minister and the experts of the Department. The question intimately concerned Imperial defence in one sense; but it did not belong to the class of questions which, I think, can with advantage be brought before the Defence Committee. If the great problem, as I conceive it to be, of the defence of the North-West frontier of India should arise, you could not deal with it by itself. It could only be dealt with in co-operation between the Home Government and the Indian Government. Therefore, it comes, in my view, within the purview of the Defence Committee. I can well understand also that the Defence Committee might be asked to consider or reconsider such a problem as the two-Power standard for naval defence, for it is a question that touches so many interests that it cannot properly be regarded solely as a naval question. The Committee of Defence never has been, and never ought to be, concerned with the small matters of Departmental administration. But does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that it would be impossible to work his system under which the Leader of the Opposition is to be called in by the Government every three months to discuss big questions of Imperial defence and strategy? Just consider what the position would be if I were called in for consultation by the Government during the past six months. There is no doctrine more clear than that it is the gravest mistake to diminish the amount of your regular forces until the expansible Army on which you have to rely in the event of a

1395
sudden struggle for national existence is in working order. The Government take exactly the opposite view. They are sanguine that they will be able to find an expansible Army.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,indicated dissent.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well I can only read their speeches in our three Parliamentary debates as meaning that the Government have absolutely resolved that the Regular Army is to be largely diminished, although they have not got anything like an expansible Army. Suppose I had been present at the discussion of that great question, I should have urged on the Defence Committee what I am now urging. I should be able to cross-examine the members of the Council and the right hon. Gentleman. We should not agree, and I should come down to the House armed, illegitimately armed, with all the information which I had been able to extract from them and their experts. I should be in a false position, and I feel quite sure they would be; and I do not think for a moment they would have accepted any person on the Committee, knowing that his views differed so profoundly from their views, who would have every chance of forging weapons in their inner councils by which to attack them. Supposing I had been present during the last few months when naval policy was under discussion, and finding that the Prime Minister did not hold the two-Power standard in the same sense that I do, which I believe is the fact. The two-Power standard of naval strength as I understand it, is that we ought to have a Navy equal to deal effectively with any two Powers that can be brought against us. In my view that means a Navy not strictly and mathematically equal to two other great naval Powers, but a Navy with that margin of safety without which you could not with serenity enter on a struggle on which the very existence of the country depends That is not the view of the Prime Minister. His view, as I understand it, is that the idea that France and Germany would ever combine against us is so remote that you may put it out of account.
1396
That is an interpretation of the two-Power standard absolutely different from the way I look at it, and one most menacing to the safety of the country. The idea of imagining that international friendships are of s t permanent a character that you may put aside absolutely the idea that your friend of to-day may not be your enemy to-morrow is not an adequate basis of national defence. I say you must go beyond mere probability. If you ask me my opinion upon foreign relations, I should say it is most improbable that we should be at war with France and Germany combined in the next two or three years; yet I say, nevertheless, that to put ourselves at the mercy of a coalition of those two Powers, even if it be an improbable contingency, is insanity from the point of view of Imperial defence. But that is the view of the Prime Minister. And how is it possible that people who differ so fundamentally as he and I upon that question could possibly come to any useful agreement sitting round a table? The Government have given two absolutely inconsistent accounts in the two Houses of why they have diminished their shipbuilding programme. In this House the explanation vouchsafed had something to do with The Hague Conference, and for the rest it was entirely based on the opinion of the Naval Lords, of which no account was really given. It appears from the statement of the First Lord in another place that the diminution was not concerned with The Hague Conference, but that the Admiralty were not satisfied with some of their plans, and they wanted to try further experiments. They were two quite different accounts. On this Question of the two-Power standard we have reached a fundamental difference between the two sides; and if the Prime Minister's views are shared by his Party, I say a more dangerous policy than that now initiated in regard to the Navy has never been made before, and it is one which I believe, when the country understands it, the country will not readily endorse. Had I been asked to go to Whitehall when this question was under discussion, who knows but I might have been so eloquent on the two-Power standard, or so strong on the question of getting your expansible Army into a fit state for fighting European

1397
Powers before diminishing your Regular Army, that I might have persuaded even His Majesty's Government? But in soberer moments I should think it extremely improbable that I should have been able to move them by any counsels I could give them. The position is one into which no Leader of an Opposition ought to be put. The reasons I have put forward make me doubt the practicability of such a plan. We have to work this country on the Party system. I have never disguised from myself the inevitable dangers which are inherent in that system, but neither have I declined to recognise its great advantages. I believe a strong and homogeneous Government, even though I differ from it, is better than a weak and hybrid Administration; and, though I honestly admit I do not think the Party system is working well at this moment in the best interests of the Empire, I do not believe it will be improved by any admixture in its councils of an Opposition element, even if it be as patriotic, single-minded, and able as we may hope some Oppositions are.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): My hon. and gallant friend who introduced this subject, if I may use a homely phrase, has caught a Tartar. He proposed in the most amiable and non-Party spirit to make a certain alteration in the constitution and practice of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the right hon. Gentleman has made this amiable non-Party Motion the occasion for a vehement, sustained, and argued attack upon, first, the military, and then the naval policy of the Government. Of course everything is lawful on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, but it is rather hard on my hon. and gallant friend that his innocent proposal should be made the vehicle for a speech of that kind. I do not want to use strong epithets, but I could repeat something of what I have said before in regard to some parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I will deal in the first place with the Committee of Imperial Defence. I have never been strongly prejudiced in favour of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I was
1398
always afraid it might get beyond its proper bounds, that it might interfere with the responsibility of the Cabinet and the Ministers charged with the two great Departments, and that, therefore, the results might be unfortunate in the interests of the country. I confess that I have modified my opinion in this respect, and I think that these dangers and evils have been avoided.
MR. A..J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When we came into office I found a certain amount of trepidation.—so strong had been the opinions I had expressed about the Committee—lest there should be some interference with its action and an alteration of its powers. But I said to those who approached me on the subject that it was to continue exactly as it was until I found practically what its working was, and if we had any reason to alter it we should do so; if not, we should do our best to continue it efficiently. My experience of this Committee has been most satisfactory. I think that my hon. and gallant friend a little mistakes its proper function, and from a greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman its creator and author, he seems also to have mistaken its function. The Committee of Imperial Defence is an opportunity for the Government to fortify itself with regard to the naval and military policy and the general defence of the Empire by the direct opinion of the best experts in the two services. The naval and military authorities meet round a table with the members of the Government and discuss all the technical questions which are brought before it, but it has nothing to do with policy, nothing whatever to do with the naval and military policy on a large scale. To my mind it has nothing to do with the question of what is the standard of two or three nations we should be equal to. What they have to supply is the information how we can best equal these if we wish to do so, but it is the political Members of the Cabinet who have to determine the policy of the country, with the expert assistance and the technical knowledge necessary to carry out that policy. Therefore the right

1399
hon. Gentleman, if he had been fortunate or unfortunate enough to be summoned to one of our meetings, would not have been asked whether he agreed with me that some standards laid down for the Navy are excessive and possibly in their nature absurd. He would not have been asked to agree with the Secretary for War as to whether the reductions in the Army could safely be made with the prospect which is before us of being able to create, expand, and develop a force sufficient for the defence of the country. Those are questions of high policy with which the Cabinet deals, but which are beyond the ken, in that stage of them at least, of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The right hon. Gentleman also would have been in this position. He would have been among men who had a very easy means of knowing what the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman were, because the discussions of the Committee under the last Government, and the conclusions to which they came on one subject after another, are recorded and are open to us for examination; so that we have a perfectly sufficient knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman's views were last year and the year before. My hon. friend thinks that an advantage would be obtained by adding to this Committee other people, either Members of Parliament or peers, who did not belong to the Party in power, and therefore had no direct Ministerial responsibility, and perhaps ultimately introducing also members representing the Colonies and other parts of the Empire. The Colonies and the other parts of the Empire have been consulted and can be consulted fully whenever it is their desire or in the public interest that they should be consulted. To constitute them members of this body would, I think, be a somewhat singular course to take; and I am strongly of opinion that the best course you can take to secure the very best men is to give them direct responsibility, and that the opinion of any person however illustrious and however capable he may be, if brought into a Committee of that kind without official responsibility is not of so much value as the opinion of those who, though in the receipt of public money, are from the position they occupy bound to do their best in the
1400
public interest. I therefore do not agree with my hon. friend that this Committee requires to be supplemented by such aid. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken this opportunity to launch some observations against our conduct within the last week or two in respect to the Army and Navy. With regard to the Navy, he says that he and I would find ourselves totally at variance as to the standard we should set up for the shipbuilding under the Admiralty. He refers to my criticism upon the two-Power standard at the present moment. I do not say that the two-Power standard is not sometimes a very reasonable thing, but when the two Powers you take are the two Powers who are perhaps more likely to be antagonistic to each other than any other two Powers you can find on the continent of Europe, when you know that we are in close relations of friendship with one of these Powers, recently established and improved by public instruments, when we know also that we are on excellent terms both with the people and the Government of the other Power; when we know further that if these two Powers are building ships fast they are building them against each other, to suggest that we should take these two Powers as the test and criterion of how much money we should expend on our Navy and what strength the Navy should be is, I think, to use a phrase already used, what may be called a preposterous idea. I go further and say that, if you examine the present strength and the existing proposals of these two Powers, they will not support the increase which is sometimes advocated for our Navy. Even if you take that as your test, if you examine both the character of the ships and the rate of their building and the other elements which go to support that view, I say that they will not bear out those large ideas of advance that are entertained in some quarters. No; we have done nothing with regard either to the Army or the Navy which has weakened at all the practical strength of the country for defence. It does not follow at all that because you do not build, because you drop an ironclad out of your programme, that you are below the strength required for your purpose. Though the two-Power standard is a convenient standard it is not everything.

1401
and we ought to consider what the requirements of the Navy are, just as we consider what the requirements of the Army are, and see that we have a sufficient Army and Navy for those requirements. That is the business of the Admiralty and the War Office, and the distinguished sailors at the Board of Admiralty, and the distinguished generals who advise my right hon. friend. I do not think that it is any part of the duty of the Committee of Imperial Defence to meddle with and pronounce an opinion on the general policy of the Government either in naval or military matters. I think it can give the Government, as it does, with great effect and success and with the most perfect loyalty the best technical advice on all professional matters which the officers summoned to it are so well qualified to give. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in the attacks he made upon us, or in the use of some of the phrases with regard to our relations to the other Powers. When he conjured up the idea that, after all, friendships and alliances might not last long, and that we must be always ready for an eventuality in all circumstances— when he said that at the present moment, I do not think it was the kind of thing which is likely to conduce to the best interests of this country or of the peace of Europe. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has often shown himself a strong advocate of peace, and I do not wish to insinuate that he has any evil designs on the peace of Europe or against our friendship with other nations. But there are some things about which it may be said that the less they are talked about the better, some hints almost amounting to threats made by public men which had better be left unsaid. He was guarded in his language, but his general tone implied that I was entirely wrong in my supposition and hypothesis that a combination of these two Powers in open warfare against us was an impossible contingency. I think it is unfortunate that he implied that there could be this combination. It is on that ground that I have interfered in the debate, which, as far as it concerns the action and constitution of the Committee, I would much rather leave to my right hon. friend.
*SIR J. JARDINEsaid he had to ask he House to come down from the high level to which debate had been raised that afternoon to an ordinary question of administration. He referred to the leasing of the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries. He did not think any apology was needed for bringing this question before the House inasmuch as Lord Elgin had washed his hands of the responsibility for it and they had been informed by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that there were great defects in the procedure, and after a series of questions they had been told by the Under-Secretary that it would be an advantage if they could refer to the late Colonial Secretary, who was at that time the candidate for St. George's, Hanover Square, and who now was the actual Member for that constituency. His remarks would be more a criticism of the past Government than a criticism of the present, because Lord Elgin said that the business was practically finished when he took office, and that he had no course open to him in accordance with the precedents of the Colonial Office, but to bring to a conclusion what had almost approached a settlement. The Colony had called in tones of burning complaint for some alteration of this contract, which had caused a great loss to the revenue of the Colony. The fisheries had been leased from 1906 for twenty years at an annual rental of £20,660 which was far too low. In 1904 the net. profits were £61,000; in 1905 they were £153,000; and in 1906, the first year of the lease, they were £89,000, the average of four years being about £80,000. Why, it was asked, had the rent been fixed so low when these enormous profits were being earned? It had been alleged, that an average had been taken over twenty years; but of that period eleven years were barren and belonged to the time before the Government of Ceylon had taken the fisheries in hand, employing for that purpose Professor Herdmann, a learned expert on pearl fisheries, and Mr. Hornell, another marine biologist. The costly investigations and the organised system adopted by the Government had some years ago eliminated uncertainty from the fisheries, and converted them into an industry as

1403
valuable as any of the municipal enterprises in this country which were so jealously reserved for the public benefit. The Colony also spent £10,000 on Mr. Dixon's highly successful machine for separating the pearls, and Mr. Hornell's dredging was reported as successful. So that Governor Blake on June 14th, 1905, wrote to the late Colonial Secretary as follows—
"There seems no reason to apprehend a failure of the annual fishery in future years."
Again in November, 1904, the Government Agent telegraphed that Mr. Dixon's machine prevented loss or damage to the pearls and was working well. The negotiations for a lease of the fisheries began in 1904, but how the scheme originated had never been explained.
However, in December, 1904, the Blue-book showed the late Colonial Secretary negotiating with Sir J. West Ridgeway and a syndicate of financiers. A suggeation had been made that it was necessary to get a firm of high financial standing to come in and take up the matter. The syndicate consisted not of the people of Ceylon, who were interested, nor the great traders of this country, nor of the people of India, but of what was called the South African clique. They called up only £1,687 10s. They spent £200 on obtaining the concession, £106 on registration, and £110 on preliminary expenses —£416 in all—and during the progress of these secret negotiations they actually sold what they had got for £11,000. An increment of that sort gave an indication of what the real commercial value of this concession was. That profit ought to have gone to the Colony and not to this Gulf syndicate. A short time after, a limited company, the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries Company was formed. It was registered on March 3rd, 1906. That company had a capital of £165,000, of which £86,000 was paid up. It was a significant fact that no prospectus was issued either of the Gulf syndicate or the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries Company. Time went on and the arrangements were made and the lease was sent out. He was not conversant with the practice of the Colonial Office on those matters, but it appeared from the Blue-book that the Ordinance which made the lease legal was drafted in the Colonial Office, as was also
1404
the lease of the concession, and they were sent out to Ceylon with the intimation that they should be passed by the Legislative Council of the Colony. The intention to lease these valuable fisheries was not advertised in any way, and this secrecy was one of the matters the public of Ceylon complained most seriously about. The intention was unknown in the great centres where merchants most do congregate either in this country or Scotland or the great centres of the East from which people were attracted to the pearl fisheries in Ceylon. There were many Scottish firms of high financial standing on the shores of the Indian Ocean in Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Rangoon, and Colombo—one might almost say from China to Perim—and had it been known it would have resulted in the real financial value of these fisheries being ascertained by competition and tender. But there was no invitation given to anybody to tender, and the matter was entirely unknown to everybody save the limited number of persons who formed the syndicate. One could not refrain from asking the question: Why was this valuable property allowed to go in this way? Why was it leased at all when it was paying so well? The people of Ceylon would have preferred to have kept it themselves, as he could show from the great complaints that were published in the newspapers. It might be said that it would be difficult for the Government to manage such a thing, and that they had better grant a lease than undertake to manage these fisheries, but that was not the view taken by the independent members of the Legislative Council or the public officials in Ceylon, who had invested in the shares, nor by the firms with German names— Derenberg, Albu, Neuman, Friedlander, Mosenthal et hoc genus omne who make up the limited company. If it were said that they could not test whether the bargain was a good one until twenty years had passed, there were three tests that seemed to show that the bargain had been entirely and tremendously to the advantage of these people who obtained the concession. The first was that £11,000 had been intercepted by the Gulf syndicate even before the company was formed; the second was that the 6 per cent, ordinary £1 shares

1405
In the limited company with only 10s. paid up were now selling at 20s. and 22s., and the third was that the Is. deferred shares were, after a profit of £21,000 had been made, to get as much dividend as the 10s. men. And so these 1s. shares were changing hands already for 11s. or 12s. This was the market valuation; and an old poet had told us that—
"the real worth of anything
Is how much money it will bring."
What seemed to him a departure from the ordinary rule was made by this secrecy in the framing of the Ordinance, while the proposal to lease was given no advertisement of any kind, and in that way this unbusiness like procedure was the cause of what seemed a great injury to the Colony. As there was no rent ascertainable by the ordinary competition of commercial men the Colony, for the next twenty years,would be making great losses. These South African magnates would probably make more out of the pearls than they would have made out of the gold in the whole of South Africa to the great injury and disgust of the Crown Colony of Ceylon.
MR. LYTTELTONobserved that the hon. Gentleman had drawn a very gorgeous picture of the future of this industry. Whether it would be realised—he trusted it might—was a matter of pure speculation. While he was Secretary of State his concern was to see, firstly, whether it was desirable that there should be a lease of these fisheries; and secondly, if it were expedient to have a lease, that the very best possible terms were obtained for it. Throughout the course of this session, various innuendoes derogatory to the honour of Sir West Ridgeway, had been made in the course of sporadic questions addressed to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. As Sir West Ridge way was unable to defend himself, it was desirable to state that there was a misapprehension with regard to his position, and that he was not Governor of Ceylon at the time of these negotiations. On the contrary, he had left Ceylon more than a year, and he was scrupulous not to give anyone any opportunity for saying
1406
he influenced the Government with regard to the negotiations. The negotiations were carried on in Ceylon entirely by Colonel Foss. It was in February,1905,that the Ceylon Government suggested to the Imperial Government as a basis of discussion that £15,000 a year for twenty years would be an adequate and proper basis for discussion. It was not until the August following, after careful thought and assisted by the experts at the Colonial Office, that he, as Secretary of State, sent an ultimatum that the rent which the Ceylon Government had fixed at £15,000 should be raised to £20,000—an increase of nearly 30 per cent. As the House knew, that was after more negotiations recommended to the Ceylon Government for acceptance, and on February 8th, 1906,after the present Government had come into power the Second Reading of the Ordinance took place in Ceylon. The negotiations went on for several months more, and it was not until February l6th this year—long after he had left the Colonal Office and the present Government had come into power—that the Third Reading of the Ordinance in Ceylon was sanctioned. While it would not have been in good faith had Lord Elgin receded from the negotiations after they had reached that stage, if there had been anything in the slightest degree improper or in any sense fraudulent on the part of the syndicate or anybody else it would have been wrong to have continued the transaction. But that was not suggested even by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who said the deal was improvident. No one could possibly impeach Sir West Ridgeway's conduct, because, with full knowledge of all these facts, the Government appointed him Chairman of their African Commission—a position which demanded not only the highest integrity, but also the highest wisdom and prudence. As to why this matter was not put up to tender, there were two very substantial reasons. It was not the practice of the Colonial Office and other State departments to put concessions of this sort up to public tender, because, if they did they either had to accept the highest tender, and perhaps get an undesirable person to deal with, or, if they rejected the highest tender, they had

1407
to enter into awkward explanations. Rightly or wrongly, it was not the practice of the Colonial Office in such cases to put these concessions up to tender. In this case there was an even more conclusive reason. The Government of Ceylon and the Colonial Office were not able to ascertain the terms upon which they were willing to grant a lease until months and almost years of negotiations and after these protracted negotiations it would have been a breach of faith to put the bargain up to tender. He would give the authorities who had been in favour of the course taken. In the first place, the Government of Ceylon were anxious not to retain this property in their own hands. They expressed that desire through the Governor and the executive council unanimously, having been required by himself and by his successor, Lord Elgin, to vote not as officials but as they thought right on the merits of the case. The officials of the Legislative Council were given a free hand in the matter, and they voted to the extent of two-thirds in favour of this concession. It was quite true that some of the members of the Council were paid members, but they were left absolutely unrestricted in giving their opinions. They were men of the highest standing and character, and he did not regard the acceptance of pay for public service as absolutely disentitling those who received it from giving a straightforward and unbiassed opinion on questions submitted to them. It was incorrect to say that no native members voted in favour of this plan. Outside the official members there voted for it not only the representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and of the general European committee, but the representative of the Cingalese provinces. The one-third who voted against it consisted of Colombo representatives and natives. After months of consideration, he himself approved of this bargain, and all his expert advisers at the Colonial Office, and, what was perhaps more important to hon. Members opposite, Lord Elgin after he came into office approved it in a despatch, some part of which he thought should have been read in answer to the questions which had been asked.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,)asked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by that remark.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he meant, what he said. In the course of these sporadic questions, in which, he understood, allegations of bad faith were being made, it would have been better not to withhold the expressed opinion of the present Secretary of State.
MR. CHURCHILLthought the right hon. Gentleman's complaint against him was undeserved, as the despatch had been published in the Blue-book and had been laid upon the Table of the House.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid it would have been better, considering the imputations that were being made in certain quarters, that a few lines, at any rate, of the despatch should have been read to the House in order to have dispelled the imputations when they were first made. Lord Elgin wrote, on 9th May, this year:—
"In the present instance I am not called upon to say more than that the lease appears to me to have been drafted with a sincere desire to safeguard to the utmost the property and interests of the colony. It may be true that the development of the fishery upon a scientific system offers good prospect of a greater return in the future than has been obtained in the past, and affords at least the hope that the barren cycles which have been so common in the past will not recur to the same extent. But the operations necessary to that end are, as you are well aware, of a highly technical and experimental character, and I am very doubtful whether any machinery which could be set in motion by the Government would be suited to develop processes at once so doubtful and so delicate. In twenty years time the Colonial Government will receive back the fishery, not only intact, but in the most perfect state to which commercial enterprise and scientific methods can raise it, and in the meanwhile a regular and substantial payment is assured upon which the Government of Ceylon can count with certainty in their financial arrangements. Twenty years are, no doubt, a considerable period in the lifetime of individuals; but if within that time all the resources that science can contribute towards systematic development of the fisheries will have been applied and thoroughly tested, the period will not, I think, be regarded as excessive or unfortunate in the history of a fishery which has lasted for more than 2,000 years."
That was the deliberate judgment of Lord Elgin. With all this weight of.

1409
authority he had cited, the responsibility of any Secretary of State would have.been very grave in rejecting a lease of this kind. But he did not wish to shelter himself behind authorities. What were the merits of this case? For 100 years the net produce of this fishery had.averaged £10,000 a year, and for the last twenty years it had averaged £20,000 a year, including the biggest year ever recorded. The rent obtained was £20,000 a year—not a bad beginning—and the company had come under obligations to.spend, if reasonably required, 3,000,000 rupees on the fishery during the currency of their term, to do nothing which was injurious to the fishery, and not to fish at all during the last three years of the term if necessary and desirable. These things were matters of certainty, and it was an administrative advantage for the Colony to be able to make their financial calculations with certainty. It was hoped that by scientific cultivation the fishery would prosper, but that cultivation must be constant and continuous. This fishery it was hoped would prosper more when the large development expenditure which was provided for had been made. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies would sympathise with this because he had always been a great advocate of economy, and had distinguished himself as an economist and a critic of Governments for their lack of economy. For many years not a single pearl was obtained. That was said to be due to the terrible play of wind and tide upon the banks on which the oysters matured. It was therefore suggested by the scientists that the oysters when a year old should be transplanted from the exposed banks to banks less exposed. But that transplanting would cost a lot of money, a fact which operated on the minds of the Legislative Council in deciding to lease the fishery. Another scientific suggestion was that large quantities of matter should be brought from a distance with which to stiffen the banks on which the oysters were bred so as to resist the operations of wind and tide. Suppose that tons of this matter were cast into the sea year after year and the result was fruitless? He could well imagine the lecture which the Under-
1410
Secretary as an economist would administer in these circumstances to the Legislative Council if the fishery were retained in their hands. In his own experience the golden promises of scientific men had been too often falsified for him to place any great confidence in them. At any rate, it was certain that the expenditure to be made on the improvement of the fishery could not have any good results for two or three years. So much for the hopes held out by the scientists. What was the estimate of business men? In the year 1903 or 1904 this concession was offered to four of the largest firms in London at a rent of £12,000 a year. They all refused it on the ground that it was too speculative.
MR. CHURCHILL: When was this?
MR. LYTTELTON: Before the offer was ultimately accepted. T believe in 1903. These firms—
MR. J. HENDERSON: Name one firm.
MR. LYTTELTON: The names of the firms are—Rothschild, Sir Ernest Cassel, Wernher Beit, and one other whose name has escaped me.
MR. DALZIEL: Were they in possession of the same facts as have subsequently been brought out?
MR. LYTTELTONsaid that was a very pertinent question. He did not think they had before them the whole of the facts which were put before the Colonial Office. But it was important to bear in mind that the rent of £12,000 which these four great houses refused was afterwards increased to £20,000. There were also the important considerations that in addition there was to be a large expenditure on the scientific cultivation of the fishery, and that there was ample security against injury to the fishery during the whole of the period of the lease. The only other charge advanced against the transaction was the secrecy in which it was alleged the matter was kept. There was absolutely no foundation for that statement either

1411
in Ceylon or in this country. References to the proposal were frequent in the Ceylon newspapers in March, 1905. Since that time references to the proposal were frequent. He quoted from the Ceylon Mail, which had now joined the Under-Secretary, to show that the offer to the syndicate was a fair one; and said that as regarded the supposed secrecy the terms were perfectly known so far back as November, 1905, and were the subject of discussion so far back as March in that year. He knew that Members of this House held different views as to what the function of the capitalist was. He knew that some Members thought that all capitalists ought to have a millstone tied round their necks and be thrown into the sea, but in a condition of things such as prevailed in this instance where the Government had to administer fisheries from which there were exceedingly capricious and uncertain results, where one had to make a large annual expenditure and where the revenue was uncertain, that was the moment when the capitalist was eminently suitable to step in to the assistance of the Government. The capitalists might win or lose in the actual working of the lease, and nobody could deny that this was a speculative transaction, but, whatever happened, the whole result of the speculation would be in the hands of the Government with absolute security at the end of twenty years time. Whether the arrangement was right or wrong the future alone could prove.
MR. CHURCHIILsaid that the House would be convinced that whether the right lion. Gentleman judged rightly or wrongly, he had at any rate given the most careful consideration to the question, and possessed himself most thoroughly of the facts. He did tot disagree largely with many of the arguments which the right hon. Gentlemen had used, but he felt it his duty to the House of Commons also to submit to their consideration the other side of the argument. He thought both sides were simply stated, and he thought that they should be balanced one against the other. It was a very diffcult and complicated question, and no one he thought could be blamed
1412
severely for taking one particular view or the other. The right hon. Gentleman appealed a great deal to authority. He quoted various experts, he quoted the Legislative Council of Ceylon, and he quoted a despatch which was printed in the Blue-book, to which he should presently refer. For himself he did not propose for the moment to refer to authority. He would only submit one or two reasonable considerations which he thought must force themselves upon anyone who gave a careful consideration to the details of this transaction. The House was well aware that the basis of the lease was that Ceylon was to receive-£20,000 a year from the syndicate, and that the syndicate bound itself to spend £10,000 a year upon the- development of the fisheries subject to certain restrictions, and it also bound itself to take over the fisheries, as to the value of which the opinions were very divided, for a term of years. It was always a nice question to say what were the proper functions of Government and what were the proper functions of private enterprise. He thought the House of Commons, or at all events this House of Commons, would be inclined to think that public ownership and control were better than private speculative ownership and control, other things being equal. The right hon. Gentleman had explained how he came to fix £20,000 a year. He said that an average of twenty years was the foundation of his lease, and that the Government of Ceylon would receive as much as they had been able to make for themselves by their own unaided exertions for the preceding twenty years. He was inclined to think that to justify in principle the transfer of property from the public to the private interest there ought to be some clear and substantial gain which should determine the decision. Now in the last twenty years there had been eleven or twelve barren years. But the last four years had realised a total, excluding the present year, of £330,000, or an average of about £80,000 a year. But the question was not dismissed when they said that the average profit during four years was £80,000 a year. The sum of £330,000 capitalised at 4 per cent, was something like £12,000 or

1413
£13 000 a year, so that the fact was that the net profit for the last four years would have realised two-thirds of the profit which would be made under the agreement of the right lion. Gentleman during the next twenty years. The right hon. Gentleman went most carefully into the negotiations which extended over two or three years, and the delay had been very profitable to the Government of Ceylon. In consequence of the record fishery of 1905 the Government succeeded in raising the rent from £15,000 to £20,000. He had always heard that procrastination was the thief of time, but in this case procrastination seemed to him to have been particularly profitable. Turning to the future, the arguments seemed to him to show that the late Government were wrong in holding that the profits would be not more in the next twenty years than had been received in the last twenty years. Sir Joseph West Ridge-way obtained a survey by a professor who wrote a most elaborate report, contained in a volume which extended beyond the limits of an ordinary Blue-book, upon the Ceylon Pearl Fishery and the methods which might be taken to improve it. The information and the recommendations contained in that report gave scientific grounds for the belief that the pearl fishery would not only be equal to the fishery in the past, but would be better and more certain in its results. The professor indicated four processes, some of which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, by which the fishery might be made more lucrative and more certain. These included the transplantation of oysters from exposed sands to sheltered beds, and he also spoke of what he called culture. That was the putting down of artificial beds to which the oysters might attach themselves. An ingenious process was also alluded to by which the pearl might be created in the oyster. He pointed out that with new scientific methods and delicate and complicated processes a better prospect was opened up than under the old crude method of diving under the water to bring up the oysters. There was another very pregnant factor which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. He would give the right hon. Gentleman a reason which
1414
had led to the high value in the last four years of the fishery. During the last ten or twelve years there had been an immense appreciation in the price of pearls. It might be conceivably 100 per cent., and there was every reason to believe, surveying the general outlook of the world, that this appreciation would continue. The Continent of America and the great German Empire were producing every day numbers of wealthy people, and the demand for these objects of beauty was certain to increase with the expansion of civilization and with every development in the world. The fisheries in the future would be twice as valuable as they had been in the past, and yet we had bound ourselves not to take any further profit in future from all the resources of science and had cut ourselves off from all the improvement that would be effected in the value of the fisheries by the growing appreciation of the pearl. He thought that these were grave considerations when they were considering this lease on its merits. What was the position of the Government in regard to this matter? The whole tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was frank and manly, and he had come forward and taken the whole responsibility of the lease. When the present Government came into office the right hon. Gentleman had already written to the syndicate saying that he was satisfied with the conditions of the lease. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. If the Government had discovered anything in the nature of fraud they would have been justified in preventing this matter from going further, He was as convinced that there had been no fraud as he was convinced there had been little wisdom. In view of the fact that there had been no fraud it would have been a breach of faith on the part of the Government to go back from a bargain which had been definitely concluded only a few weeks before by the responsible head of the Colonial Office.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Legislative Council had not accepted it at that time.
MR. CHURCHILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman suggested that after having from the Colonial point of view

1415
expressed himself as entirely satisfied with the conditions, the present Government should have telegraphed out that the bargain must be thrown up. The right hon. Gentleman would accept the view that in the absence of anything in the nature of fraud they were not entitled, unless they were to commit an act of bad faith, to intervene in any way. In these circumstances they had tried in the Blue-book to make the best case. They had put forward the considerations which influenced the right hon. Gentleman and which undoubtedly told in favour of the course he adopted. They dwelt on the certainty of the revenues to Ceylon as against the risk, and upon the delicacy of the processes to be employed and the probable uncertainty of the success of the Government in dealing with those processes. They had pointed out that after twenty years had passed the fisheries would come back and all these doubtful experiments, although hopeful, would be in their concluding stage and we would have the benefit of the fisheries in a perfect condition. He considered that those arguments were perfectly valid and good, although it was not possible to consider them except in relation to other arguments which he had thought it his duty to bring before the House. He did not desire to make anything in the nature of an indictment against the right hon. Gentleman, but he must say it was a pity that the Legislative Council of Ceylon had not an opportunity in the first instance of affirming the principle of the lease. It seemed to him that in respect of the tenders, such a proposal as this ought to have been brought before the public in some official manner, in order that the various public bodies might have got into communication with the Colonial Office so as to arrive at the truth. Even if tenders had been called for, the Government was not pledged to take the lowest. The Government was always entitled to investigate the substance and character of the firms which tendered quite apart from and prior to any considerations of their claims upon their merits. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman did not sufficiently appreciate the possibilities of the future. It was a pity not to have waited a little longer in view of the remunerative results of the
1416
delay that had intervened, and it was also a pity that only within eight days of leaving office the right hon. Gentleman wrote the letter which concluded the transaction. Though he had drawn attention to some of the errors in connection with the lease, he was convinced that there had been no fraud, and that it was not necessary for anyone to put a dark interpretation on any of the transactions that had taken place. But some familiar names seen elsewhere had cropped up unexpectedly in connection with these fisheries. It might be that certain people had special aptitudes for finding out the possibilities in connection with precious stones or gold, and whose aptitudes led them almost by a subtle instinct to move to a point where profit could most surely be made. He thought that the Government in Ceylon, when they expressed the opinion that these fisheries were worth £15,000 a year, were expressing an honest opinion, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman in all these negotiations had been animated by the most sincere desire to do right. He was bound to say that the tendering firm had acted in a perfectly straightforward manner. They had been perfectly honest, and, in addition, they had been extremely wise. He heard with very great regret indeed the aspersions made against the part Sir Joseph West Ridgeway took in this business. It was perfectly true that Sir Joseph West Ridgeway had ceased for a year to be Governor of Ceylon before he was in any way connected with any proposal in regard to the lease of the pearl fisheries. It had been suggested that Sir Joseph had utilised special information which came into his possession as Governor. He was informed that that was wholly inaccurate. While he was in Ceylon he had no communication with Professor Herdmann, and had no information as to his investigations except what was contained in the Report of the Royal Society. He left Ceylon in September, 1903, and it was not until June, 1904, that he was invited by Colonel Foss to join a syndicate to treat for a lease of the fisheries. He agreed only on two conditions—that the Colonial Office did not object and that the firm should be of high financial status. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would bear him

1417
out that in any conversation Sir Joseph West Ridgeway had with him on the subject of this lease, he made it clear that he proposed to have a financial interest in the affair. From his study of this question he was convinced that Sir Joseph acted throughout with perfect candour and integrity. His holding was a very small one—1,000 £1 shares and 1,600 1s. shares.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was informed that when the rent was raised Sir Joseph West Ridgeway reduced his holding by a half and advised his friends to do the same.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was a fact that when the rise in rent took place Sir Joseph West Ridgeway reduced his holding by one-half. There had been so much questioning upon this subject that he had thought it necessary and right to enter upon the question in detail with the representatives of the parties concerned and to make a frank statement of the case.
MR. MENZIESsaid that he had never made, and he hoped he never would make, any charge against the ex-Colonial Secretary that would give the slightest idea that there had been anything improper or any want of good faith on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. There had been nothing dishonest about the right hon. Gentleman's connection with this matter. He had acted to the very best of his ability. His complaint against the right hon. Gentleman was that he had not shown much business capacity in the matter. He believed that if such firms as Cassel, Beit, and Rothschild had had the same information as the other company the Colony would have had the benefit of £60,000 more per annum in its coffers. For a Colonial Governor, after his term of office had expired, to introduce a syndicate to the Government and then join it himself was a dangerous precedent. He had never supposed that the financial profit of this matter was anything whatever to Sir Joseph West Ridgeway. But was there any precedent for the action of Sir Joseph?
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he understood that in the case of the Burmah mines the chairman of the company was Sir Lapel Griffin, who had only then recently returned from the Indian Civil Service.
*MR. REESsaid as one personally acquainted with Sir West Ridgeway he entirely accepted what had been said as to his connection with this matter by the ex-Colonial Secretary and the present Under-secretary, and he would add that his information was that the details of the transaction were well known to the commercial community of Colombo. But he would pass from that matter, as he thought it had been fully discussed, and would call attention to the position of British Indians in the Transvaal, where they laboured under disabilities which were greater than any endured under the most rigid caste system on the Malabar coast. Having said that everything possible should be done to alleviats the position of our British Indian fellow subjects in South Africa, he drew the line at bringing coercion to bear on the Colony, being convinced that they must be allowed to manage their own affairs, and that when there was a difficulty it could not be got over by urging upon the Colonial administrations sentimental considerations. Turning to the question of the Chinese Customs, according to the exceptionally well-informed correspondent of The Times alterations in the method of management had been made by the Chinese Government in spite of the assurances which had been given to the contrary. He asked for an assurance that the resignation of Sir Robert Hart had not been caused by such interferences on the part of the Chinese Government. He wished also to refer to the question of the increase in the Turkish Customs. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated on Wednesday evening that he had succeeded to a certain position in regard to the increase of 3 per cent, which he was now bound to maintain. He submitted that in point of fact the present Government in December, 1905, formally consented to allow tbe Turks to include military expenditure in the Macedonian Budget. He would point out that Turkey had to faee in Macedonia a heavy

1419
existing deficit caused by military ex-penditure, which was being paid out of the existing Turkish Customs, and if the right hon. Gentleman consented to a further increase of 3 per cent., it was possible and probable that the extra revenue gained would be applied to financing the scheme of the Baghdad Railway. If that wag likely to follow as a consequence of the increase he thought we should not agree to it. But if that railway were constructed, it ought to be an absolute sine qua non that England should have control of the section between Baghdad and the Persian Gulf, and that the rest of the line should be under international control. This project, which was upon a commercial basis at present, by reason of the immense importance of this route to our trade, to cur position in Persia, and to the defence of India, was likely to become of even more importance politically than commercially. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman might have very little to say on this subject, but what he wished to point out was that both in the House and in the country the very great importance of this question was entirely under-estimated. It was a question as important as the construction of the Suez Canal, and it would introduce greater changes into the future of the far East than, anything that had happened since the Suez Canal was constructed. It appeared to him that the Foreign Office was in a position to treat this as an open question, and he hoped the Government would not consent to letting this 3 per cent, go, out of a hope that Macedonia might profit, which was doubtful. Any man who had visited the Turkish Empire would tell them that the abuses and the difficulties which often occurred between the different races which had been brought together under the Porte were due more to ethnical and local conditions than anything else, and that the Porte allowed them all to do pretty much as they liked, provided they kept the peace one with another. The importance of this question was very imperfectly apprehended both inside and outside this House. He hoped the matter would be treated by the Government in the same manner as Lord Lansdowne treated it when he laid down the
1420
doctrine that England must maintain: the status quo in the Persian Gulf at all risks. In conclusion he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would believe that he was not endeavouring to pry into the Foreign Office secrets by bringing this matter forward, and he believed the House would be grateful for anything the Secretary of State cared, to say upon these points.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked the House to turn its attention to the present situation as it affected our Colonial interests in the far East. Our Colonial interest s in China were enormous. In approaching this subject, he was placed in a difficulty owing to the extraordinary fact that the Blue-book or report in regard to the foreign trade of China had not been published by the late Government since the year 1903.. It was almost inconceivable in the year 1906 that a nation with more trade in China than all the other nations put together should not have the trade statistics of the greatest of all neutral markets in the world up to a later date than 1903. There were two or three important questions in the present situation in China to which the House might well give its attention. There was the question of the Chinese maritime customs. The Chinese Government had appointed Chinese officials at the head of the maritime customs. The House knew that many years ago the control of the Chinese maritime customs was placed in the hands mainly of European officials, at the head of whom was Sir Robert Hart as inspect or-general. Various loans had been concluded between China and various. European countries to the extent of £45,500,000, guaranteed on the security of the receipts of the maritime customs, which were to remain under the inspector-generalship of Sir Robert Hart or some other European, but they learnt through, the correspondent of The Times that the Chinese controller who had been put at the head of the maritime customs by the Chinese Government had taken very active steps in the matter of control, and this after the assurance: received from the Chinese Government in answer to the representations of the British Government that the control

1421
should remain in the hands of Sir Robert Hart. In 1899 we were told that so long as British trade was predominant in China so long a British subject should be controller of the Chinese maritime customs. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the House so far as was consistent wth his office a statement of the position in China to-day. These Chinese officials had given orders that no statistical returns or reports should be published in future until they had received their official sanction. That simply meant the establishment of a Chinese censorship and the abolition of the excellent branch by which the Chinese trade had been known to the world. That was a most serious thing so far as British trade was concerned. It meant not only a breach of faith on the part of the Chinese Government so far as the guarantee for the £45,500,000 of loans was concerned, but also with regard to the war debt at the end of the rising in China, which was £64,000,000. But that was not the most important part so far as this country was concerned, because our commercial interests far outweighed any financial interest we might have in the Chinese loans. If the Chinese Government were not compelled to adhere to their engagements it would not be long before Chinese officials would be placed in control of every port through which British goods were sent and would inflict the most serious injury on our trade. Then there was the question of British interests in Manchuria. We learnt from The Times correspondent that the Japanese Government on the one hand and the Russian Government on the other were faithfully performing their pledges with regard to the evacuation of Manchuria, but we also learnt that through three ports in Manchuria, Japan and Russia were sending in goods without the usual import duties being imposed on them. At the present moment only the port of Newchwang was open to the trade of all nations. We knew that the military conditions had imposed on Japan the necessity of delaying somewhat the opening of Dalny and other ports to the trade of the world, but the House hoped to have to-day some indication from his right hon. friend that all these matters were receiving the careful attention
1422
of the Government and that before long the present conditions would be altered and we should have the open door throughout Manchuria for the trade of the world. The condition of things in Manchuria of late had been detrimental to the trade of this country. It was most alarming. In the last four years our trade in Manchuria had diminished by 4 per cent, whilst that of the United States of America had increased 120 per cent, and that of Japan by 300 per cent. This country would be the last to begrudge Japan some considerable commercial advantages as partial recoupment for the enormous sacrifices she had made to keep Manchuria open to the trade of the world. He thought it was only right to draw attention to the change in the position and the diminishing amount of British trade in Manchuria relatively to the trade of our friendly competitors, the United States of America. It behoved the British commercial community to wake up, and to try to ascertain more fully the causes which had led American trade to develop so enormously in the last four years while British trade was diminishing in a country where there was no hostile tariff whatever to hinder the progress and development of British trade. He wished to refer briefly to the question of the non-carrying into effect of the Mackay commercial treaty concluded between this country and China. A communication had been received from seventy of the leading British merchants in Shanghai, calling the attention of the Government to the fact that China ignored the Mackay treaty, or rendered it ineffective in most of its essential points. He was quite aware that certain of its provisions were not to be operative until the other nations had given their assent to the treaty, but that did not by any means apply to the whole of the provisions. One of the provisions, for instance, was in regard to the removal of obstructions, and the making of improvements by the conservancy of the Wangpo River, which was provided for in the Protocol of 1901. So far as we knew, these improvements had not yet been taken in hand. He hoped to hear from the Secretary of State to-night that there was some prospect of this matter being speedily dealt with. Then there was the question

1423
of the uniform national coinage which the Chinese bound themselves to provide for. Years had gone by and, so far from a uniform coinage having been instituted, mints were set up over China which were issuing an enormous quantity of debased coinage, making "confusion worse confounded." This was acting most detrimentally to the commercial interests and real prosperity of China. He asked the Secretary of State whether he could give any opinion as to when we might expect that stipulation on the part of the Chinese Government to be given effect to. Then the abolition of the Likin was dependent upon the agreement of other nations with the treaty which we concluded. He hoped that there was some prospect of the other nations falling in with the treaty which he believed had already been agreed to by Japan, as well as ourselves, and that there was some reasonable hope that in the not remote future this system of internal customs in China which was a restriction and hindrance to trade would be removed. As to the question of the Imperial maritime customs of China, he did not contend that it could be expected that the Chinese nation, comprising nearly 300,000,000 of people, would for a long period allow the administration of their affairs, or even the development of their country, to be largely taken in hand by foreigners. He believed they would take it in hand themselves. He desired that they should do so, because he believed in China for the Chinese. But at the same time, we knew that they had not yet reached that stage. The Chinese had come under certain obligations, and they ought not to be left to their own sweet will until they had properly discharged them. The Mackay treaty included provisions as to the question of mining legislation. The Chinese Government undertook to look into the mining rules in operation in Great Britain, India and other places, and to select such as were suitable to the conditions of China. But so far as he understood, nothing had been done towards the fulfilment of that undertaking. Then there was the question of inland navigation regulations. The House knew with what a nourish of trumpets the Tory Party came down and told them it had come to an agreement
1424
with China for opening the waterways, so that British ships should take British goods to every riverside station in China. He was afraid that the prospect of enormously expanding our trade with China in that way had not been fulfilled. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, what progress, if any, had been made to secure that the agreement made by Sir Claude Macdonald, in 1898, would be fulfilled. There was no question that in the conduct of our relations with China we must take into consideration the fact that following the example set by our Japanese allies, the Chinese were bound to wake up. They were an intelligent, and in some directions an educated people, and we might rest assured that they would in the future exercise much greater power, influence and force. As to the question of railway concessions, he should like to know from the Secretary of State whether concessions were in danger of being lost to British concessionaires through their failure to fulfil properly their part in the agreements entered into with the Chinese Government. He considered that it was a great misfortune for this country not to have had the largest share in supplying the Chinese Empire, the greatest on earth, with a system of railways. We had taken a back seat altogether in the matter of laying down railways in China, whereas Russia, France, Germany and Belgium had forged ahead, supplying that great Empire with its railways. We had been told that British concessionaires had secured the right to build 2,800 miles of railways in China. He wished to know how much of that work had been done and what further amount of mileage still remained in the hands of British concessionaires. He believed that the Chinese nation ought to possess its railways. He believed in the state ownership of railways, but he saw no reason why European syndicates should not build the railways under proper arrangements by which the lines could be transferred to the Chinese Government as soon as it was in a position to take them over. The Chinese railways paid better than almost any other railways in the world. The only shares and stock in railways which he happened to possess that had increased in the last few years had been those which he

1425
held in Chinese railways, whereas the shares and stock of railways in this country and in other parts of the world had steadily gone down. There was no question as to the profitable nature of enterprise in a densely populated country like China. Why British investors and commercial people had failed to take an adequate share of the trade with China was really past understanding. In spite of all that Tory speakers had said in the last three years, he could only conclude that the trade of this country had been so very flourishing that manufacturers, having their order books full, had not looked for an increase of orders by enterprise in China. The fiscal system of this country, under which we had free imports, enabled us to compete successfully in great neutral markets like that of China.
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.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
Lords' Amendments considered:—
Lords' Amendments to the Amendment in page 27, line 21, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment in page 27, line 21, after Clause 49 insert Clauses 49a and 49b, the next Amendment, read a second time.
*MR. J. O'GRADY,in moving to disagree, said he wished he could move to omit all the Lords Amendments and leave the Bill to deal simply with dock matters alone, but he was told that was impossible, so he had no alternative but to confine himself to moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. There had been two Bills on this matter. There was the original Bill assented to by the city generally, which emphasised the principle that rateable value should not be made the consideration of representation in the city council, but that representation should be based upon the number of voters upon the register. The arrangement arrived at, although it increased
1426
the number of wards in the city from nineteen to twenty-two, did not disturb the total number of representatives, because nine members were taken from three wards in the centre of the city which were over-represented and allocated to the three new wards constituted by the re-arrangement. He thought everybody would agree that that was a very fair arrangement and was not objected to in the city generally. As a member of the Bristol City Council he knew the local circumstances. The Bill was presented and then an opposition developed among the members of a political Party which had dominated the city for sixty years, but which had now lost control, hence the second Bill which was now under consideration of this House. He wanted to emphasise the fact that the House of Lords' Committee was in no sense to blame for anything in connection with this Bill. They simply heard the facts presented to them and they did their best in the circumstances. They were without bias in the matter. When this second Bill went back to get the assent of the council to the Lords' Amendments, the whole matter was set before the citizens and they protested vigorously against the change that had been made in the Bill by the Lords Amendments. He did not think he would be saying too much in asserting that the public meeting was packed. A whip had been sent round by the Party who had been responsible for the opposition, and an hour before the meeting was timed to begin it was filled with the partisans of that particular Party. He drew attention to the fact also that this meeting was held in a small hall which could hold not more than 300 persons. The Labour Party with which he had been connected for a long period of years in Bristol felt great offence at the way things had been carried out—offence that a compromise had been effected between two political Parties without consulting the men who were mostly interested—the working classes generally. The result of the changes made in the Bill by the Lords' Amendments was that a new ward was created in the centre of the city and three extra representatives and an Alderman were added to the council. As.

1427
far as he knew the city, he thought that if this proposal were carried the representatives who would be sent to the City Council from that ward would be representative of one political Party from now to the crack of doom. The working men thought that the main principle should be representation based on the number of the voters upon the register. When the public found out the nature of the changes and how these changes had been brought about they held meetings of protest all over the city. Not only trade union organisations but the general body of citizens had expressed a strong protest against the action that had been taken and against the changes in the Bill involved by the Lords' Amendments. They even had the support of the Ratepayers' Association, which might in the nature of things have been expected to agree to representation being based on rateable value rather than on the voters' list. The Secretary of that Association had said that he thought no preference should be given to the educated or moneyed classes above the working classes. That was the whole gist of the protest he was now making. He trusted the House would take into consideration the protest of the citizens of Bristol. It might be asked how it was that they had not carried this protest to the House of Lords itself. They were, however, a poor Party and he understood that they could not be heard in the House of Lords except by counsel, and not having the money to go on with their protest in the House of Lords they had to do what they could in rousing interest in Bristol regarding this change. He hoped in these circumstances the House of Commons would disagree to the Lords' Amendment. They would have liked that part of the Bill to go through which related to dock matters at Bristol, but they had no alternative but to protest against this change by asking the House to disagree to the Lords' Amendments because they held that the gerrymandering which had gone on in this matter was not creditable to the men who had engineered the movement. He hoped the House of Commons would not stultify itself by agreeing to a proposal of this kind.
1428
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—(Mr. O'Grady.)
*MR. W. H. DAVIESsaid he wished to recognise the temperate way in which the hon. Member had proposed the motion. He had not a strong feeling in regard to the way in which the wards of Bristol should be arranged, and he could not understand the strong feeling which had been brought into this question. The Bristol Council desired that there should be a general rearrangement of the wards in order that the urban ratepayers should have a larger share and larger interest in the representation than before. When the Liberal Party succeeded in obtaining a majority in the Bristol Council one of the first things they did was to appoint a committee to consider this question. The desire of the Party was not to rearrange the wards in such a way as to give them a political ascendency. All the Liberal Members would have been opposed to that idea. When the Liberal Party obtained the ascendency after sixty years of Tory Government they divided the aldermen between the respective Parties. At the Committee appointed to consider the rearrangement of the wards both political Parties produced a scheme; that of the Liberal Party was adopted by a majority. When the question came up for consideration before the House of Commons Committee there was a difficulty about locus standi of the Conservative Party who were opposing. Ultimately an arrangement was arrived at that the Bill should go through as unopposed. Upon the sub-committee a gentleman was appointed who represented the Trades Council of Bristol, but he declined to serve. It was therefore not correct to say that the scheme was carried out without any consultation with the Labour Party, and he was sorry any difficulty had arisen, because they had always been very friendly in Bristol with their friends on the Trades Council and had found them good comrades and good citizens. He was very sorry to be in disagreement with them over this subject. The new scheme was adopted by the Council by

1429
a majority of sixty-five to seven votes, so that the scheme which was sanctioned by the House of Lords Committee was one approved almost unanimously by the Corporation of Bristol. Unfortunately, his Labour friends disagreed with the proposal, and petitioned to be heard before the Lords' Committee. They did not appear, and he was sorry they did not seem to know that they might have appeared in person to state their own case. It was assumed, therefore, that the opposition was withdrawn, or was not to be proceeded with. If they had appeared and establish d a strong case against the scheme, the promoters could have withdrawn that part dealing with the re-arrangement of wards. Now if the Motion succeeded, very important clauses would be lost to the city for this session, and as Chairman of the Docks Committee he was most anxious that they should not be lost. Their dock undertakings were most important, and they could not afford to emphasise political differences too strongly. The wards proposed under the present scheme were a great improvement on what existed to-day. The number of councillors and the number of ratepayers in each ward were more nearly equal than before. They were advised that they could not ignore rateable value in considering representation. The scheme was fair and equitable, and one that the House should pass. It was fair and just. He did not desire that the Liberal Party should exercise its majority unjustly against the Conservative Party, and he hoped his friends would be satisfied with the protest they had made and would now allow the Bill to go through.
MR. GIBBSsupported the Bill. The Conservative and Liberal Parties had agreed that some alteration in the scheme was necessary, and at the meeting of the town council that scheme was approved by a large majority. That meeting, he declared, was not packed. It was well advertised and the ratepayers had every opportunity of attending. This scheme involved less dislocation than the scheme originally proposed. It would confer great advantages on the labouring classes and he did not see why they should object
1430
to it. The present scheme of representation was absurd, and if this Bill did not go through the whole thing would have to be dropped.
*MR. J.RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he had been called in as arbitrator in this matter and he was bound from his examination of all the details to agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for East Leeds. In the interests of sound and honest representation in Bristol this scheme ought not to receive the sanction of the House. The Dock Clauses were accepted by the Labour representatives, and those who were responsible for these clauses ought to have been careful not to mix them up with highly controversial matters. The representation of Bristol was bad at the present time, but the present scheme was not fair. Not a single representative of labour committed himself in favour of this Bill. Their fear was that as a matter of fact the scheme contained between Clauses 44 and 55 did not give that foundation of permanency that was necessary. The first proposal made had the acceptance of the Labour Party, the second was opposed from the beginning. It was perfectly true that sixty-five councillors voted for the second scheme, and only seven against it, but five of those seven composed the small but solid phalanx of the Labour Party. Undoubtedly one provision of the Bill should be to provide that the rateable value should be taken into account as well as voting strength, but that provision had been stretched to an inordinate degree in the present scheme. The first scheme to which the Labour Party assented was brought before the people of Bristol with the blessing of the town clerk of Bristol upon it. As a result of alterations made in the second scheme the House of Lords Committee asked that a town's meeting should be held. With regard to the town's meeting he would not say it was packed, as the term had been objected to, but he would quote fro in the Western Daily Press report which stated—
" A special whip had been issued through the Conservative Party, asking their supporters to assemble at the Guildhall at 12 o'clock, an hour before the time of the meeting, and endure

1431
the inconvenience of waiting. As a matter of fact great care was taken that the people who got inside the hall were in favour of the Bill."
He quoted from reports of the meeting to emphasise the point that the Lord Mayor of the City admitted that the hall was not large enough for the purpose of the meeting. The accommodation was only large enough for between 400 and 500 people, and the population of Bristol was 365,000. The town's meeting, as a guarantee that the city had an opportuntiy of deciding upon this important measure, was an absoulte farce. He would deal with the newspapers. As to the first scheme, the Western Daily Press stated—
"If the city had twenty schemes it could not have a fairer one."
The other newspaper said—

"We heartily dislike the new arrangements of the wards."
The case of the Labour representatives was not a party one. Hon. Members would perceive that this Bill had not been properly handled, and that certain things which cropped up into Clauses 44 and 45 ought not to have been there. If this House were going to hold an impartial judgment upon this matter they would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Leeds.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester he had to confess that he should not care to go before him as an arbitrator, because he had not adopted an impartial attitude on this question. The meeting of citizens, to which allusion had been made, was held in the traditional meeting place of the Bristol citizens, which was the centre of civic life in the city. A great deal had been said about the first scheme that was brought in, apparently with the assent of all Parties, except the Conservatives, who, being left out, and having no locus standi made representations to the Home Secretary, and, in deference to their objections, the scheme was withdrawn. A great deal had been made of the fact that one of the sub-committee, a Labour member of the City Council, did not serve; but the fact was that he refused to serve because he could not get his own way. It was not fair to represent that the Labour Party in Bristol had no chance of putting
1432
their views upon the matter before the City Council. The only representations he had received on this matter came from one of the labour organisations of the city of Bristol some fortnight or three weeks ago, and he was convinced that if there had been any large section of the community he represented in this House who felt that their interests were jeopardised by this Bill some form of expression of their objections would have reached him. Supposing the scheme under the Bill came into operation, what would be the effect upon that part of Bristol which he represented? There were large suburban areas which needed representation upon the Council. The votes of something like 6,000 or 7,000 ratepayers were obliterated by the votes of a few hundred. The whole of that inaccurate and unjust representation was modified or done away with by this particular Bill. For the first time this part of the city would have fair honest representation in their local Parliament, and he hoped when the House went to a division the action of the citizens of Bristol and the decisions of the Corporation and the large interests concerned would be upheld.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said the town of Bristol generally was most anxious to have this Bill, which contained many matters of far wider importance than the question of the redistribution of seats. He would have been glad to have had a Home Office inquiry into this question, but it was too late to re-open it now, the Bill having passed through both Houses. When the matter came before the Committee of the House of Commons it was found that both the promoters of the Bill and its opponents were ready to come to an arrangement and the House of Commons passed the Bill on that understanding. Then it was found that the Labour Party were not prepared to agree to the new arrangement. It was impossible for the House of Commons to enter into the merits of a local redistribution scheme of that character. It was far better, he thought, that these matters should be decided outside Parliament by a local inquiry.

1433
But if they did come before Parliament, this House and the House of Lords, being unable to decide them by open debate such as that in which they were engaged, had delegated these matters to Committees, and those were the proper tribunals to settle them. When the matter was before the Committee of the House of Commons the Labour Party agreed to what was proposed. When the Bill was in the House of Lords it was then time for the Labour Party to state their case and ask for the alteration desired. However, the Labour Party did rot appear. They made no representations to the Committee. They were apparently under the impression that they could only do so at considerable expense and by the appearance of counsel. That impression, however, was wholly erroneous.
A LABOUR MEMBER: What chance was there without the assistance of counsel?
MR. HERBERT SAMUELreplied that petitioners continually appeared on their own behalf before Private Bill Committees, and in a matter of this kind, which was in no sense a legal matter, a man with local knowledge would probably be able to state his case better than any lawyer. At all events, the Labour Party allowed the matter to go by default, and that being so, he thought the House would be placed in an impossible position
if they were asked to decide now the justice or injustice of a scheme which had passed through Committee and been assented to by the Lords. There were four conceivable courses which could be suggested. They might strike out the whole of that part of the Bill, but the procedure of Parliament did not allow that. The Bill having passed Third Reading in both Houses, the only matters which were still open to debate were Amendments which might be disagreed with by one House or the other. They might put such Amendments into the Bill as would force the promoters to withdraw it altogether. But this was a course desired by no one. They might disagree with the Lords' Amendments and go back to the first scheme proposed. (4) They might agree with the Lords' Amendments and accept the second scheme as it was proposed in the House of Lords. The last two courses were the only two alternatives which would appeal to the House, and seeing that the second scheme secured much greater support in the town council, while they might regret exceedingly that no general agreement had been arrived at in the matter, the only course possible for the House to adopt was to agree with the Lords' Amendments and to reject this Motion.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 139. (Division List No. 300.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Brace, William

Kelley, George D.

Shackleton, David James

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.

Byles, William Pollard

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Snowden, P.

Crooks, William

Mac Veigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Steadman, W. C.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Killop, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Murphy, John

Summerbell, T.

Ffreneh, Peter

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Gill, A. H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White,Patrick (Meath, North)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Wilkie, Alexander

Hazleton, Richard

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Raphael, Herbert H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Higham, John Sharp

Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Mr. O'Grady and Mr.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ramsay Macdonald.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt. Hn.SirAloxF.

Ashley, W. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Agnew, George William

Astbury, John Meir

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Balcarres, Lord

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Barlow, Perey (Bedford)

Hedges, A. Paget

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Barnard, E. B.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Centra])

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Radford, G. H.

Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks

Hills, J. W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Beale, W. P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rees, J. D.

Benn.SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rendall, Athelstan

Billson, Alfred

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Richardson, A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Robertson, Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Brigg, John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rose, Charles Day

Brooke, Stopford

Jardine, Sir J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lnacs.,I.eigh)

Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

Scott, A.H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen.

Kekewich, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Burns, Rt, Hon. John

Keswick, William

Seely, Major J. B.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Gave, George

Laidlaw, Robert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cavendish.Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lamont, Norman

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Clarke, C. Goddard

Lover, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Clough, W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (chesh.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Lupton, Arnold

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cowan, W. H.

Lynch, H. B.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cox, Harold

Macdonald,J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Sutherland, J. E.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Cremer, William Randal

M'Callum, John M.

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Ure, Alexander

Du Cros, Harvey

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Valentia, Viscount

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maddison, Frederick

Verney, F. W.

Emmott, Alfred

Marnham, F. J.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Essex, R. W.

Massie, J.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Menzies, Walter

Weir, James Galloway

Everett, R. Lacey

Micklem, Nathaniel

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, E. S.

Whitehead, Rowland

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Whiteley,George (York,W.R.)

Forster, Henry William

Morse, L. L.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wiles, Thomas

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Newnes, V. (Notts. Bassetlaw)

Winfrey, R.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Mr. Howell Davis and Mr.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Paul, Herbert

Gibbs.

Question, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," resumed—
Question again proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
*MR. ASHLEYsaid that the principal reason for our taking part in the Algeciras Conference was to safeguard our Imperial interests and to further British trade in Morocco. That was perfectly justified when we considered that Great Britain supplied more than half of the imports, that we took more than
1436
a quarter of the exports and that more than one-third of the tonnage visiting the ports of Morocco flew the Union Jack. He thought anyone who had travelled in Morocco must acknowledge that there were in connection with agriculture and other branches of industry great possibilities. The country was perhaps the most fruitful in the whole of Africa. He congratulated the House upon the fact that our Government before the Conference at Algeciras came to an end, induced the delegates to make communications to the Sultan of Morocco on the subject of slavery. In reply to a question on July 10th last, the Secretary of State informed him that he had received information that the Sultan had given orders that children born free should not be sold in slavery.

1437
That was a step in advance. If this country could interfere, as it did in the case of Turkey, with respect to affairs in Macedonia, he thought we might, as far as we possibly could without coming into conflict with other Powers, press the Sultan of Morocco to put a stop as soon as possible to the public sale of slaves in his dominions. He did not know whether many Members of this House had seen slaves in the flesh or seen a public sale of them. Some years ago when travelling in Morocco, he went down a narrow lane in Morocco City and came, upon an open courtyard, round which there were seated a number of Moors in their white dresses. He questioned his guide as to what was going on, and the guide confessed that it was the slave market, a place which as a rule Europeans were not allowed to see. It was a very pitiable sight. A slave was led round by the auctioneer, his teeth wore looked at, and after a certain amount of competition, he was knocked down for £15. A woman and child were the last to be sold. They were born in slavery, and the owner had just died. The consequence was that all the personal effects of the deceased had to be sold. When they were offered for sale, he hoped that they would be sold together, but unfortunately, they were not. The child, four or five years of age, was sold to be taken in one direction, and the woman in another. He earnestly appealed to the Secretary of State to do all that he possibly could, without overstepping the limit which made combination with the other Powers necessary, to have the public sale of slaves done away with in Morocco.
MR. WALTER LONGdirected attention to some aspects of Irish affairs, and, in the first place, criticised the composition of the Railway Commission in that no representation had been given upon it to those who controlled railways in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had recently seated in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, that apparently it was not the intention or desire of the Opposition to indict the Irish Government. He said at once in answer to that that in his judgment
1438
it would be folly for anybody in a Parliament composed as this was not to accept the fact that there was a change of Government, and that obviously, therefore, there must be a change of policy; and to attack the Government because they adopted a policy which in many degrees differed from that of the late Government would be a waste of time. It was the duty, however, of those who belonged to the Party opposed to the right hon. Gentleman not only to watch his procedure, and to criticise it, if necessary, but to maintain the principles in which they believed. The right hon. Gentleman gave a few days ago an account of his stewardship and took considerable exception to the action of his hon. friends on the Opposition benches for criticising some of the work he had done. He was bound to say there was great justification for the criticism they had passed upon many things. He would only mention three— the appointment of three Commissions. He would say nothing about the Trinity College, Dublin, Commission, except to express the hope that the latest suggestions made in regard to this subject would receive not only the attention of the Royal Commission, but also the sympathetic consideration of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The solution of that question would be found in the lines recently suggested. In regard to the other two Commissions, he was bound to say there was good reason for dissatisfaction among his hon. friends and those they represented in Ireland. In regard to the Railway Commission there had been no representation given at all to those who controlled and worked the railways in Ireland; the whole case of the railway interest in Ireland had been left in the hands of people who were concerned with the administration of English railways. He had had some experience of the management of English railways, and when in Ireland he had the opportunity of investigating the position of Irish railways. He believed there was such fundamental differences between the two systems and the conditions which surrounded them that if the Government were really desirous of doing justice to them, and if they wanted to command—as they

1439
ought to do—the confidence and sympathy of the people who worked those railways, they ought in common justice to give them representation of their own in order that they might have the opportunity to exercise some control over the conduct of the inquiry and of saying what the result of that inquiry was to be. He felt they had a great grievance in the fact that they had no representation. In regard to the Land Commissioners, there was justly a strong feeling amongst many sections of the community. They had never had from the right hon. Gentleman any justification for his dismissal of several Land Commissioners whose performance of their duties had been creditable, against whom no faults had been alleged, who had done their work satisfactorily, and who were summarily disposed of and their places taken by men whose credentials were no better than those of their predecessors, and who had not the same experience, having only a limited knowledge of the work they had to do. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary so soon after his acceptance of office to make this change not because he regretted the appointment of new Assistant Commissioners, but because a great injustice was done to the outgoing Commissioners—men who had no reason to expect that they were going to be dealt with in this way. Action of that kind must produce a feeling of want of confidence and discontent which was not to the interest of the public service. His hon. and gallant friend had also taken exception to the action of the Irish Government in regard to the eviction of Mr. Ward at Loughrea, and the right hon. Gentleman in his reply had appealed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say whether that interference should not have taken place and that bloodshed and trouble should have followed. There was nothing further from his right hon. and gallant friend's desire than that there should be any such consequence as bloodshed and trouble.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BEYCE,): I do not recollect having used those words, but the argument was that the alternative to the course that was taken
1440
would have been that, and I asked him whether he would have been prepared to accept that.
MR. LONGsaid he was only quoting from memory. Taking it that way, the result must obviously have been the carrying out of the eviction by force if there had not been this intervention. The officer who made the intervention acted under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. What were the circumstances? A man was in occupation of a dwelling and was defying the law and refused to give up the premises to those who had the right to demand that they should be given up. The right hon. Gentleman justified his interference on the ground that by so doing he had brought about a peaceable termination of an affair which otherwise might have ended in bloodshed. As to how it would have ended they did not know. Many of these evictions in times past had led to terrible scenes. In this case what was going on? The man who occupied and declined to give up the house in question was at the same time taking part in measures which had for their object the inducing of some other people to give up their holdings for totally different reasons. He could sympathise with the Irish Government in their desire to avoid those terrible consequences which had more than once ensued from measures which were necessary for the enforcement of the law in Ireland, and it was not to this particular instance that public attention needed to be drawn. It was the results which followed an operation of this kind. He took the story as given by the right hon. Gentleman. He was quite sure it was correct. The story was that this intervention was carried out in a friendly way by an officer of the Irish Government; the man Ward was told that if he did not give up the force of the law would be used and he therefore surrendered That being so, Mr. Ward was entirely overcome by the law which took the form rather of friendly counsel than of vigorous action. What they would want to know later would be what was the effect of this particular action, not merely upon Mr. Ward, but upon the people of the whole district. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it had

1441
been satisfactory, that the condition of the district was day by day improving; that the force of police required to maintain order was gradually being reduced, and under these circumstances so far as this particular instance in Loughrea was concerned there was no cause for anxiety. But there was cause for anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman had declared in the strongest terms that the Government meant to uphold the law. If it was true that Mr. Ward was one of those who brought influence to bear upon the occupiers of grazing farms in order to get them to give up their holdings so that the land might be made available for other purposes; if the land was obtained by improper means; if they allowed force of a moral kind to be exercised which ought not to be exercised, then they would be teaching a lesson in that district which would bring trouble. Although the Government would have dealt with a single incident they would have given encouragement to people who were only too readily inclined to take the lands within their reach and turn them to their own advantage. And the difficulties of the Government would consequently be far greater when they had a dozen cases to deal with than when they had a single case. Dealing vigorously with these cases not only settled the momentary difficulty but produced peace and quiet for some time. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was too much law and too little liberty in Ireland. He did not know what was meant by that. He had always believed that the law was the greatest protector of liberty. In the law was to be found the best form of liberty. If there had been too much law and too little liberty there were some who feared that the phrase might be interpreted to mean that there had been too much latitude given to those who enforced the law and not enough to those who desired to interfere with the liberty of others in an illegitimate manner. There was a considerable minority in Ireland who suffered bitterly when the belief obtained that the law of the land could be disregarded and the law of private association was shown to be stronger than the law of the land, and compulsion which interfered with their ordinary business could be brought
1442
to bear on private individuals. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that there were many in the west of Ireland who believed that there was an undueinterference with their ordinary business—the occupation and holding of farms and so forth. He would therefore urge upon him in the name of those on whose behalf he spoke the absolute necessity for exercising every possible vigilance in order to see that there was freedom, not only for one class, but for every class, so that people should not be led to surrender their holdings or their business because there was some improper feeling against them or some desire to get land for other purposes than those for which they were using it. There was another practice which he thought was most improper, but which he admitted it was exceedingly difficult to deal with. It had been brought to his knowledge that there had been in existence a practice of circulating seditious literature among soldiers quartered in Ireland. Those who circulated this literature were very difficult to find. No doubt it was some wretched lad, and there was a great deal to be said against proceeding against people of that kind, but it was desirable if possible to proceed against the people who were the real source of the mischief. But these lads who assisted in the distribution of this literature did it knowing they were committing an illegal act, and he thought every step should be taken by the Government to check the practice, which was very improper and was directed against the forces of the Crown. He did not think it was beyond the power of the Irish police to step in in regard to such action, and he had no doubt they would do so if they knew they would be supported in any proper action. This literature was distributed to the soldiers, many of whom were young men, and the object was to make them false to the terms of their enlistment, and to make them believe that they were in a degrading service. He hoped the Government would put down this disgraceful practice. He also wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the correspondence which had passed between the Irish Government and the Board of Intermediate Education with regard to the action of the latter

1443
body. A great deal of interest was taken in this question by people of all classes, not confined to those with whom he generally acted. The correspondence he believed had not been published at present, at all events he had not seen it, but he thought it was most desirable that it should be in the possession of the public, in order that those who were interested might know the facts. When he left Ireland there were in progress a great many schemes connected with harbour, pier and railway development. He believed that the very best thing that could be done for Ireland was to carry out these works of internal and coast improvement, and he earnestly hoped that whatever schemes the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind with regard to the future government of Ireland he would not let them interfere with the equally if not more important question of the development of the resources of the country. He regretted that the carrying out of these schemes should have been temporarily arrested. So long as the policy of the Government was the maintenance of the law and the development of the resources of Ireland, the Chief Secretary would find no hostile critics on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had exceptional opportunities which were not enjoyed by his predecessors,and he believed that these powers were given to him not so much in view of contentment prevailing in the present but in a confident hope and expectation for the future. It was not, however, for them to deal with these proposals until they came before the House in a practical form, and therefore it was not their desire to indict the Government or challenge their action. It was their duty to watch their policy and see what the results of that policy were. All they said was that if the right hon. Gentleman was going to do justice to Ireland it must be justice to all classes and not justice to one only.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that in view of the short time at their disposal he would curtail his remarks as much as possible, as others wished to speak. There had been absolutely no crime in Wexford
1444
of any sort or kind, since 1878 and the magistrates were invariably presented with white gloves at the Assizes, and under those circumstances it was perfectly ridiculous that it should be proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act. There was no necessity for it. It was an insult to the county, and he asked the Chief Secretary to repeal the Proclamation. With regard to the fishing industries, he blamed the system that existed under which these important industries were neglected rather than the Chief Secretaries who preceded the right hon. Gentleman. In 1902 he first drew attention to this matter, and the then Chief Secretary said he would make inquiries. In 1903 he was told that those inquiries were proceeding, in 1904 that they were approaching a satisfactory conclusion, and now in 1906 the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said no inquiries had been made. Upon the last occasion, about eighteen months ago, when he brought this matter forward the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the Chief Secretary would bring him a perfected plan he would not find the Treasury wanting, yet nothing had been done. Except the assistance given in regard to the harbours at Arklow and Wicklow nothing had been done. He believed the fishing industry was the largest industry in Ireland; there were more men engaged in it than there were agricultural labourers in the country. The Government had given a large sum for the agricultural labourers and he thought the time had come when they should do something for the fishermen. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would pay a visit to the eastern and southern coasts and see these fishermen and realised the possibilities of the fishing industry, he was sure he would be converted to their views. With regard to the fishing boats supplied to the congested districts, he saw no reason why they should not be built in Ireland. He believed they could be built as cheaply there as elsewhere, and he hoped in future that they would not be built on this side, of the Channel.
MR. FLYNNsaid he recognised the difficulties which the Land

1445
Commissioners had to contend with, and the great responsibility cast upon them, and he had no desire to criticise them, unduly but he wished to direct his remarks to two or three particular points. One was the lack of energy with which the Land Commissioners in Ireland tackled the all-important questions of grazing lands, the evicted tenants, and the labourers. He drew attention to two cases which had occurred during the last fortnight, in one of which 160 acres were sold to a man who already held a large tract of land, with the result that thirty or forty families were unable to secure land. In the second case a man already owning over 100 acres secured some further 300 acres. It seemed that to those who had much, much was to be given. He desired the Chief Secretary to urge the Estates Commissioners to use their powers of acquiring untenanted land for the purpose of restoring evicted tenants. It was futile to think of settling the Irish land question by the mere transfer of land from a certain number of landlords to a certain number of tenants if they did not above all things deal with the congestion in the west and other parts of Ireland. The plain and palpable intentions of Parliament three years ago were that the evicted tenants should be reinstated as far as possible and the grazing lands divided amongst the industrious population.
MR. GORDONasked for information as to what course the Government proposed to take in regard to the Bann drainage. Sir Alexander Binnie brought in a report some months ago which by the people in the district was regarded as a very practical way of dealing with the question. The cost was estimated at £75,000, and he thought if the Chief Secretary could see his way to give some practical relief the best form it could take would be to contribute a substantial sum towards the cost of carrying out Sir Alexander Binnie's scheme.
MR. POWERurged the Chief Secretary to give his attention to the question of the Irish fisheries.
1446
There was a large coast to protect and they had very little help from the Admiralty in the matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might certainly press upon the Admiralty the necessity of providing gunboats to assist the only two boats they now had for the protection of the coast. Referring to the duties of the Estate Commissioners with regard to tenancies, he regretted that the circular issued by that authority had not been more favourably received by the landlords. In many places the landlords looked upon the action of the Commissioners as an attempt to intimidate them. The Estates Commissioners had endeavoured to carry out a settlement with regard to tenancies, and he thought the landlords should be particularly glad to have the opportunity of handing the land over, especially when the price offered was far larger than they could ever have hoped to have got under the Act of 1903. The representative of the landlord said that he objected to the Inspector reporting to the Estates Commissioners in regard to these farms. The Inspector thought that he had no power to insist on inspection if the landlord objected. It would be a monstrous state of things if it were possible for such a landlord openly to defy the wish of Parliament, and he was perfectly sure that the Estates Commissioners, when the case was brought to their notice, would make it clear that this landlord could not trifle with the wish of Parliament. From an executive point of view, it was desirable that the Chief Secretary should make a statement on the subject. These people had lived in the hope that they would be restored to the farms and to the houses they themselves built, and it would have a disastrous effect on the peace and the condition of the locality if they were to be told now that they had no hope of being restored to the farms.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he was not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin make the characteristic speech which he had delivered. It was full of the cry for repressive measures. He was

1447
bound to make that speech, having regard to the place and the people he represented. He himself wished to enforce the demand made by his hon. friend the Member for Wexford. There was absolutely no use for the Crimes Act in Ireland. It was an Act passed many years ago for the purpose of dealing with an exceptional state of things which had ceased to exist. The right hon. Gentleman who was at present responsible for the Government of Ireland had established for himself the character of a philosopher. When the late Mr. Forster was asked to make permanent the Coercion Act of 1882, he absolutely refused to do so, stating that he would not be the man to hang up a sword of Damocles for anybody but himself to take down. Mr. Forster had confidence in himself, but none in his successors. The present Chief Secretary now found himself in possession of such a sword. He could hang it up or take it down at pleasure. He trusted that he could show the right hon. Gentleman some reason why he should take it down for the last time and throw it away. Writing on the subject of civil liberty, the philosopher Paley said—
"A law being found to produce no sensible good effects is a sufficient reason for repealing it, as adverse and injurious to the rights of free citizens, without demanding specific evidence of its bad effects. This maxim might be remembered with advantage in the revision of many of the laws of this country, and amongst people enamoured to excess and jealous of their liberty it seems a matter of surprise that this principle has been so imperfectly attended to."
He thought that principle might be attended to by the right hon. Gentleman at present. He had taken the trouble to make out a comparative statement of crime in Ireland, England and Scotland. If he were to quote the figures, though he did not intend to occupy the time of the House in doing so, he thought hon. Members would wonder at the amount of money spent on police in Ireland, where there was a comparatively small amount of crime, as compared with the amount of money spent on police in England and Scotland where there was an enormous and increasing amount of crime to be dealt with. A reduction of the police force in Ireland had been promised from time to time, but he doubted whether that was going on
1448
apace. He trusted that what he now said in regard to the Crimes Act would not be said in vain, and that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to have it repealed.
MR. BRYCEsaid he would not enter in detail into the points which had been raised. Some of the questions could only be answered by entering at considerable length into the way the law was administered. The hon. Member for Wexford had objected to the maintenance of the Peace Preservation Act and had denounced the proclamation of the County of Wexford. It reminded him of a parallel case when, thirty years ago, he visited Iceland and had difficulty in getting quarters in the capital town. The authorities said that, as the gaol had not an occupant, they would be only too happy to give him quarters there. The question of the Peace Preservation Act was engaging his attention, and during the course of the autumn he would consider the whole subject fully to see whether the proclamation of a certain number of counties could be withdrawn.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will you repeal the Act?
MR. BRYCEsaid he would consider the whole subject. On the subject of the fisheries he regretted as much as the hon. Baronet that the industry of line fishing was diminishing. It was diminishing all over the United Kingdom, it was diminishing on the east coast of Scotland, on the Moray Firth, and on the Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire coast. This was largely owing to the growth of trawlers, and therefore the hon. Baronet must not suppose that the diminution was confined to the North of Ireland. He would do what he could to encourage the fishing industry, but why should not the hon. Member if he thought the subject had been inadequately dealt with by the Department tender evidence to the Committee who were sitting on that subject, and say what could be done for the promotion of fisheries in that part

1449
of the country. As to the provision of gunboats the Admiralty was very chary in giving gunboats for the protection of fisheries, and even the Secretary for Scotland found great difficulty in getting help from the Admiralty. They had two boats which were engaged in the work, and these he thought were sufficient. A trawler might escape now and again, but he did not think much harm was done. The hon. Member for North Cork had called attention to grazing lands and evicted tenants, and had brought up a case in which he did not think justice had been done. His complaint was that the Estates Commissioners were not sufficiently energetic in getting hold of un-tenanted land. He once travelled in company with the Estates Commissioners some years ago and they talked a great deal about the subject. He could assure the House that the Commissioners were exceedingly anxious to carry out the duties thrown upon them, and they were anxious to get hold of untenanted land and divide it up for the benefit of the people. They were by no means friends of the largo grazing ranches. Now and then it was not possible for them to avoid leaving a certain amount of untenanted land in the hands of some person in the neighbourhood, but speaking generally the Estates Commissioners were not selling land to large holders. Sometimes they had to make a bargain to get other advantages, but they were doing what they could to break up grazing farms and put them into the hands of men who would use for them for agricultural purposes. The hon. Member had referred to congestion, other than in the congested districts. There were parts of Ireland where that evil existed. The hon. Member knew that the attention of the Government had been called to this point. They had lately appointed a Commission to deal with the question, and it was part of the reference to that Commission to inquire whether there were not outside the areas now scheduled as congested other districts practically in the same position which "ought to have special treatment accorded to them, and to ascertain how much untenanted land there was which could be made
1450
available in whatever part of Ireland for the relief of congestion. He hoped the hon. Member would see that the importance of the subject was fully realised by the Irish Government who were endeavouring to do all they could in the matter. He assured the hon. Member for East Waterford that the Government were doing all they could to meet the cases of the evicted tenants. The six new inspectors were busily investigating cases and advising the Estates Commissioners as to lands available where they could be placed. The inspectors could not trespass on lands where the owner did not desire their presence, but the Estates Commissioners would have their attention directed to such cases and would exercise their jurisdiction when the lands came to be sold to impose such conditions in regard to untenanted land as would be salutary and beneficial for the neighbourhood and the small people who desired to acquire land. He had no complaint to make against the tone and spirit of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for South Dublin. His speech was in no way acrimonious, and it did not make any unfair charges against the Irish Government. He quite understood the right hon. Gentleman's wish that schemes to which he was attached should, from time to time, be debated in this House, and that the attention of the House should be called to anything that might be described as a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. He did not think, however that the right hon. Gentleman had shown that the Government had departed from the admirable general maxims that he laid down. The right hon. Gentleman spoke first of the appointments to the different Commissions by the Government, and said, what he (Mr. Bryce) was very glad to hear, that if the Royal Commission sitting at Trinity College, Dublin, was able to arrive at any solution that would satisfy Irish public opinion on the long-vexed University question, which had been a trouble to British Parliaments beyond the memory of anyone now sitting in the House, he and he believed the Opposition would support it.
MR. WALTER LONG: No, I did not say anything in regard to the Opposition. The only matter I was referring to was the latest suggestion that had been made, and which I hoped would receive the attention of the Commission and the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I have only real of the suggestion within the last forty-eight hours, but I think it is a solution which everyone will rejoice in.
MR. BRYCE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the Leader of the Opposition and himself desiring to see a solution of this question. He certainly said it was outside of Party politics and in that I, of course, agree with him. Continuing, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Commission on Irish railways. It had been said that there was a feeling among a certain number of people connected with the rail ways that the Commission was a menace to them. He could not understand how that feeling arose. The only result of the Commission would be, he was quite sure, beneficial to Ireland. He trusted that it would be found possible to work the Irish railways more economically and effectively than they were at present worked. That would lead to greater efficiency and would result in better dividends to the shareholders. He hoped, therefore, that the Commission would be able to suggest more economical methods of working based on English experience and the development of the branch line system. He had never heard any suggestion from Irish railway companies that they should have any representatives on the Commission. The Commission consisted of gentlemen who had held high places in the railway world. The Chairman, Sir Charles Scotter, was a member of the Commission which sat upon Irish railways twenty years ago and knew the Irish railway system thoroughly. He did not think that in any way the interests of the Irish railways could be threatened or imperilled by the Commission which had been appointed. The Commission could do nothing but good, and he hoped that the groundless apprehensions to which expression had been given would be dismissed from the
1452
minds of those who held them. As regards the Land Commission, also referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he would not go again into the justification he made three months ago. The accounts he had received from those who had to deal with the new Assistant Commissioners, and those whom they served, were to the effect that they were better men and were doing their work more efficiently than their predecessors. He thought, therefore, that the substitution of those five new men had been amply justified in the result, and he repeated what he had said on a previous occasion, tint politics had nothing whatever to do with the appointments, because the authorities, had not the slightest knowledge of the political opinions of any one of the Assistant Commissioners. Referring to the Loughrea dispute the right hon. Member for South Dublin had confined his criticism to the suggestion that if any intervention on the part of the Government in that dispute were to encourage in any way intimidation or disorder or any interference with private life that would be unfortunate. He (Mr. Bryce) quite agreed, but he had no reason to believe that it would have tint effect. Loughrea was a part of Ireland where disorder might be said to be more or less endemic. He could not say that even now the condition of the place was altogether satisfactory, but he believed the condition would be a great deal worse but for the last intervention. A very serious conflict, which would have resulted no doubt in serious bloodshed, was only averted by the action of the Under-secretary. It was most fortunate that he had such an Undersecretary. The Irish Government had in no way departed from the principle they laid down from the first, viz., that they had been endeavouring to give to every private person all the protection possible, whether by way of police protection or by prosecution of offenders where the offence was one which could be made the subject of prosecution. Where there had been any attempts at intimidation, action had been taken. The Attorney-General for Ireland authorised him to say that no case in which there was sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution

1453
had been brought to his notice without his ordering a prosecution. The Irish Government believed that it was its first duty to enforce the law whenever it could. There were, however, means of bringing intimidatory force to bear upon individuals with which the law could not deal. Wherever there was a prospect of enforcing the law there the Government would not neglect their duty. The right hon. Member for South Dublin referred to the distribution of seditious literature among soldiers in Ireland. He (Mr. Bryce) had heard of no such distribution. There had been a few instances in which attempts had been made to distribute anti-recruiting leaflets, but they were very few and it had been found impossible to discover the perpetrators. The particular case the right hon. Gentleman mentioned must have been exaggerated or based upon some idle report, because the police were very careful to give information from time to time on all offences that came to their knowledge, and they had not reported any such case. The right hon. Gentleman had asked that the correspondence between the Irish Government and the Intermediate Education Board should be published. No one desired that that correspondence should be published more than he (Mr. Bryce) did. He had hoped to have it published before now, as he said a few days ago. The position was this, that the members of the Inter mediate Board did not desire their part of the correspondence to be published, and the Irish Government had there fore refrained from publishing their part because they felt it would not be fair to do so if the Board did not publish their replies. If the right hon. Gentle man represented the Board—
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly not, I have only raised the question in the interests of those who want to have the fullest information hi regard to it.
MR. BRYCEsaid his own personal wish would be to publish the correspondence to-morrow. He had it almost all in
1454
print and it could be published at a day's notice. He agreed with what the right hon. Member for South Dublin had said as to the importance of schemes for the development of harbours and railways in Ireland, but the right hon. Member of course knew that money was necessary for these purposes. It was, moreover, very difficult to decide which of a number of schemes for improvements throughout the country should be selected, and the greatest care was needed in the administration of the money the Irish Government had at its disposal. One of the projects for which there was a great demand was the drainage of the River Bann. There was nothing nearer his heart than to secure the carrying out of that project. The Irish Government were going to communicate with the comity council to see what help they could give, and to discover whether any means could be found by which the water power of the Bann could be utilised for industrial purposes which would repay some of the cost of the project. He would do his best to bring about a solution far too long delayed. The House would be glad to know that in Ireland generally there was freedom from crime and disorder. The reports of Judges who had attended the assizes where most hopeful. The aims that the right hon. Gentleman had stated in his concluding sentences to be his were those of the Irish Government; and he hoped that even if the methods by which the Government proposed to attain the ends that they had in view were different from those favoured by the right hon. Gentleman he would recognise that it was the wish of the Government to secure equal justice to all classes in Ireland, to render Ireland powerful and prosperous, and to see that respect for the law went hand in hand with that largo measure of liberty and self-government which they hoped the country would enjoy.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONcomplained that there had been only one day for Scottish Estimates. There was one important point which he wished to bring before the notice of the Secretary for Scotland and that was the administration of the Central Board which

1455
controlled Scottish affairs. A great deal was needed to strengthen the Central Board, and he asked the Secretary for Scotland if he would institute an inquiry into the working of the Board. He was confident that a good many of the smaller Boards could be made more effective by amalgamation. The right hon. Gentleman himself had proposed to absorb the Congested District Board in a land commission. The Board of Agriculture in Scotland was an admirable Department, but there were other Boards which might be amalgamated. For instance, the Prison Board and the Lunacy Board might be amalgamated. It would be as great an advantage to have the Board of Education moved to Edinburgh, as it would be to have the Board of Agriculture moved. The Local Government Board no doubt did admirable work, but it; was not properly equipped to carry out legislation. In his opinion one of the greatest benefits that the people of Scotland could have would be a strong departmental inquiry into the working of all these different Boards, into the possibility of having the representative element introduced, and into the advisability of amalgamating the Boards where possible.
*MR. MORTONsaid there was no doubt that these Boards were working most unsatisfactorily, and it was unfortunate that the Secretary for Scotland was not their master. Parliament could not get near these Boards. Mr. Gladstone said on many occasions between 1886 and 1892 that it was all very well to have good laws, but things could not be got to work right unless ! there was good administration also. They wanted in Scotland good administration. What he complained of was that there had been only two or three hours this session for the discussion of Scottish affairs. There were a number of social questions affecting Scotland which the present Government were pledged to attend to and which must be attended to. The Prime Minister had said that one of the great things needed was the colonisation of our own country. Many parts of Scotland wanted colonising.
1456
Millions of money were wasted each year in foreign countries which should have been saved for the benefit of Scotland, and to enable Scotsmen to live in their own country. The main roads wanted attending to and the steamboat service to be developed. New harbours were required. [Cries of "Divide," and laughter.] Hon. Members sneered at him for trying to do something for his constituents. He was not going to sit down, however, but was prepared, if necessary, to sit all night. To his repeated Questions as to the suppression of illegal trawling he had had no satisfactory Answer. Some of the cruisers that were engaged in this work were not doing it properly, and, therefore, somebody ought to go and see that they did it properly. He had asked more than once to be allowed to see what these cruisers were doing, but had been refused. That refusal was proof of his assertion that the work was not being properly done. As to education, he was afraid that the pupil teacher system was going to be done away with without the House being consulted. He hoped that the Prime Minister would next year treat Scotland at least as well as he treated Ireland in the matter of opportunity for discussion. At present there were millions of money voted without discussion. It was a scandal and a shame that that should occur in a civilised country of this sort, and there ought to be found time and means for the thorough discussion of the expenditure of money before it was voted.
THE SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member must not go into this matter on the present occasion.
*MR. MORTON,continuing, said he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would show more backbone and be master of all the Boards that were ruining Scotland as similar Boards had ruined Ireland.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)remarked that no one knew better than

1457
the hon. Member who had just spoken that the Government regretted as fully and deeply as he did that more time could not be given to Scottish business. The volume of business of the House was increasing yearly, and the Government had not yet had time to carry out their purpose of lessening the labours of the House in matters of detail. It was not in order on that occasion to discuss legislation, but he might say that in the legislation they had promised the Government had given substantial evidence of their desire to deal with the present evils in Scotland. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had alluded to the question of the Boards. Personally, he would like to have more experience before he expressed any definite opinion as regards the work of these bodies. As a matter of fact, in the legislation introduced by the Government they were now attempting to deal with three of the existing Boards. There were four Boards that remained, and he was prepared to admit that it was quite possible that more economical and better government might ensue from some different arrangement with regard to their working. These were the Lunacy Commissioners, the Prison Commissioners, the Fishery Board, and the Local Government Board. He would greatly like to enter into the discussion of several of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutherland, but he dared not at that late hour. He would only throw out the remark that it seemed to him that while on the one hand there was no definite charge of inefficiency or extravagance that could be brought against the Boards—
MR. MORTON: I have made such a charge and I stick to it.
MR. SINCLAIR: On the other hand, he was prepared to admit that improvement might follow upon inquiry or legislation
1458
based upon such an inquiry. His humble opinion was that the difficulty did not lie with the Edinburgh Boards, 'but in the fact that Parliament could not under present arrangements afford to give sufficient time for the administration and control of Scottish business and those responsible for it. He was not sure that the elective principle with regard to these Boards would not weaken the control of Parliament itself. This was a large subject and he would not enter upon it that night. He hoped that some real advance would be made in the directions indicated.
MR. MURPHYrose to continue the debate.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Main Question put, and agreed to:— Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
Census of Production Bill,—Order for Committee read, and discharged:—Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
DOGS BILL.

  Consideration of Lords' Amendments.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsuggested that the House should hear from the Minister in charge an explanation of the purpose of the Lords' Amendments.
  MR. MORTONalso pressed for some explanation. He was, he said, very doubtful about the Bill himself. The Amendments ought to be explained.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYexplained that the Amendment was to leave out "sheep" and insert "cattle," the object being to entitle the owner to compensation for the worrying of both sheep and cattle by dogs.
  MR. HICKS BEACHinquired why it was that if both sheep and cattle were to be protected both words were not inserted in the clause.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYreplied that the word "cattle" covered both sheep and cattle.
  The Lords' Amendments were agreed to.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES HILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, ETC., 1905–6.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 316.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Musical Copyright Bill, with Amendments.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  That they agree to the Amendment made by this House to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, and do not insist on one of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed and agree to the Amendment made by this House in lieu thereof, and do not insist on one other of their Amendments to which, this House has disagreed, and do not insist on another of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed, and propose an Amendment in lieu thereof to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 340.]

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Lords' Amendment to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 341.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of July 13th last.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes before Twelve o'clock.

EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
The evidence taken and the speeches delivered by counsel before the Committee for Privileges to be printed. (No. 200.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR aquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Metropolitan Electric Supply.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill[H.L.]; London Squares and Enclosures Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Open Spaces Bill; Sutton District Water Bill. Returned from the Commons ' with the Amendment made to each Bill agreed to.
Ground Game Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Rutherglon Burgh Order Confirmation Bill; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill. Ordered, That Standing Order No. 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against the Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
Hackney Electricity Bill; Hampstead Garden Suburb Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill; North West London Railway Bill; St. Pancras Electricity Bill; South Lincolnshire Water Bill; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill; Lancashire Electric Power Bill; Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; of Inhabitants of Carshalton; Whepstead; Llandegfau; Mendham; Runwell; Eythorne; Hems-well; Harpswell; Stoke Newington (Parish of St. Faith's); Northwood; Crambo; Everley; Sowton; Brighton; Elton; Stambermill; Staunton-on-Wye; Public Elomeutary Schools in Diocese of Ely; Bolton (Parish of St. George the Martyr); Granby; Worminghall; Kilkhampton; Basildon; Little Malvern; Bylchau; Llangranog; Laindon; Hin-ton; Blowett; Brighton; Hawthorn; Monewden; Helindon; Paulerspury; Parish of St. Peter's, Hindley; Parish of All Saints, Wigan; and Colwyn Bay: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of maintenance of existing religious teaching in Church of; England schools; of parents and guardians of children attending school at St. John's National School; and Brindle; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LAND REGISTRY (LAND TRANSFER ACTS, 1875 AND 1897).
  Report of the Registrar of the Land Registry for the years 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, as to the work of constructing a general register of title for the county of London.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Registrar-General for Ireland, for the year 1905.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June 1906.
  UNACY (IRELAND).
  Supplement of the Fifty-fourth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland, being a special report on the alleged increase of lunacy in Ireland.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Annual Report of the President for the year 1905–6.

  WAR STORES IN SOUTH AFRICA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Royal Commission on War Stores in South Africa, together with appendices and minutes of evidence (four volumes).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY (PENSIONS).
  Return for the year ended 31st March 1906 of pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Pay Warrant.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting their proceedings under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILLS.
  Return respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to Address of the 3rd of May last), and to be printed. (No. 201.)

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow. (The Lord Privy Seal [M. Ripon]). (No. 202.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow; (The Lord Ribblesdale). (No. 203.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and suspended for this day's sitting.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I see by the Order Paper that we are to be invited to consider the
  1180
  Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments, and the reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments. I have had some private conversation with the noble Marquess opposite on this subject. The matter raised is one of very great importance to your Lordships, and I think it would be clearly advisable that we should have a little more time to consider the issue in all its bearings. I understand that with the concurrence of the noble Marquess the matter may be taken either later this evening or to-morrow.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, this is a very serious matter indeed, or might become a very serious matter, and I entirely is agree with my noble friend that we should give as much time as possible consistent with the approaching adjournment, for the consideration of the matter. Therefore the Commons' Amendments will be considered either later this evening or to-morrow.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the Motion for the Second Reading.
  *THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, there appeared on the Paper yesterday notices of two Amendments either of which, if passed, would have been fatal to the Second Reading of this Bill. I am glad, however, to think that both these notices have been withdrawn, and I gather, from the speeches which were made from this side of the House yesterday, that there is no intention in any quarter of the House to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that the decision thus arrived at on the part of the Opposition is a wise one. Whatever we may think of this Bill, however we may object to some of its provisions, however we may regret the spirit in which it appears to have been framed, whatever we may think of the injustice and the hardships, the unnecessary hardships, as some of us believe, which will be inflicted by this Bill on the owners and trustees of voluntary schools

  1181
  and on large classes of parents, whatever infringement we may hold that it contains of the principles of religious freedom and toleration, still the Bill comes to us sanctioned by so great a majority of the other House that, even if we thought it was incapable of Amendment such as would make it a fair and final settlement of the education question, it would be our duty to give the fullest consideration to its principles.
  It will be our duty, I think, to reserve our final judgment on the measure until we see what is its shape after the Committee stage; until we know what concessions, if any, his Majesty's Government are prepared to make, and, if no concessions are made, by what reasons their refusal can be justified. I do not think that the Government will deny that the Bill does require very full consideration on the part of this House. Although it comes to us backed by a very large majority of the other House, still the discussions in the other House have revealed differences of opinion on the part of considerable sections of that majority which deprive its verdict of the weight which it might otherwise have possessed. Party allegiance, no doubt, has enabled the Government to carry the whole of their proposals by very large majorities, and has enabled them to defeat Amendments which they considered inconsistent with the principles of the Bill. But it has not been accepted as a final settlement with anything approaching unanimity.
  The concessions to the voluntary schools which the Bill contains have called forth loud protests from a section of the Nonconformist supporters of the Government, and in the course of the discussions a large and increasing body of opinion has manifested itself in some sections of the House, especially among the members of the Labour Party, in favour of a system of education based upon secular principles as opposed to a denominational or an undenominational system of religious teaching. Therefore we are entitled to satisfy ourselves as far as we can that in passing this measure in its present form or in an amended shape that we should be giving effect to the clear opinions of even the majority in another place.
  1182
  We shall all desire in this debate to confine ourselves to a discussion of the principles of the Bill, but I confess that I find it rather difficult to discover what are the principles that this Bill contains. Mr. Birrell, in introducing the measure stated two principles, or rather one principle and an opinion. He stated that the principle of the Bill was that, where public money was taken, complete public control must of necessity follow, and in a later passage in his speech he said the Bill was based upon the happy experience of thirty-six years of Cowper-Temple teaching. I, and I think most of your Lordships, fully accept the principle of public control, but I do not think it carries us very far. I do not think that Parliament has ever acted upon any other principle. That principle only asserts what nobody would dream of denying, that when Parliament takes the money of the public either in the form of taxes or of rates it is bound to control the application of those funds.
  But as I had to argue over and over again in 1902, chiefly, I think, with my noble friend Lord Rosebery, whom I am happy to see in his place, that control may be exercised in two ways. It may either be exercised by direct instruction given by Parliament as representing the whole body of taxpayers, and that control may be exercised through a State Department presided over by a Minister responsible to Parliament; or, on the other hand, Parliament may delegate all of some of its powers more or less completely to local authorities as representing the ratepayers. As a matter of fact Parliament, in educational legislation, has always so divided the control which it has exercised over funds applied to public elementary education.
  Under the Act of 1870 schools were for the first time built and wholly maintained at the public expense. Parliament then decided to leave the management of these schools, the appointment of the managers and teachers, and the direction of secular education given in them entirely to the local authorities, subject only to the inspection of the Education Department to secure the efficiency of the education given. As to religious education, Parliament permitted one form only, that which is

  1183
  known as the Cowper-Temple form of teaching. But it left the local authorities to decide whether religious instruction should be given at all, and it left them also largely to decide what character that undenominational teaching should assume. In 1870 largely increased grants were given to the voluntary schools, and Parliament at the same time decided what sort of additional control should be exercised over these schools. The decision to which Parliament came was to give the school boards no control whatever over these schools. It required a certain standard of efficiency tested by strict inspection, but it left the management and the appointment of the managers and teachers wholly to the owners or trustees of these schools.
  As to religious instruction, Parliament did not interfere at all with the previous arrangements, except to insist upon the conscience clause being observed in every case. Parliament in 1870 deliberately, and as I think rightly, decided to adopt different forms of control for different schools, differently provided and differently maintained.
  Under the Act of 1902 almost the whole cost of the maintenance of the voluntary schools was, for the first time, thrown upon the rates. That rendered a further measure of public control necessary for them. Parliament thought fit in 1902 to enact that the local authorities should, for the first time, have complete control over the secular education given in those schools, and gave them a share, if not a preponderating share, in the management of those schools and the appointment of the teachers. At the same time Parliament thought fit to take securities for preserving the denominational character of those schools. That may have been a wise or an unwise arrangement. It was not an arrangement, in my opinion, in contravention of the principle of public control, which, under the Act of 1902, was exercised, as it always had been, partly by Parliament and partly left to the discretion of the local authorities.
  The Bill, in my opinion, makes no advance whatever in regard to the principle of public control. It proceeds on the old lines. The control exercised by the State over all the schools is still one which is divided between regulations
  1184
  framed by Parliament and the delegation of the powers of Parliament to the local authorities. If you meant by public control complete local control over all the schools, you would have to allow the local authorities to decide what religion should be taught. But you do nothing of the sort; you maintain, you even extend, the prohibition in the Act of 1870 against any but undenominational instruction in council schools. You extend it, for you will not even allow Cowper-Temple teaching in school hours. You extend it, because this Bill gives no discretion to local authorities; it extends the prohibitions of the Cowper-Temple Clause of the Act of 1870 to transferred schools, and the limitation of local control is maintained and extended under the present Bill. The prohibitory character of the former is always extended in the direction of discouraging religious teaching, denominational or undenominational.

  The settlement of 1902 was always opposed by a considerable minority— by a large minority in the other House, by a small minority here. That minority in the present Parliament has become a large majority in the other House, and of course it is open to that majority if they think fit to revise or even to reverse that settlement. But I take it that a reversal is not the inevitable or logical consequence of acceptance of the principle of control by a local authority, but of the altered opinion of the other House. I am afraid that so long as wide differences of opinion exist between us on religious matters it is idle to expect that we can arrive at any finality upon I the religious question in elementary schools. We cannot arrive at that unless we can find a compromise in principle universally or generally accepted.
  True, the settlement of 1902 was founded on a principle not universally accepted, and it is also true that the principle upon which your Bill is founded is either not understood, or certainly not accepted by very large numbers in the community; and unless you can find some compromise founded on a principle we can all accept, the cause of education must continue during the present, the next, and perhaps many Parliaments to be disturbed and weakened by a perpetual recurrence of the religious difficulty. I find, therefore, very little

  1185
  or no assistance in the principle invoked by Mr. Birrell as the principle of the present Bill.
  I think we must regard the proposals we find in these clauses as separate unconnected—perhaps I might call them empirical—proposals that must be discussed on their own merits, not as bearing upon a general and accepted principle, and such a discussion is more appropriate to Committee. Some of the proposals in the Bill are of an extremely intricate and complicated character difficult to understand, but the first clause has, I admit, an engaging appearance of simplicity, and I believe there is a general disposition, even on the part of many who think that large Amendments will be necessary, to accept the principle of the first clause. I imagine many of your Lordships have seen the "Lay" memorial addressed to the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury by a number of eminent members of the Church of England not being Members of either House of Parliament, a memorial which has, I believe, received the benediction of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, whose speech last night I regret I did not hear. The first statement in that memorial declares, as in accordance with the plain will of the people, acceptance of the fundamental principle contained in Clause 1.
  Now I am not quite sure, as I think I have indicated, that I know exactly what is the fundamental principle embodied in Clause 1, and perhaps it is more important to try to ascertain what will be the effect of the clause. Having discovered that we shall be in a better position to ascertain how far that effect will be qualified or mitigated by subsequent clauses. The clause enacts that transferred schools are to become provided schools and subject therefore to all the incidents of provided schools, including the Cowper-Temple clause. What is the Cowper-Temple clause? It is very often spoken of as if it were a clause establishing some sort of religious teaching, but it does nothing of the kind. The Cowper-Temple clause is simply prohibitory, and merely enacts that no catechism or religious formulary shall be taught. This teaching, then, is prohibited in transferred schools.
  1186
  But then Clauses 3 and 4 go on to enact that in certain transferred schools religious formularies may in different degrees be taught—a curious method of drafting. I trust the Nonconformist supporters of His Majesty's Government will take note that the present Government is responsible for the partial repeal, at all events, of the Cowper-Temple clause in certain classes of provided schools. Though the clause is prohibitory only, a certain form of religious teaching has grown out of it; and I conceive that the real effect will be to give a preference, a strong and decided preference, to that form of undenominational teaching over any other form of religious teaching the schools may have been established and subscribed for to provide. Undenominational teaching may be given by teachers at the expense of the State, but other forms of teaching are to be treated as extras, to be given not by expert teachers and to be paid for, not by the State, but by the trustees. I confess it seems to me to be a singular arrangement, and, whether it be good or bad, I deny that it is in accordance with the clearly expressed will of the people.
  I deny that the Government has received among its numerous mandates any mandate for the creation of a set of schools in which denominational teaching shall be permitted but discouraged and placed under disabilities. I am not qualified to discuss from a theological point of view simple Bible teaching, the teaching of the great truths of Christianity, or any form of religious teaching which supporters or opponents of the Cowper-Temple clause may prefer to call it, but certainly I entertain for the Cowper-Temple clause no such aversion as has been expressed by many on both sides of political opinion in the other House. I recognise that it is accepted as a satisfactory form of religious teaching for children, as opposed to adults, by a great many sincere and earnest Christians, and by a very large body of parents of children. I recognise also that it is regarded by others as insufficient, and by some as actually mischievous, and among these are included a number of parents of children attending elementary schools.
  But I confess I cannot understand the view of those who dogmatically assert

  1187
  that while Roman Catholics or Jews cannot be expected to accept this form of teaching it is good enough, or ought to be good enough, for all Protestants. I do not claim to decide whether it is good enough, or ought to be good enough, for Protestants. It is quite enough for me to know that there are a great many whose opinions are entitled to respect who do not think that it is good enough; and I regard it as unreasonable and, what is worse than unreasonable, as intolerant, to attempt to force it upon those who hold that opinion, to the exclusion of any more definite form of religious teaching. And, therefore, my Lords, although I think that this Bill goes much further than is necessary in establishing the Cowper-Temple form of teaching in every one of our elementary schools, I am glad that His Majesty's Government have refused to yield to the pressure which has been placed upon them by those who would impose it indiscriminately and without exception upon every school. But that is not all.
  Besides the Cowper-Temple clause there is another incident attaching to transferred schools in their new character of provided schools. The managers will be appointed in future by the local authority, and the teachers will be appointed by the same body. The effect of that is, that every security that has been provided by the deeds of Church schools for having Church teaching by Church people in Church schools will be absolutely swept away. The trustees of those schools may not inconceivably see instruction given under the name of simple Bible teaching which it will be their duty to their very utmost to counteract as far as they can in the two days of the week in which they or the teachers appointed by them have liberty to enter the school. And this, my Lords, is the plan of the Government for establishing religious peace and solving the religious difficulty. This is a consequence graver and far more injurious to the religious character of the voluntary schools and to their objects than the mere introduction into them of Cowper-Temple teaching. This consequence the Bill makes no effort whatever to avert.
  There are other clauses in the Bill which extend the effect, which I have
  1188
  endeavoured to describe, of Clause 1 They appear to be designed to discourage, if not actually to forbid, all teaching of religion, whether denominational or undenominational. Both these forms are now to be excluded in school hours, and, as to denominational instruction, teachers, even if willing and anxious to give that instruction, are prohibited by the Bill so to do. I should like to ask what is the necessity for such sweeping and drastic changes. I think I have shown that they are not the necessary and inevitable consequence of the accepted principle of public control. They are not necessary to the efficiency of secular teaching in our schools.
  In my opinion, the only justification for the revision of the Acts of 1870 and 1902 lies in the existence of a grievance of certain parents which, I believe, all of us are ready to admit. That grievance has existed since 1870; it is not removed, I admit, by the Act of 1902. That grievance consists in this. A parent, perhaps a Nonconformist parent, while he has in some, not by any means in all, districts to pay rates and taxes in support of denominational schools, has no access for his own children to the religious instruction which he himself would accept for them. That is a grievance which I think we all admit, and would all be ready to the utmost of our power to attempt to remedy. But we must remember that Roman Catholics and members of the Church of England in other districts when there is no school accommodation except in board or council schools have precisely the same grievance of being forced to support those schools although they cannot get in them, or anywhere, the religious instruction which they desire. If justice requires us to redress one of those grievances, surely justice also requires that we should attempt to redress the other.
  I have no doubt Amendments will be moved in this House for obtaining facilities for denominational teaching in council schools. For myself, I desire to see as little disturbance as possible of our existing system, and I do not desire to commit myself to support such Amendments, until I see what, if any, concessions the Government are prepared to make in regard to giving

  1189
  real facilities for denominational teaching in the transferred schools. But if no concessions in that direction are to be made, then I am of opinion that there is a great deal to be said for a provision which will place all provided schools on the same footing in regard to religious, as well as to secular, instruction.
  But while I do not desire to commit myself to any proposals for altering the status of the present council schools—I am dealing only for a moment with the Nonconformist grievance, which I think is the sole justification for amending the provision of the Act of 1902—I may say that it appears to me that the problem which has to be solved is that, when parents in any appreciable number desire that they should have access to Cowper-Temple or undenominational teaching, means should be found for providing them with such access. But that does not seem to me to be a problem which ought to be insoluble by means less violent and drastic than those provided in the Bill. I cannot think that this not very heroic task makes it necessary to disturb the religious character of every voluntary school and to remove every security that remains in respect to it whether these, schools be Church schools, Catholic schools, or Jewish schools. There are, not in towns alone but in the rural districts also, hundreds, and I think thousands, of them against which no voice of complaint has ever been raised, which offend no conscience, and which are doing good work to the satisfaction of the parents of the children who attend them, to whatever religious persuasion they belong.
  With regard to such schools as these, under such circumstances as I have described, I am tempted to ask—Why cannot you leave them alone? Why are you, without inquiry, without examination, without inviting any friendly discussion between local authorities and trustees of voluntary schools, going to impose upon those schools a uniform and a cast-iron rule which will offend the consciences of as many as, if not a larger number of parents than those whom you are going to please? I know that this suggestion will be considered an audacious one, and will be absolutely scouted by members of his Majesty's Government, but I ask any members
  1190
  of that Government who are going to take part in this debate whether the description I have given of a large number of existing schools in the country is not a true one, and I will ask them to say for what reason the good work which they are doing is to be disturbed.
  The most rev. Primate, in the great speech which he addressed to the House yesterday, indicated Amendments which he thought might be moved on the clauses of the Bill with the object, in some degree, of making them more effectual for the purpose which they profess to have in view. The most rev. Primate suggested Amendments which might make the facilities so grudgingly given in the Bill real; and, as I understood him, he proposed to expunge some of those clauses which appear to be directly aimed at the destruction of the security for the efficiency of religious instruction, either denominational or undenominational, hereafter to be taught in our schools. I believe I am entirely in sympathy with the suggestions of the most rev. Primate; but there is one point on which I cannot altogether agree with him.
  The most rev. Primate said that in his opinion a great opportunity for a great measure had been lost. My Lords, in the present divided state of opinion on religious matters to which I have referred, I doubt whether any measure, however wisely framed, however moderate, or however tolerant it might be—I doubt whether any great measure dealing with thin difficult problem could be made acceptable. I hold, on the contrary, that the Government have immensely exaggerated the magnitude of the question with which it is necessary for them, to deal. I believe that but for political exigencies the question might have been dealt with on far less ambitious lines. I think the Government themselves have shown some perception of this fact; for they have introduced clauses the object and intention of which appear to be to mitigate the, rigour of the treatment which the first clause and other clauses, will impose on voluntary schools, I fear that the scope and effect of those clauses are too wide and far reaching to make them susceptible to substantial mitigation. At all events, in their present form, as amended in the other

  1191
  House, they are extremely complicated, intricate, and, I think I may say of some of them, almost unintelligible. I shall not attempt on this occasion to discuss them. I will only say that these clauses appear to me to fall short to an unnecessary degree of what I may call a just and tolerant arrangement. I am, therefore, confident that no Amendment that can be devised to the framework of this Bill can make of it a final settlement or one which can be acceptable to those who care for and value definite religious teaching. Still less can I expect the Government, fettered as they are by me of their supposed mandates and exposed to the pressure which has been constantly applied to them throughout the discussions in the other House by some of their extreme supporter's, will be permitted to agree to many of the Amendments which may be proposed, however reasonable they may appear to be.
  It has been suggested that this House should decline to undertake a task which appears to be almost an impossible one, and should leave to the Government the responsibility of passing an un-amended Bill which will probably prove unworkable and will certainly produce widespread and strong reaction. I think that this House, if it adopted any such suggestion, would be failing in its duty. I think it is our duty, however little hope we may have of success, to approach the consideration of this Bill in Committee with a firm and strong desire to mitigate every grievance which can be proved, and at the same time to obtain some securities for religious instruction in our schools, which I believe the country is determined to have in some form or another. I think it is the duty of this house to endeavour to show the country that there are alternatives to the violent and unnecessary disturbance of our educational system which, with all its faults and imperfections, his for thirty-six years done a work of which we have no cause to be ashamed; and until we have done this, until we know how our efforts in these directions will be regarded by His Majesty's Government and by the other House of Parliament, we shall not be called upon to make the final and momentous decision which at some later period we may have to take and which
  1192
  may involve consequences far wider even than any that are involved in connection with the present measure.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, the keynote of the second night of this debate, if I may venture respectfully to say so, could hardly have been struck more suitably than by the speech to which we have just listened; and what has fallen from the noble Duke is a great encouragement to one who holds such opinions on this matter as I do myself. We on this Bench share to the full what must have been the feeling of the House during the first stage of this debate—namely, that this is not only a matter which raises very real and very grave issues, but one with regard to which the House must so far as that is possible, adopt a judicial attitude. There ought to be no question here of Party victory, because there is indeed no Party bond that unites the critics of this Bill.
  The issue which we would desire to put is an issue of fairness, a simple issue and one which we can make clear to our own consciences, with regard to which we may deserve respect, we hope, from public opinion outside. I could wish we had here, as well might be if this House should ever be amended, representatives of the great Nonconformist bodies, because then I think we should have this case better set out, and, I must be allowed to add, because I should like the House to have an opportunity of forming an opinion on a good deal of Nonconformist argument and Nonconformist attitude at first hand. In the speech of the most rev. Primate last night there was a good deal of reference to the past history of the matter, and it has been touched upon briefly to-night by the noble Duke. The merest tyro, looking on at our debate or reading it, would find that there have been now for a century behind us two great bodies of opinion in this country, to which our controversial jargon has fixed the titles denominational and undenominational.
  In 1870, though that is by no means the beginning of the matter, we find a great settlement in which both those bodies of opinion were recognised, one having the advantage of position because

  1193
  the supporters of denominational schools had been earlier in the field and had made great sacrifices, and the other having the advantage of the prestige which emanates from public administration and the great help which comes from a double hold on the public purse. We remember how in 1870 it was prophesied that that twofold condition was merely transitory, that it was quite plain that voluntary schools could never hold their own, and that a few years would suffice to see them pass away. That feeling prevailed among many members of our own body, and a number of schools were sacrificed which might have been saved to us.
  But when we come to the beginning of the new century we find that, so far from having been nearly extinguished, the voluntary schools have, roughly speaking, doubled in number, the number of children using them has doubled as well as the number of their supporters. I venture to hope we shall not hear any more in this debate of what I may call the ungenerous belittling of that great body of denominational effort on the ground that it was assisted in certain places by railway companies, or because in other places the desire to be relieved of the rate had a great deal to do with the matter. Is there any movement in politics or in history which, as it proceeds, does not gather round it a good deal which, is not congenial to its main principle? We should ask ourselves upon what principle does this movement depend, what set it going, and what put it in a position to receive these tributary streams? I do not doubt that any fair-minded person will answer that it was due to the strength of denominational conviction. You had, on the one hand, great numbers of people up and down the country putting their strength into the working of denominational schools and making great sacrifices for them; and you had also a new body of people representing the other principle, and I think we may be proud to have amongst us perhaps the ablest, the most distinguished, and the most untiring of the public servants who have given their work to the support of the undenominational system—I refer to the noble Lord who sits near me, Lord Stanley of Alderley.
  1194
  The position, was still the same in 1902. I am not going to worry the House by dwelling on the weak side of the double arrangement of that date. It was quite plain that while the two bodies were at least equal in conviction and in earnestness one had got a grip of public money which the other had not; and the Act of 1902 was, as it appeared to me, a reasonable effort in that sense to maintain in its main feature the settlement of 1870. I quite admit that in order to maintain its main feature it had to depart from that settlement in other respects, but the settlement had been already departed from in favour of undenominational schools. The 3d. in the £1 of Mr. Gladstone had gone up to the 1s., the 2s., and, I believe, even, the 2s. 6d. in some places.
  Meanwhile, I believe that in the region of opinion there had taken place a good deal of change which, unless I greatly misread things, has been accelerated since. I believe that the opinion, strong in the first flush of its growth in 1870, in favour of an undenominational system which should, it was hoped, remove all difficulties, has grown a good deal more diffident and doubtful of itself since; and I believe, on the other hand, that the sense of the essential truth of the denominationalist argument, of the argument that if religion is to be real it must be the religion that people do themselves believe, has gained very much strength. And if you ask me for any proof that I am right in that respect I should be willing to take this thing, of which we hear a great deal, called facilities, which is now accepted by persons of all kinds as one of the most obviously just expedients towards a solution of the question.
  We have the two-fold condition existing, not merely as a relic of the past, but in a state of the fullest vitality on both sides, and with the arguments both ways tenaciously held and vigorously set out; and it is in those conditions that a Government called to meet in some way that settlement, called to deal with certain grievances to which it was liable, have offered us what the Prime Minister has described as an undenominational Bill. What I am asking your Lordships' House to consider is whether this looks

  1195
  like, or is likely to be, a reasonable and fair solution. The Bill says that having got your two-fold system you shall, in order to remedy the grievance, pull down one half of your system; that you shall destroy all that satisfies the denominationalist body of people of all kinds who care so much, and work so hard, and help so loyally in the work of the undenominational system, for the men who have done most for voluntary schools have often been prominent on the school boards throughout the country. You destroy all that satisfied that body of your citizens and you take the principle which is identified with the other side. You take the very formula which represents that principle in the old controversial form. You change the whole character of the denominational schools without asking whether they desire it or whether it is needed; on the contrary, you are pleased with yourselves for the very comprehensiveness of the first clause. I ask, does that look like a fair arrangement? If we could get a dispassionate judge this seems to me the case which we could put to him with a tolerable hope of success.
  Then, with regard to the teachers. You have a large body of teachers, many of them very religious people, and you are going to silence them as regards a great deal of what they have been accustomed to teach, and you are going to allow them to teach under a sense of restraint, which I do not think has been fully realised as the effect of the working of the Cowper-Temple Clause. When a teacher is not quite sure how much the Cowper-Temple Clause means, what those in authority will interpret it to mean, he will be timid, not only about how far he dare express, but how far conscientiously he ought to express his real convictions. I wish we could adjourn this debate and go round the country and have a series of object lessons of what this means in the concrete. If your Lordships would visit these schools in various parts of the country between now and the autumn, you would find some, no doubt, which you would have good reason to criticise, but I am sure you would find cases which, to use a simple phrase, would go to your hearts; and when you had learnt the story of
  1196
  what the schools had cost and the work that had been accomplished, you would say that to satisfy political theory or to remove some fragment of conscientious grievance, surely it required a less drastic remedy than this. It may be said to me—' You are putting the case all your own way, and you are not observing that this Bill is a compromise.'
  Indeed, I think one speaker last night went so far as to make the extraordinary statement that the Act of 1902 was not a compromise and this Bill was. We must be rather careful about what a compromise means.
  With regard to what the Church did in 1902, I venture to say that the Church did undoubtedly attempt some sort of compromise. Was it not the case that, at the time when we on our part asked that the State should give us an additional measure of public help from the rates, we felt at once that it was only just that on our side there should be some considerable concession? I have in my hand the conclusions arrived at by the Convocations of Canterbury and York sitting together in 1901. It was agreed that, for the first time, into the government of every school there should be admitted two persons who, if the authorities were to appoint them, might be as alien as possible from the principles of the school, but who would secure to everyone connected with the school that there was some independent person in the governing body privy to all the secrets and able to see that there was no unfair play or unreasonable dealings with any children.
  Along with that we passed another Resolution to which I do not think attention has been sufficiently directed, because it was not, unfortunately as we think, taken up by the Government in 1902. It was this, that whenever a reasonable number of parents desired that religious instruction in accordance with their belief should be given to their children, opportunity for such instruction should be secured to them by statute in all elementary schools, provided this could be done without expense to the managers. If it had been possible to insert that in the Bill of 1902 I think it would have gone a good way towards removing the necessity for

  1197
  this Bill. I think that was an instance of a fair and reasonable attempt at a compromise. This Bill cannot in any way be described as a compromise. Is there under this Bill any single point at which the denominational side of the community stands to gain? If there is no-two-sided account it is difficult to call it a compromise. That has been perceived by some controversialists on the other side, and we have seen resolutions lately which have attempted to show that the advantage was partly on our side.
  At a conference held in London last week a resolution was adopted declaring that this Bill is not a settlement of the question, and that it is the profound conviction of a large number of Liberals and Nonconformists that it will leave several of the greatest wrongs unredressed while still further subsidising all the old denominational schools. In many cases, continues the resolution, it strengthens their sectarian character and fails to secure the teachers of such schools and three-fourths of the population against the imposition of sectarian tests. I venture to think that at the rate we have been educating ourselves by this debate everyone in this House will feel that the statement about further subsidising all the old denominational schools and in many cases strengthening their sectarian character, is really hardly worth criticism. I think the same remark may be applied to the other statements contained in the resolution passed at this conference. What we are now offered is not a compromise, and it cannot be supposed that you are going to advance a stage toward a settlement of this matter unless you do something to meet the claims from both sides. Unless this is done you will not get nearer a solution, but will be plunged deeper into the difficulty. This is one reason why this Bill has net with such opposition in the country.
  Noble Lords who come from all parts of England must have had opportunities of judging for themselves, and unless their experience differs greatly from my own, both first-hand and second-hand, they will know that the Bill has created an amount of opposition among people who are not at all inclined to excite themselves or take part in political matters
  1198
  of which there is no parallel in this generation. It is not merely that a large number of people have come together on this subject. It is by no means merely a matter of excitement; it is one of very deep feeling. If you go beyond those who have joined in opposition to the Bill I think you will find that many who started by saying, "Do not oppose the Bill", have been obliged to make such criticisms upon it as constitute a most formidable condemnation of it in the eyes of anyone who looks at the matter from the point of view of common fairness.
  We shall hear my right rev. brother the Bishop of Hereford, whom I am glad to see in his place, present from this Bench the most favourable estimate that can be made of this Bill; but unless he has altered his opinion, which is not very likely, he will tell you that the action of this Bill in silencing the teachers in the matter of denominational teaching is harsh. He will tell you that it is quite unreasonable not to give facilities, and he will tell you that by leaving out religion in school hours you are doing great damage to the cause of religious education. I know the Bishop of Hereford so well that I am sure he will not take exception to my quoting him in that way. But it is not a single person. The same thing may be said of persons who do not generally agree with those who are taking a strong line on this matter. The noble Duke quoted a declaration made by people who held a meeting the other day. If the modifications which those people suggest were introduced in the Bill it might fall very short of what many of us ardently desire, but it could not be said that the Government's Bill had not been altered to a degree which would amount almost to a transformation of it.
  I ventured to ask just now that one statement which I thought ungenerous might not be repeated. There is another statement, constantly made in, the newspapers, that the Opposition to this Bill comes only from Roman Catholics and a very small section of persons, chiefly clergy, within the Church of England, who are so misguided as to have some affinities with Roman Catholic opinion. That really is so grotesque a perversion of the state of things within the Church of England that I hope we shall not hear

  1199
  any more of it. In my own diocese a committee of 400 laymen has been formed to carry on agitation against the Bill, and the only clergyman who has been admitted to their body is a leading evangelical incumbent. It is not one party in the Church of England which is making this resistance. The resistance comes from all those—and they have been greatly increased in number under the power of this controversy—who feel the necessity, if we are to keep religion, that that religion should be real and vital.
  I am glad that this debate is not to terminate with any division or any attempt to reject the Bill on Second Reading. I think that would have been scant courtesy, not only to the other House but to those outside. But I am glad also on our own account. I believe that the effect of the threshing-out of these arguments in your Lordships' House, not only in this debate on the Second Reading but in the Committee Stage will be very great indeed. I believe that, as we go on, under unfettered conditions of criticism both as to the justice of the Bill and its details, it will more and more come out that it is not such a settlement as the country can accept, and that it cannot be passed into law without a far greater grievance existing than that which it professes to remedy. I hope that at some future time in some way or other we shall all unite and find the means of so framing our educational system as that the denominational principle and the rival method shall find full and final and permanent expression.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, there is a certain element of artificiality about this debate because it is agreed that the Second Reading is to be conceded, and that the struggle is to take place on the Committee stage. But the speeches which have ended by accepting the Second Reading have been characterised throughout by such hostility to the essence of the Bill that the arguments would have been more naturally translated into a rejection of the measure. Although for various political reasons it was thought impolitic to enter into a conflict with the other House at this stage, I would say that if, as the result of the Autumn discussions, such
  1200
  demands should be finally insisted upon by this House as would be incapable of acceptance in the other House, the very grave consequences indicated in the most weighty and serious language by the noble Duke would follow—
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Might follow.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Consequences which might be more serious even than the passing of this Bill in an unamended form. When the noble Duke gives that warning we know that it indicates deep conviction. We have had addresses in this House, and I think too much in the country, in which this Bill has been talked of as remedying a Nonconformist grievance, and as, in the course of doing so, inflicting greater grievances on Anglicans and Roman Catholics. The right rev. Prelate who has just spoken expressed regret that the representatives of Nonconformists were not here, partly that they might have their say, but still more, I think, that he might have the pleasure of refuting them.
  I do not approach, and never have approached, this question of education from either the merely Anglican or Nonconformist point of view. To my mind, the question of a little more or a little less in the exact measure of religious instruction or even of theological dogma that you can impart to children between the ages of three and fourteen is a very trifling matter. In nine-tenths of the Anglican schools the teachers do in fact teach the Bible very much in the same way as they teach it in the board schools; and the professional instinct of the teacher makes him, when he comes to the Catechism, teach it also in such a broad and moderate way that he only draws the same kind of lessons from the Catechism as the board school master would draw from the Bible. I approach this question much more from the point of view of the citizen; and I think the debates in your Lordships' House have too much ignored the fact that the grievance in regard to the management of schools receiving a large measure of public aid is that the administration offends against the principle of municipal self-government. The essential thing, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the great

  1201
  resented the over-ecclesiastical atmosphere in which they had been brought up. I think that, in the long run, you cannot expect that a large force of 70,000 or 80,000 teachers should all be men or women of fervent piety, any more than the whole of the curates of the Established Church. Whenever you take a large body you must take the mass of them, who are very average people. It is sufficient, so long as it is understood, that one who is not desirous of giving this teaching has only to say he does not wish to give it and can be excused. In the case of a teacher who has declined to give religious teaching as an assistant, the authority would think twice before they appointed that teacher as headmaster, in which position he would have to supervise all the teaching; and I am afraid that that indirect test would apply.
  The third proposition is that definite religious teaching must be accessible to those children whose parents desire them to have it. I take it that that means that in every council school hereafter, whether formerly a voluntary school or not, there shall be opportunities for the children of parents who desire it to obtain definite religious teaching. When you are establishing a great national system, if the parties honourably and freely recognise that there shall be the one public system under public management, I think it is not an unreasonable thing to ask that those parents who desire anything special shall not depend for the chance of getting it upon the mere fact whether in the town or village in which they live there happens to be a board school or a Church school. I should not feel myself that that claim was an unreasonable one.
  The next suggestion is that the teachers who have spent some of the best years of their lives in acquiring religious knowledge shall not be silenced from giving that instruction. The noble Marquess the late President of the Board of Education asked yesterday what he was to do in connection with Seaham School, which has 1,100 children and thirty-three trained teachers. I was very glad to hear that the noble Marquess had such a fine staff in his school and I congratulate him on his public spirit. I feel that it is essential that in the future the teachers
  1202
  shall be the servants of the municipality and not the servants of any ecclesiastical organisation, and that whatever is necessary to protect them from that in the future must be done. In the existing denominational schools which are being transferred the teachers are taken over with the schools. They are not subject to any test on being taken over; they have been appointed by reason of that test; and I cannot see any injustice in allowing the existing teachers in the voluntary schools to place their services at the disposal of those who wish to give definite religious teaching so long as they remain in these schools. At the beginning there would be practically no break at all, and I think it is our business, in bringing in a new scheme of national education, to make the transition as easy as possible. I think these concessions in the towns would be valued very highly by those who now manage those schools.
  The next suggestion was that the managers should have some voice in the appointment of the teacher. I was glad to hear the most rev. Primate pay a tribute, which was absolutely well deserved, to the old managers who worked so well under the London School Board. He was quite correct in saying that those managers were gathered together regardless of the denomination to which they belonged and regardless of their profession. But they developed a keen interest in their work and were a valuable element in education in London. I agree with the most rev. Primate that unfortunately too much officialism has now grown up. I think that large bodies dealing with education do want the assistance of local knowledge and local interest in helping them to find teachers for the schools.
  May I say one word as to what I think about the interests of special minorities in the staffing of their schools? I do not think the local authority can be asked to violate the law by imposing a test as to the religious opinions of the teacher, but so far as there are teachers of the special religious association of the school, those teachers, if otherwise fit, will inevitably drift into those schools. There are not so many Jewish teachers as there are places for them in schools

  1203
  frequented by Jews. Any Jewish teacher would undoubtedly try to get into one of those schools, and certainly the local authority would endeavour to place him there, because there is a very practical difficulty in this matter in regard to school holidays and the various Jewish feasts and fasts. As a matter of practical administration, everyone would desire to put Jewish teachers into Jewish schools.
  I come next to Roman Catholics. I think a Roman Catholic teacher would naturally apply for a school where he or she would be among people of the same religion and where the associations were pleasant. The local authorities will, as far as possible, fill up the posts in those schools by teachers of that type. It is one thing to say that this will be done in the ordinary way, but it is another thing to ask a public body to set aside a better teacher for an inferior teacher because the latter holds those opinions. The teachers will gravitate to the schools with which they have sympathy. The right rev. Prelate referred to St. John's school, Kennington. I am sure that in connection with that school no difficulty whatever would be experienced in getting applications from qualified teachers. These things will work automatically.
  I now turn to the appeals which were made by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Let me say that, grateful as I am to him for the kind way in which he spoke of me, I am not prepared to allow him to make my speeches for me. The right rev. Prelate spoke most strongly, and I am sure from the bottom of his heart, of the possibility of finding some common line of union. He spoke too much of the common line between Nonconformists and Churchmen. He ought to have spoken of the common line of action between all who care for the children and the work. I am not new to this work. Long before the Act of 1902 was passed, and all the time that these storms were in the air, I have been earnestly seeking whether some of the leading people of the Church Party could not, while there was time, come forward and find some basis of agreement. May I refer to a great friend of mine and a great friend of the Bishop of Southwark; I mean the Late
  1204
  Principal of St. Mark's College. He was a man of fine character, of great public spirit and a great straightforwardness, and if any man could have influenced the leaders of the Church to frame some settlement, I think he might have done it, if his life had been spared. But, my Lords, was not the time for compromise before the passing of the Act of 1902?
  We hear a great deal about the parents now. The noble Marquess who spoke last night from the Front Opposition Beach devoted the greater portion of his speech to talking about the parent, and he laid great stress upon the paramount claim of the parent. I should like to ask the noble Marquess why he and his Party showed no regard for the rights of parents when they were legislating on this matter. It was urged in the House of Commons that of the four foundation managers the parents might have been allowed to elect two; that would have left the old school managers two and the public authority two. But not at all. That proposal was rejected. There has been a great deal of lip service done to the cause of the parents, but when it came to a question of doing something effective in their interests the Amendment was rejected and the Bill was forced through, giving control to the old managers. In the Principality of Wales, in parish after parish throughout the rural parts of the country, the population is two-thirds, three-fourths, or four-fifths, and in some cases unanimously, Nonconformist. And yet, because in former days the squire chose to give the school with strict trust deeds to the National Society, the one man who was incapable of being headmaster of the school was the man who taught all the children in the Sunday school and worshipped with them in the same chapel. No effort was ever made to remedy that. I venture to think that it is a little too late now for noble Lords opposite to talk of the parents. If they had thought of the parents in the time of their triumph they would not have had to appeal to them now in the days of their adversity.
  For forty years and more of political life I have been closely associated with Nonconformists, and I have made it my business to know the point of view of the various Churches and their leaders, and I wish to say that Nonconformists

  1205
  mass of popular forces which have returned this overwhelming Liberal majority to the House of Commons, is that the feeling behind the demand for this Bill is that the schools should become a municipal and not an ecclesiastical institution, and that they should benefit by that broad current of public life that flows from popular election and popular self-government.
  When I saw that the noble Duke was going to resume the debate this afternoon I had hoped, having regard to his past career and to the fact that we are within one day of the 30th anniversary of the occasion when the noble Duke as Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons moved a hostile Resolution on the report of the Bill of 1876, that the old spirit would have revived in him, and that we should have heard from him some words worthy to be put side by side with those which lie spoke in the debate on Lord Sandon's Bill of that year. But as I listened to him I thought, to slightly parody Tennyson, that "Men may pass on stepping-stones of their dead selves to other things."
  We have had summaries of the history of this education question which are remarkable by their omissions and by their misrepresentations of the fact. It was a singular thing to my mind that the noble Duke, in giving the history of this education question during the period when he was responsible largely for it, should have entirely skipped over the year 1876. The noble Duke spoke even of the Cowper-Temple clause with an air of detachment and indifference which seemed to imply that he had quite forgotten that he was one of the parents responsible for it. I see also on the opposite Benches the noble Viscount who began his distinguished political career by being the champion of religious liberty and equality in the University of Oxford. He took an active part in the invasion of ancient trusts and the abolition of ecclesiastical restrictions which made the Universities and their colleges available to the country. He, too, is one of the veterans who denounce the breaking up of the compromise of 1870, and he took the extreme step of dividing against the Third Reading of Lord Sandon's Act of 1876.
  1206
  But what I wish to call attention to are the remarks which the noble Duke made as Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons on August 3rd, 1876. After pointing out, with great truth, that the Act of 1870 was a compromise, that there were many things in it to which Nonconformists and Liberals objected, yet he said there were elements in the compromise which made it accepted. At any rate, the presumption for the future was in favour of the public management of the schools, and voluntary schools were permitted to exist on the strict obligation that they should be responsible for one half of the annual cost. In reply to the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down, I would remind the House that every invasion of the principles of 1870 has been in favour of propping up voluntary schools which found they were unable to keep pace with the competition.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: There were invasions on both sides.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The right rev. Prelate complained that the public spirit of the ratepayers and their determination to do the work properly had caused the education rate to go up considerably higher than Mr. Forster anticipated. But that was an act of sacrifice on the part of the ratepayers. The ratepayers had it in their power to do the work in a niggardly and cheeseparing way, but I have never heard before that any section of the citizens had a right to complain of the public spirit of the community as a whole. But what was it that the noble Duke said in moving his motion on the Bill of 1876? He said—
  "there are many of us, and I do not scruple to say I am one of them, who believe that the principle of school boards is the right and true principle in this matter. We believe that, being the right and true principle, it will in the end prevail. We believe that once the time has arrived that Parliament has declared the education of the country is the business, not, as formerly, of individuals, but is the business of the State itself, it becomes inevitable that sooner or later State education must be in the hands, not of individuals, but of the representatives of the people."
  That was admirably put thirty years ago, and I had hoped to hear that principle

  1207
  again enunciated to-night; but, instead of that, the noble Duke declared his inability to understand what the first clause means when it says that all schools shall be under the control of the representatives of the people. As we cannot have the services of our lost leader we must inarch on without him, and we can only hope that some day or other he may receive the lost knowledge. Where he will meet us I do not know.
  I should like to pass for a moment to the historical recapitulation given by the most rev. Primate. The most rev. Primate, curiously enough, omitted to bring out the signification of the century-old conflict in this fight for the education of the people. He quoted for 1847 from a very small controversy between Mr. Bright and Mr. Macaulay. But if anyone will take the trouble to read the speeches he will see that the essence of Mr. Bright's opposition was that the rules of the Privy Council put the whole money expended into the hands of the Church. The most rev. Primate did not remind us of the persistent and obstinate resistance of the clergy and dignitaries of the Church of England at that time to what were known as the management clauses. He also entirely passed over the Act of 1876. Time is short, and I only wish to note in passing the hardly complete narrative of the history of the education question sketched by the most rev. Primate, which left a great many chasms not seen.
  The most rev. Primate put forward certain definite Amendments which he considered essential, and failing to get which, apparently, he would wreck the Bill. I do not know how far he is prepared to stand to his guns or how far your Lordships are prepared to stand by him; but I should like briefly to run through the suggested Amendments because, though this is a Second Reading debate, I think we may fairly indicate the points beyond which it is idle to suppose the great Liberal majority in the country and the great body of parents will go in the settlement of this question. The first proposal was that there should be religious teaching within school hours, subject to the conscience clause. The impression I get from looking at the report of the most rev. Primate's speech is that he wants the imposition of a Parliamentary obligation on the managers of all
  1208
  public elementary schools to give religious teaching. But if he merely means that the religious teaching, subject to a conscience clause, when given shall be within school hours, that, it seems to me, having regard to the attitude of the Government in the House of Commons, is an Amendment which, if your Lordships passed it, would hardly be resisted. But it is a very different proposition to say that the State should take the responsibility of laying down a new parliamentary religion to be imposed on every local authority. The most rev. Primate shakes his head, and therefore I suppose his policy is the more moderate of the two.
  The next proposition is that this teaching must be given by men who feel what they say. Does that mean a test for teachers, or does it not? I had to do for many years with a body which employed a larger number of teachers than any other body in the country. The School Board for London had in their service some 12,000 certificated teachers, and that Board, as the result of the heated controversies of twelve years ago, passed a resolution giving a far wider charter of immunity from tests for teachers than anything which has been put into the Government's Bill. That resolution prohibited not only inquiry as to whether the teacher belonged to any Church, but as to what his religious opinions were; it forbade any inquiry, direct or indirect, as to whether he possessed certificates which would suggest that he belonged to any particular Church, and it forbade managers from trying to pry into the teacher's religious opinions. Of course, in the case of any great body of men you will have people who volunteer to teach anything regardless of whether they care for it or not. Yet I think the most rev. Primate will admit that the teachers of London have been an honourable, earnest, and thoughtful body, who have given this teaching in a proper spirit and with reverence and seriousness.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: They were all trained.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Yes, but I have seen a resentment of theology coming from schoolmasters trained in Church colleges. They have

  1209
  utterly disclaim and repudiate the idea that they are asking for any advantage as Nonconformists and for Nonconformity. They claim that there shall be no partiality and no favour for any Church, and they claim that the schools shall be municipal institutions. You may say that it is inconsistent with that to advocate the general Christian teaching which is popularly described as Cowper-Temple teaching. All Nonconformists have been brought up by means of the Bible. The Bible has been an important part of their moral, spiritual, and intellectual means of sustenance and they, especially Wesleyans and Presbyterians, find it very difficult to say that that book, which is to them so precious, shall not be included in the school curriculum. But many of them feel that the Bible can speak for itself. In Wales especially the Bible is read, but these same people who will not have the Bible taught in the day school are not content with the Sunday school, but large numbers of these children go not only once but twice on the week-days for definite religious instruction in their chapel. It is not that they are opposed in any way to religious instruction, but they do not wish to mix it up with the day school.
  The most rev. Primate made an impassioned appeal on the ground of the past, quoting from Mr. Gladstone as to the effect religious zeal had had in the fashioning of the education of this nation. I think that what the most rev. Primate said with regard to religious zeal was perfectly true. But will the most rev. Primate allow me to quote, as an estimation of the value of this factor in promoting national education, the opinion of his predecessor in St. Augustine's Chair—the Rev. Frederick Temple? Giving evidence in 1860 before the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, the Rev. Frederick Temple, who was advocating the establishment of a rate-supported system of schools under public management, was asked whether this substitution of the rates would not greatly diminish the effect of religious zeal; and he replied—
  " Yes, but I do not think a diminuition of religious zeal an evil. I think much of it is very unhealthy."
  1210
  Then he was asked by Sir John Coleridge whether he would define what he meant by religious zeal, and he replied that religious zeal meant—
  " Activity of religious leaders to get the management and control of the education of children, in order to educate them in their own opinions."
  That was not an occasional opinion of the Rev. Frederick Temple, because anyone who will take the trouble to read a most important essay of his published in the Oxford Essays in 1856 will see an elaborately-written essay in which he recurs to this question of religious zeal and to his desire to see something else substituted for it. He said that what he would prefer as a moving force for the education of the people, instead of religious zeal, was a quiet sense of duty. The religious zeal on which the most rev. Primate relies is a fluctuating and uncertain foundation upon which to build a system of education.
  May I sum up what I think cannot be accepted, and, if pressed by your Lordships, will certainly lead to that lamentable conflict which the noble Duke who opened the debate foreshadowed? Firstly, any diminution of the absolute management by the local authority of all schools supported out of the rates. I think that Clause 1, the absolute management by the local authorities of all schools is essential. Secondly, any attempt to impose tests on teachers or to interfere with their liberty to give or not to give Scripture teaching. Thirdly, any attempt to set up a Parliamentary religion and to enforce it on the local authorities. This measure cannot be described as confiscatory or a spoliating Bill, any more than the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, for which the noble Duke who resumed this debate to-day was responsible as one of the Cabinet. That Bill confiscated, without one penny of compensation, all the parochial schools of the Church of Scotland and transferred them to the newly-created school boards.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLETGH: I think that is a statement which the noble Lord will have some difficulty in supporting.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I have in my hand the extract from Hansard of that year. An Amendment was moved in the House of Commons against the taking of these schools, and—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Which schools do you mean?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The parish schools.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: They were not the property of the Church.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Far be it from me to dispute with my j noble friend in an interlocutory manner with regard to this point; but these parochial schools, which were under heritors, and almost entirely managed locally by the minister, were taken away from the people who then owned them, and transferred to a new body which was the result of popular election, and which was under no obligation whatever to continue any form of Presbyterian teaching in those schools. That is quite enough for my purpose. That shows an absolute diversion of trust property from one set of owners to a new body, who were under no obligation in the way I have suggested.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There were no trusts in connection with the heritor's or parochial schools.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am not going to prolong my speech by discussing side issues relating to Scottish education with the noble Lord. The House of Commons will never again in another year deal with a measure of such complexity, and therefore I warn the House of the danger of drifting into that secular system which I agree that the majority of the people of this country do not at present desire, but which, if the various Churches cannot settle their disputes, they may welcome as a counsel of despair in their desire to have done with confusion.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I think I should be most ungrateful if I did not recognise on the whole the conciliatory spirit displayed by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and as I hope to set the example of rather shorter speeches I propose to follow Lord Stanley point by point, and certainly not to defend the noble Duke. I had not the pleasure of hearing his speeches thirty years ago, but he made a noble speech to-night. It seems to me that the whole fallacy in regard to tests for teachers lies in confusing tests with qualifications for the work. If the noble Lord is ready to allow those who teach to be tested as the curates of the Established Church are tested, we shall be quite satisfied. With regard to public bodies, I am quite prepared to say that most public bodies will act fairly, but what about the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Councils of Wales? I know that Nonconformists honour the Bible, but the Church brought the Bible to England and taught it here centuries before there were any Nonconformist bodies at all. What we want is a free teaching of the Bible, and not the Bible edited by the County Council. As to religious zeal, if there ever was a man fired with religious zeal it was Dr. Temple, our late Archbishop.
  Having answered in these few sentences some of the points raised by the noble Lord I wish very temperately to explain what our grievance is in this matter.
  What is a Christian school? In speaking of these matters I feel the difficulty which the most rev. Primate expressed yesterday. These things are so sacred with us that I hesitate to speak of thorn even in so sympathetic an Assembly as this. But I answer the question, "What is a Christian school?" not in the words of some extreme High Churchman, but in the words of the Dean of Canterbury, who may be said to be the leader of the Evangelical Party in many respects. He says—
  "the name of God and of Christ are in the forefront. Everyone knows that the school was established by the Church of Christ, in the Name of Christ, for the purpose of teaching the lambs of Christ's flock; and thus all the children who are taught in it, and all who work in it, live, as it were, under the shadow of the great Name, under the vault of that spiritual heaven which it constitutes; and, notwithstanding their imperfect apprehension

  1213
  and realisation of all that it involves, it is in the main hallowed and held supreme. That is the purpose for which the Church establishes a school, just as it is the purpose for which she builds churches."
  I have read that because I want to make as my next point that the Evangelicals are as keen about these Church Christian schools as anyone else. In our diocese we are always dealing with various clergy of different schools of thought, and during these months of controversy it has been one of the few redeeming features to me that Evangelical and High Churchmen have been at our back in this matter side by side.
  An attempt has been made to prove that the atmosphere for which we ask is some intolerant sectarian atmosphere. I venture to say that that attempt has wholly failed. We heard some years ago a great deal about Gace's Catechism, but we have hoard nothing of it for the last few years. We cannot discover a place whore Gace's Catechism is ever used, and we firmly believe that the sale of it was largely due to the efforts of the Liberation Society. Again, the denominational aspect of the school has this meaning. We believe, in starting these schools, that you should not, at the end of a child's school career, leave that child in the air, so to speak, but should hand it on to a religious society which shall carry on its religious education. In saying that any education which leaves the child in the air on leaving school is a bad one, I have the support of Dr. Dale, the great Nonconformist of Birmingham. Dr. Dale asserted that any explanation of the Bible which could be described as "undogmatic" he always regarded with distrust. He argued that religious teaching which would not be likely "To attach the children to any particular denomination" would end in detaching them from all. Undenominational teaching, if genuine, he believed would ultimately leave men without a religion at all. That gives us the answer to the question, What is a Christian school?
  I will not dwell on this, because I want to leave out all the points which have been pressed upon your Lordships already, with far more eloquence than I can command. For years this system has been carried on by voluntary effort in England. I have gone into the statistics as far as I can, and I find that
  1214
  the amount spent has been about £10,000 a week for ninety years. People do not spend £10,000 a week for ninety years unless it is for something which is very dear indeed to them, and it has been proved that this ideal is just as keenly attractive in the slums as in other places. I think we misunderstood the noble Earl the Lord President. At first I thought that in his speech he was going to call the Church of England the Church of the rich, but I believe we misunderstood what he said, because I am certain that in his fair-minded way he would be the first to recognise that the Church of England has taken the load in the slums, and may more fairly be described as the Church of the slums. There are tracts of these slums where there is no one else working except the representatives of the Church of England. Therefore, when I find that this ideal of Christian schools is so dear to the poor as well as to the rich, it gives mo an added grievance that these schools are to be done away with.
  Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to give a concrete instance. I went down to a very poor district in London not long ago, and heard the vicar just saying to his people—
  " We are going to have a great pleasure this week. We have been collecting for twenty years for anew wing to our school. This wing will be opened in the course of the next week or fortnight."
  I want your Lordships to picture these people in that poor district for twenty years giving their pennies and their sixpences and their shillings because they loved this Christian school in their midst. We opened, only a few years ago, a school to which we had given out of our own pockets £8,000. Before the school was opened, it was full in anticipation, because in the slums of East London they love to have a Christian school. This ideal still survives in 14,000 cases throughout the country.
  I am perfectly ready to admit that the ideal breaks down in two points. There are two grievances, one in the country and one in the towns. The noble Duke has dwelt upon both of them, therefore I will only spend a few moments in dealing with them. It is a grievance that the Nonconformists in the country should not have some special teacher to come in and teach their children in the country schools. Then it is a grievance with us with

  1215
  regard to the 1,000,000 town children in what are called board schools that we have not access to them. No one recognises that more than Mr. Birrell himself. In an excellent article in the "Independent, Review"In 1903, he says—
  "there are more than 1,000,000 children of Church of England parentage under the operation of the Cowper-Temple Clause, and so prevented from being instructed in Church principles in their day school. It cannot he denied that 1,000,000 children are worth considering."
  Now if the Government had come in with some scheme to redress those two grievances, I would have supported it with all my heart. We have done our best in a voluntary way to redress those grievances ourselves. In Spitalfields it was found that there were 100 Jewish children in a Church school. Without asking me whether he might or not, because he knew that I should agree with it, the rector sent over to the Jewish Rabbi and asked for a Jewish teacher to be sent to teach the Jewish children. When we hear of the three days of what is called "simple Bible teaching," and the two days of denominational teaching, it should be remembered that that represents an effort on the part of the country clergyman to be fair to his Nonconformist children. If he teaches the Catechism chiefly on only two days, it is because he is making an effort to be fair to the Nonconformists, so that they shall withdraw their children only for those two days, and he gives on the other three some teaching to which the Nonconformist parents cannot object. Therefore I feel with the noble Duke that a Bill of far less magnitude than the present would have redressed the grievances which I admit in those two respects. If the Bill had dealt with the country grievance and with the grievance of the towns, I believe it would have been a most useful and blessed measure.
  My Lords, what has happened? This Bill—and this is why I say that the whole Church of England turns against it in its present shape with tremendous indignation and a deep souse of wrong—by a stroke of the pen alters the whole character of those 14,000 Christian schools. The Member for Cambridge University in another place said—and he was not contradicted— that if the Bill passed, in no single school in England and Wales would any parent be able to claim his
  1216
  legal right to have religious teaching given to his children. When I read that, I thought for a moment it was an exaggerated statement, but on thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that the Member for Cambridge University was perfectly right. In no single school in England and Wales will a parent be able to claim the right to have religious teaching given to his children at all. Therefore I need not dwell any further on that point.
  The noble Duke has shown how public management would have been perfectly consistent with leaving denominational schools. It is not my business to point out the inconsistency of the Bill, especially if the inconsistency was meant to help us. But how is it possible for Clause 4 to be reconciled with Clause 1, if public management is to reign over all the schools? It is impossible for me to fit Clause 4 into Clause 1. What I desire to do, in the few minutes during which I shall further trouble your Lordships, is to point out the unsatisfactory nature of the substitute which is to be allowed when you have swept away our Church schools. I am not going to say a Mingle word about Cowper-Temple religion. For nine years, year after year, day after day, I have stood with Nonconformists in the open air in East London fighting for our common truths. Therefore, I do honour to those truths which are common to us all, and before which Mr. Gladstone himself said he bowed his head—the doctrine of the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Holy Trinity.
  I should like, in passing, to say how much we recognise the spirit of those Nonconformists who put out the manifesto the other day, stating that the teaching they wished was not to be inconsistent with the Apostles' Creed. My point is that you will not get that at all under this Bill. Of course, I want to make it clear that as a Church we have never recognised Cowper-Temple religion as the normal religion as being satisfactory at all. Everyone admits that it left out the doctrine of the sacraments and the history of the Church. There has been an attempt to make out that we acquiesced in it. The fact is, that when we could not cover the whole ground we took what was given us and worked with it to the best of our power. But I should like to make it

  1217
  perfectly plain that the Church of England has never acquiesced in Cowper-Temple religion as being satisfactory as the normal religion of the country. As the most rev. Primate pointed out in an interruption which he addressed just now to the noble Lord, the teachers who have given this excellent teaching which has been spoken of under the school boards were trained in our denominational colleges, and the teaching under the school board has been kept up to a higher level by the competition, or by the existence side by side, of the denominational schools. I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed it, but I have myself noticed a down-grade tendency in the Cowper-Temple teaching ever since it was started years ago. I believe that Mr. Cowper-Temple himself would have been absolutely astonished if he had been told that Cowper-Temple teaching would ever be understood to be either reading the Bible without note or comment, or something which was "not to be inconsistent"—I quote these words from the debate in another place—"with the religion of the saintly Martineau or the holy Channing"; in other words, with Unitarianism. Whatever those who started it meant, there is not the slightest doubt that the teachers who teach it feel hampered in their teaching, and are prevented from imparting any definite dogmatic truth, for fear of acting against the clause. Therefore I cannot at all admit that the substitute which is to be given, by which Cowper-Temple religion is to be forced upon all schools as the normal religion, satisfies mo in the least.
  That being so, I am left with the facilities. It has been pointed out that the denominational teaching is not to be given by the teachers. This Bill is called a charter of freedom for the teacher. It is a charter of tyranny for many teachers who bitterly resent having their mouths closed. Children need not attend the educational instruction, and the whole thing is at the mercy of the local authority, who may not take over the school at all. Therefore, when I come to facilities, I find very little comfort in them. My Christian school is swept away before my eyes. Clause 4 may apply to a few of our schools, but the most rev. Primate has pointed out how small the number will be even at its
  1218
  best. If the Jews are to save 100 per cent, of their schools, and the Roman Catholics nearly one half of theirs, while we save only 25 per cent, of ours, I should like to ask why it is that we, who have done so much in our humble way for the religion of the country, are to be singled out to be penalised more than every other body under Clause 4?
  Then I come to my next point. I am glad to see the noble Lord on the Woolsack in his place, because I am going to appeal to him, for whose sense of justice and honour I have the greatest possible regard. Is it or is it not the fact that under this Bill that school which we opened five years ago, and on which we spent £8,000 out of our own pockets, if we do not choose to come under this Bill, is to be taken away from us by the Commission of Three? I have road the Bill over and over again, and it seems to me that supposing I, as a trustee for a great many schools in London, do not see my way to hand over those schools under this Bill, holding them as I do on a trust before God, I am to come before the Commission of Three—composed of able and honourable men though we know it is, but who can only administer the law—and be forced to hand over that new school in Bethnal Green, which is only a type of hundreds in the country. If that is so, I say that it is an act of intolerable tyranny and injustice.
  Lastly, my Lords, I object to the Bill because it throws down an apple of discord at every election throughout the country. I find a great number of people not particularly keen about the Bill whom you might have expected to support it. I find that a leading Nonconformist in another place said that he was not very sanguine of the Bill becoming law, and personally he would not break his heart if it did not, so long as Clause 4 remained in it. Dr. Clifford's Vigilance Committee makes this statement. It registered its protest against the acceptance of the Education Bill of 1906 as a settlement of the question, and expressed the profound conviction of a large number of Liberals and Nonconformists that it leaves several of the gravest wrongs inflicted on the country by the Act of 1902 unredressed—and so on through a long Resolution. I know the mind of the Church of England, and therefore if all these bodies disagree with and throw over the Bill,

  1219
  what an apple of discord you are throwing down in every municipal election throughout the country by passing this measure! The introduction of this Bill can only be justified if it is going to appease religious strife and settle the religious difficulty. But if, as I look into it, I find that it produces more religious war, and does not settle the religious difficulty at all, I only hesitate to press for its rejection on the understanding that we shall be perfectly free in the autumn to open up this whole question of the destruction of our Church schools, and that, if the nation does decide that they are to be destroyed, we shall discover a substitute more in accordance with justice and religious equity than is provided by the present Bill.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, we have been told several times in the course of the debate that this is a Bill for placing elementary education under popular control. I venture to say that it is nothing of the kind. This Bill cannot be a Bill for placing elementary education under popular control if elementary education be what is contemplated by the Bill, for the simple reason that this has already been done by the Bill of 1902. The local authority has at this moment the complete control of the secular education given in all the elementary schools of the country. Does the Lord President deny that? No teacher can be appointed in any of those schools of whoso efficiency in regard to the secular instruction the local authority is not satisfied. Every teacher who is found inefficient in regard to secular education can be dismissed by the local authority. No child may be refused admission to the school, even though it does not belong to the religious denomination owning the school. The conscience clause withdrawing such child from religious instruction to which its parents may object is of universal obligation. The local authority can order what alterations it desires in the structure of the school building. There is only one thing the local authority cannot do—it cannot object to the appointment of a teacher, or insist on the dismissal of a teacher of whose efficiency in regard to secular instruction no complaint can be made. But since this Bill expressly excludes religious teaching from school hours, and proclaims an absolute indifference as to the religious opinions of the
  1220
  teachers, whether they have any religious convictions or none, and leaves it free to the teachers to decline to give religious instruction, it is not open to the Government to say that this exception, or the control by the managers of the religious teaching given in the school, in any degree diminishes the completeness of the popular control at present possessed by the local authority over the elementary education of the country as contemplated by this Bill. No, my Lords, this Bill is not a Bill for placing elementary education as denned by the Bill under popular control; it is a Bill to deal with education in its relation to religion, and I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to the nature of the proposals to which you are asked to assent.
  Now, my Lords, to judge those proposals, there is one preliminary question which must be settled. It is this: what do we mean by education? We moan, the training of the children's faculties, their instruction in all useful and necessary knowledge, their equipment with the necessary means of getting on in life; but is that all we mean? Is that all we desire for our children? Surely we desire something more than this. Do we not desire the correction of what is bad in thorn, and the drawing out of what is good? We desire the formation of their character. We desire that our children should grow up into good men arid women, men and women who shall so play their part here as to fit them for that eternal future which awaits us all hereafter. In other words, we believe that education to de-servo the name must be religious. And the whole question resolves itself into how, in view of our unhappy religious differences, the religious character of any system of compulsory elementary education is to be preserved consistently with the rights of conscience. If we were all agreed as to what was essential religious teaching, the difficulty would vanish. The religious teaching accepted by all as essential would be given to all. But this is, unfortunately, not the case. It is because it is not the case the difficulty arises, and it is that fact which constitutes the difficulty felt by the Bishop of Ripon in his eloquent speech last night. In view of the actual circumstances is it not obvious that if any compulsory system of

  1221
  education is to remain religious, without doing violence to the rights of conscience it can only be, as Lord Salisbury said last night, by a frank recognition on the part of the State of the rights and wishes of the parents whose children it compels to go to its schools, and by maintaining a friendly but impartial attitude as regards the religious teaching of all the different churches and denominations alike. I do not see how this can be seriously denied. Yet this is precisely what this Bill does not do.
  Consider, first, how this Bill deals with the religious character of education In general, and next how it treats the rights of conscience. I will not detain your Lordships by going through the details of the Bill; they have been dismissed already, and there will be further opposition for dismissing them at another time. But no one in the face of the provisions of the Bill can deny that such recognition as the Bill gives to religion in its connection with education is of the most grudging and unsatisfactory character. Religion by this Bill is treated as the thing of the least importance in the elementary schools of the country. I do not think that can be denied.
  Now, my Lords, I turn to the manner in which the Bill deals with the rights of conscience, more particularly with the rights of conscience of the members of the Church of England and of the Roman Catholic body. We have been told that Clause 1 is the Bill. By Clause 1 the Bill destroys at one blow all the denominational schools of the country, for the exceptional and limited facilities given by subsequent clauses for denominational teaching in some of the existing schools do not apply to new schools, and are quite illusory and insufficient. And further, it establishes in those schools —that is in Anglican and Roman Catholic schools — the very kind of religious teaching those schools were built to exclude. I would ask you to consider the injustice of such proposals. What has the Church of England, what has the Roman Catholic body done to deserve such treatment?
  Long before the State concerned itself about education, it was the Church of England, as the most rev. Primate has reminded us, that first took up the cause of elementary education throughout the
  1222
  country. Well might Mr. Mundella say, as he did in Parliament in 1870, and Mr. Mundella was a Radical of the Radicals—
  "That the Church schools had done a noble work, which Parliament had neglected to do,"
  Adding that—
  " after all the clergy were the best friends of education."
  Your Lordships know the efforts that have been made since 1870, the millions that have been raised by private effort to maintain the denominational schools and to make those schools efficient. And I ask why, in the face of such a record, are those schools to be destroyed? Why are the members of the Church of England, why are the members of the Roman Catholic body, who have done so much for education in the past, to be deprived of the religious teaching in their schools which those schools were built to maintain? There is only one answer to that question, and it has been given by the Prime Minister himself. It is not because those schools are inefficient, it is not because persons have complained of them, it is because it is the deliberate and avowed intention of the Government to destroy the denominational schools— your Lordships will forgive mo for using hard words—in order to please the political Nonconformists. I defy any member of the Government to deny it. What did the Prime Minister say on June 27th in the House of Commons—
  " This," he said, "is an undenominational Bill, netting up an undenominational system."…It would be a false Bill if it were to the mind of the denominationalists."
  Mr. Birrell, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Lloyd-George have all said the same thing. My Lords, who are the supporters of denominational religious teaching? Roughly speaking, the Church of England and the Roman Catholics. Who support undenominational teaching t With the exception of some of the Wesleyans, all the Nonconformists. There can be no illusion on the subject, the Bill is not a Bill to remedy any legitimate grievance the Nonconformist may possess, unless the existence of any denominational school is a grievance in the eyes of Nonconformists. The only shadow of a grievance they possess is in single-school districts, a grievance which could easily

  1223
  be remedied without injury and injustice to anyone. This is a Bill which deliberately and of set purpose attacks the schools of the Church of England and those of the Roman Catholic body. Mr. Birrell himself appears so conscious of the injustice and inconsistency of his proposals, that he has gone out of his way to show that the undenominational religious teaching set up by the Bill is not the religion of Nonconformists. I think the President of the Council and certainly Lord Burghclere said something to the same effect last night. It may not be the religion of Nonconformists; it certainly is the religious instruction of which they approve.
  The facts of the case disprove Mr. Birrell's theories. One example out of many which is within my own knowledge will be sufficient. The Nonconformists in Leeds had formerly some sixteen schools of their own. How many have they now? Not one. They surrendered their schools one after another to the local school boards. They did this either because they were too indifferent as to the religious education of their children to make the slightest sacrifice on its behalf, or because they were satisfied that the sort of religious instruction they desired would be given at the cost of the ratepayers. There is no doubt that the latter reason is the true one. The Nonconformists at Leeds surrendered their sixteen schools when they found they could get for their children at the public expense the sort of religious instruction they wanted. Other Nonconformist bodies have done the same thing all over the country, and, having succeeded in establishing and endowing their own undenominational religious teaching out of the rates, they now refuse any share of the rates and any recognition on the part of the State to the denominational teaching to which they object. The plain truth is, and this Bill is the proof of it, however much they may dislike its being said, that the Nonconformist leaders supported by the present Government, want to deprive all the religious bodies with which they are not in agreement of their right to have definite religious instruction in the schools those religious bodies have built, and, utilising the dread of mere secular education, demand that the religious
  1224

  instruction they themselves favour shall be given in all schools at the expense of the public.
  And now, my Lords, allow me to turn to what is the heart of the Bill, to the question of what this undenominational religion is, which henceforth is to be endowed by the State and which the Government propose to establish in all the Church schools of the country. My Lords, I would ask you to bear with me for a few moments, for this is the point on which the whole issue turns. Undenominational religious teaching is, we are told by the supporters of the Bill, those simple truths which the Protestant bodies are supposed to hold in common. Those truths do not include belief in a priesthood and a regard for the Sacraments. Roman Catholics, Mr. Bryce informs us, hold these doctrines. They believe in a priesthood, and they value the Sacraments. Every consideration, therefore, says Mr. Bryce, ought to be shown for their convictions, but such doctrines are not the doctrines of the Church of England. I would refer your Lordships to the opening questions of the Church Catechism to show the falsity of that statement. The statements of the Catechism in regard to the Sacraments —I note in passing, that the Church of England declares these Sacraments "To be generally necessary to salvation," and insists that all her children before they come to Confirmation shall be instructed in the Catechism—are according to Mr. Bryce, "metaphysical and theological" definitions incomprehensible to the simple mind of a child, and the only form of Christian teaching that could properly be given to a child was comprised in those few fundamental truths in which all Protestant bodies were agreed; those fundamental truths being the kindness and goodness of the Creator, the duty to love Him, and keep His Commandments, and the sacred precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. My Lords, a Jew or a Mahommedan might say as much; yet it is this practical Unitarianism masquerading under the name of simple Christian teaching which it is the object of this Bill to substitute for the definite Christian instruction, as set out in the Church Catechism, our schools were built to maintain and teach.

  1225
  Let me emphasise the point, for it is all-important. Undenominational religious teaching, I say it deliberately, is to all intents and purposes in its tendency and effect Unitarian religious teaching. Everything said in and out of Parliament about this Bill proves it up to the hilt. It is not what is read of the Bible that is at fault, it is what is left out, and it is the effect of what is left out that is so fatal to the character of the teaching given under the Cowper-Temple clause. So far as undenominational religious teaching in the past has preserved any of the salt of Christianity, it is due to two facts, first, that the great majority of teachers in board or council schools have hitherto been trained in training colleges belonging to the Church; secondly, that the existence of Church schools in which definite religious instruction was given, side by side with the board schools, has kept up the standard of the religious instruction given in the latter. Neither of these securities will continue if this Bill becomes law. Church schools will cease to exist, undenominationalism will be taught in all schools, and the training colleges are directly threatened. Reading of the Bible as a literary or an ethical lesson may continue, but what will that be worth? Mr. Asquith has recently told us in the interests of such Bible teaching that the Bible is the greatest masterpiece of English literature. Yes, my Lords, it is that, but it is something more, and it is just that in it which makes it more than a mere masterpiece of English literature, that signifies to us. Mr. Asquith has also been good enough to tell us what the religious teaching is, as opposed to "controversial dogma," which he understands by "simple Bible teaching," and which he wishes taught to little children. It is "To fear God, to serve the State, to hate injustice, to love their neighbour, and to do their duty with all their might."In what does this differ from Unitarianism? And it is this teaching which has nothing distinctively Christian about it, which some people support, and like to call simple fundamental Christian teaching. It would be better to try to be intelligent and honest, and say at once as Mr. Goldwin Smith has been saying in his new book: "Christian dogma is built on belief in the Incarnation and the Atonement; that the inferences of science are fatal to dogmatic Christianity," but that
  1226
  because we reject the Incarnation and the Atonement, we by no means, reject Christianity, since the "Essence of Christianity is belief in the Fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man." Again practical Unitarianism. Mr. Goldwin Smith is, indeed, profoundly right when he goes on to say that the authority of conscience is, and must be, religious. And that apart from religion all that is left us is "a domination of self-interest without regard for moral considerations," but Mr. Goldwin Smith because he says that, though we may hope that he is on the way to Damascus, is not, and does not profess to be a Christian, and belief in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man does not constitute Christianity.
  But, indeed, my Lords, it is not necessary to labour the point. We have it clearly confessed by its supporters what this undenominational religious teaching, what this simple Bible reading really is. What did Mr. Herbert Paul say in the House of Commons on Monday? I apologise to your Lordships for alluding to such a person, but Mr. Herbert Paul, who began his career in the House of Commons by abusing those of his countrymen who had fought for England in South Africa has continued his career by abusing the Church, and the other day, he told us that simple undenominational teaching was "religious teaching in those simple religious principles upon which Protestants are agreed, and which many Free thinkers have no objection should be taught their children." Mr. Herbert Paul informed the House of Commons on the same occasion that "the Bishop of London was the most innocent of God's creatures, though his innocence was as much mental as moral,"In other words that he was a fool, because he had asserted his conviction that the Church of England would never acquiesce in such undenominational teaching. No one will accuse Mr. Herbert Paul of innocence, either mental or moral, but he was certainly lacking in the guile of the serpent when he defined undenominational religion as being the kind of teaching "which Free-thinkers think suitable for their children." the members of the Unitarian body have also recently been saying that undenominational instruction is a foundation agreeable to themselves on which persons

  1227
  who do not agree with them may build such other things as they like. I have no doubt that it is a foundation agreeable to the Unitarian body, but it is not the foundation on which Christianity reposes, it is not a foundation consistent with the Christianity of the Christian Church; and to accept it, or to acquiesce in any compromise in regard to it in Church schools, would be a betrayal of the faith and fatal to the most sacred rights of the children of the poor. There is no book that requires so much explanation as the Bible. Everybody is not qualified to explain the Bible. "the Church to teach, the Bible to prove." Simple Bible teaching as handed down by the Church is what has to be preserved in our schools. But it is precisely such teaching, hitherto given in Church schools by trained teachers in school hours, under adequate authority, which under the provisions of this Bill is to be forbidden.
  My Lords it was an Apostle who said "No scripture is of private interpretation." It is the Church of England which declares in the Articles that "the Church is the keeper and witness of Holy Writ "; but this Bill leaves the teaching of the Bible to teachers whose fitness for the task is to be determined, if at all, by local authorities and county councils, who, as a noble Lord opposite, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has very justly remarked, seem likely to be invested by this Bill "with the authority of the General Councils of the Church."
  My Lords, it is impossible to discuss this question adequately without entering into these theological considerations. I beg your Lordships to forgive me for having done so, but these things must be said and it is perhaps as well that a layman should say them.
  Let me turn for one moment to what is more a layman's province, that is to one practical aspect of this question. Your Lordships will have noticed that in the Return of the religious instruction given in board and council schools it is an almost universal condition that no attempt be made to attach the children to any religious denomination. I do not quarrel with such a provision in such schools. I refer to it to show the necessary insufficiency, to use no harsher word, of undenominational religious teaching and more especially to show one of its practical
  1228
  results. The whole effect of that teaching, and the better such teaching is the more certain its effect, is to create "unattached Christians." the children, so taught, go out into the world; they come up, we will say to London; they are alone in this vast town; they are exposed to all its dangers and temptations. What could you most wish for a son or daughter of your own under such circumstances? Would it not be that their previous religious training—and remember, my Lords, that there are masses of children who, if they do not get religious training in school, will get it nowhere—would it not be, I say, that their religious training should, amongst other things, be such as would throw them as a matter of course amongst the members of a church or some religious denomination who would be likely to look after them, and be just the people to help them and keep them straight in the way they should go? Simple Christain teaching, simple Bible teaching, call it which you like, which does not attach children to some religious body is practically of little use in the circumstances I am describing. Yet this is the religious teaching which is henceforth to be universal.
  It may be right to pay for such a mutilated Christianity for those who prefer it, so long as equal facilities and equal assistance are accorded to definite Christian teaching in the schools of the Church. We have done so in the case of the board and council schools, but the Church can never accept it for herself. It is a very insecure foundation. Do those who make such a proposal the least understand the state of religious thought at the present time? Have they the least idea of the consequences which must ensue from the adoption of such a principle? Do they know in the least the dangers to which Christian belief at the present moment is exposed? I ask the question in all seriousness; it is one that demands an answer.
  Before sitting down let me pause for one moment on loss important matters. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government, if undenominational religion is to be paid for out of the rates and taxes, why not denominational religious teaching? All pay rates, all pay taxes. Why are those to be used for the support of one kind of religion and not for the support of the other? Why are members

  1229
  of the Church of England and Roman Catholics who pay more than half the rates, to be forced to pay not only for a system of religious instruction of which they disapprove, but also to be made to pay for having this religious instruction of which they disapprove forced into their own schools, schools expressly built to exclude it? Again, I would ask has a parent the right to have his child instructed in the religion he himself believes and approves of, or has he not? Liberty of conscience would seem to demand it, yet this Bill refuses this liberty. In all County Council Provided schools where religious instruction is given at all this undenominational religion is now all that may be taught. Church parents demand a right of entry into these schools that their children may be taught the Church Catechism by Church teachers. The Bill says—
  "No, you shall not, and we shall no longer allow you to have your children taught even in your own schools in the way that you desire."
  My Lords, I say emphatically that unless justice and the rights of conscience are mere idle words, things to be disregarded when it is convenient, to be insisted upon only when they apply to yourself, and to be ignored when they apply to others, the provisions of this Bill ignore the sacred rights of Christian children and Christian parents, outrage the rights of conscience, and flatly contradict those principles of justice to which appeal is so constantly made in words, but which so far as this Bill is concerned, are so entirely disregarded in practice. We have been told that the object of an Education Bill ought to be to place all religious bodies on an equal footing—that is precisely what this Bill does not do.
  " I have always believed,"
  Mr. Asquith said only last Monday—
  "That any scheme for a settlement founded on injustice is a settlement founded on the sand."
  That is precisely what the Bill is. Let us have equal justice in all schools, whether council schools or others; lot the Government give effect to the principle and we shall be nearer agreement than we are at present.
  My Lords, this Bill is impossible in anything like its present shape, and can
  1230
  never pass unless radically amended. Those who oppose this Bill are not prepared to see the definite Christianity of the creeds banished from the land. They are not prepared to see our trust-deeds torn up, the property we have devoted to the spread of Christ's religion confiscated. They would deem themselves traitors to the faith if they abandoned the elementary right to have the children of the country taught the faith once delivered to the saints' by the lips of their natural instructors, and as an integral, as well as the most important part of their education.
  My Lords, those who oppose this Bill ask for no favour, for no privilege. They ask only that education shall not be divorced from religion, that the State shall not establish and pay for a mutilated Christianity, the most odious form of establishment possible, for it is the reassertion of that most detestable principle cuius regio eius religio. They claim that fair play and equal dealing shall be dealt out to all alike. They desire the redress of any legitimate grievance which the Nonconformists think they possess, they wish to see the opinions of non Christians and Agnostics respected; but what they claim for others they claim for the Church of England and for the Roman Catholic body. They claim in the name of justice that no preference shall be given to undenominational religious teaching over denominational teaching; that religious teaching shall be given in school hours by the teachers in the school, and shall not be given by those in regard to whom there is no security that they believe what they teach; that the Bible shall not be treated as a more reading-book or as a convenient vehicle for ethical instruction. They believe that education to deserve the name must be something that helps to bring out the possibilities of man's nature, to develop what is good in him, to eradicate, as far as may be, what is evil. They believe that there can be no real education for man, as God has made him, apart from the knowledge of and contact with the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They can accept no national system of education that ignores and gives no place to the Christian religion. They believe that the acceptance of such a system means individual and national disaster.

  1231
  How then, in the face of our unhappy religious divisions, are these principles to he maintained? Not, I submit, by ex-eluding all religious teaching from the national system of education, not by the State constructing a religion of its own and compelling all to pay for it, but by the frank recognition on the part of the State of the religious teaching of all denominations alike, by a friendly neutrality on the part of the State to all religions, and by the maintenance by the State of all schools, whether denominational or not, which comply with the State requirements as to educational efficiency. There is no other satisfactory solution of the education question. Such a solution is quite compatible with complete popular control, and it is the solution demanded alike by a regard for religion and by respect for justice. Such a solution is easy. Continue the council schools as they are, but give the parents who are forced to send their children to those schools the right of having denominational teaching if they desire it.
  In all single school districts give the Nonconformists the right of entry into Church schools and Roman Catholic schools, and extend the provision of the Act of 1902 so as to assist the Nonconformists in giving that teaching if they so desire. I for one should be more than willing to see the million offered for the rent of Church schools given to the Nonconformists for this purpose. If these things are conceded, if in some way or another the denominational character of our schools is preserved, if we have security that the teachers in Church schools are fit and proper persons for the post and believe what they have to teach, if justice and a regard for religion are allowed to determine the solution of the question, the religious difficulty will be settled and there will be peace. If those things are not secured, if the Bill should pass in anything like its present form— if it is not completely transformed and made a juster measure than it is at present—the religious difficulty will be further removed from settlement than ever and the signal will have been given for a religious war throughout the length and breadth of the country. Every one who has the interests of the country must deplore such a prospect; no one will deplore it more than I shall;
  1232
  but it will be inevitable, and the responsibility for it will rest on the shoulders of His Majesty's Government.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, we all recognise the intense earnestness of the noble Viscount who has just sat down, but I must offer some protest against the doctrine he has laid down in his speech. The noble Viscount stated that this Bill will destroy all Christianity in our schools.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I did not say it excluded all Christianity; I said it imposed undenominational Christianity.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think I am in the recollection of the House. The noble Viscount said that it took Christianity out of the schools that were subject to the Cowper-Temple Clause. He claims that this Bill should give equal justice to all schools. That, my Lord, is the object of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to extend equal justice on equal terms to every school throughout the country. At the beginning of this evening debate, we had a very powerful speech from the noble Duke—a speech which undoubtedly impressed the House, but one which seemed to lead to the certain conclusion that this Bill should be rejected on Second Reading. If the noble Duke's proposition were made good, undoubtedly the only course that the House could take would be to reject the Second Reading of the Bill. I am glad to say that the right rev. Prelates who spoke yesterday did not go to that length. The most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury at any rate held out some considerable hopes of an agreement being arrived at, and the Bishop of Ripon went still further when he declared that there wore three courses possible—one being secular touching, the second equal facilities and support for all denominations, and the third compromise; and it was perfectly clear that the right rev. Prelate wished to arrive at a compromise.
  Very strong language has been used against this Bill. It is said to be a Bill of robbery and confiscation—that the schools are to be taken away from their owners. That I maintain is not the

  1233
  object of the Bill, nor will it be its result. It is said that the money expended in the erection and upkeep of these voluntary schools will be taken away. That is not the case. It is also said that violent hands will be laid upon the ancient rights of the Church in these schools. No proposal is to be found in the Bill to take away the property from those in whose hands it now is, whether they be owners or trustees. The property remains in exactly the same hands which now hold it. Under the Act of 1902 these schools were left under private management, or nearly under private management. Under this Bill they will be under public management. That condition is imposed necessarily by the fact that they are to be in future supported entirely out of public funds, supplied either from the rates or from the taxes. The Bill does not propose to take away these schools from the owners or from the trustees; it proposes to take the use of the schools for five days in the week. It does not take the schools in the evenings or on the other two days in the week. The schools are left to the use of the owners or trustees on every evening and on Saturdays and Sundays. That surely is no small advantage to denominational institutions. The use of the school as a Sunday school is not a thing to be lightly regarded, for surely the Sunday schools of the Church have done more than almost anything else to spread religious feeling amongst the children of the country. But besides that it must be remembered that the schools are not taken for nothing, but rent is paid for them; and not only is rent paid for them, but the Bill undertakes that they shall be kept up at the public expense, so that the cost of the repairs is taken off the owners. It is further provided that whore the owners or trustees wish it the the local authority shall, if it desires to make use of the schools at all, permit denominational instruction to be given on two mornings in the week, though it is also provided that such instruction shall not be paid for out of public funds, but shall be given at the expense of the denomination itself. Surely that also is a reasonable requirement, and one that may well be approved. Again, where four fifths of the parents are anxious to have denominational instruction in the schools, there they may have it on every morning in the week, and the teaching
  1234
  may be carried out by the teachers in the schools. The Bill insures the continuance in one form or another of voluntary denominational schools in certain areas —at any rate in urban areas with over 5,000 inhabitants.
  It is also complained that the Bill removes the tests of teachers, and that in future there will be no guarantee that teachers will be found to teach religion in the schools. I do not think that will be the case. I believe that the local authorities themselves will take good care that the teachers are fit to discharge the duties required of thorn. We have some proof of that from what has taken place in Scotland during the last thirty years. Ever since the Scottish schools were handed over to the school boards throughout the country we have found that the local authorities, the school boards, have chosen teachers who have taught religion in the Scottish schools in a way that has been thoroughly satisfactory to the parents of the children attending them. The Bill is further said to be a wanton disturbance of the work of education in the country, and an attack on the Church of England. It is not intended to be either. The intention is to improve education, and least of all to make an attack on the Church of England. But the purpose of the Bill is that the Church of England shall not be in a privileged position, but shall take its share with all the other denominations of the country. It is said that the Bill gives a preference to Nonconformity, and that Cowper-Temple religion is the religion of Nonconformity. That is a proposition which I entirely dispute. The teaching given under the Cowper-Temple clause is not a denominational education, but it is a Christian education; and how is it possible to maintain otherwise in the face of what has been said by the most rev. Primate himself on the subject of Cowper-Temple instruction, namely—
  "That it is almost inconceivable that any Christian man who knows the facts can speak of the Christian teaching given under the London School Board.…"
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: In London—not throughout the country.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH:
  ‥‥" as worthless because it is undenominational. Such instruction lays the foundation on which ampler teaching of the Christian Faith can be securely built."
  THE LORD AECHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am sure the noble Lord does not desire to misrepresent me. Those words were not used of Cowper-Temple teaching throughout England as a whole, as it is now interpreted by various authorities. They refer to Cowper-Temple teaching in London, as it was given by teachers whose work was inspected under the London School Board, which makes all the difference.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think one hears from provincial districts also that exactly the same kind of teaching is given under the various great school boards all over the country. I do not think the most rev. Primate is justified in saying that it is confined purely to London.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I really must interrupt again. I never said that it was confined to London. I said that the words which the noble Lord has quoted had reference to London. There are many other places, I am thankful to say, where the position is exactly the same, but I must not be represented either as applying the statement to the whole of England, or as having intended to limit it to London alone. Those words were spoken with regard to London alone, but there are many other places as to which the same can be said.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I contend that on the evidence that we have received from all parts of the country we may safely rely on a form of religious teaching in our schools, similar to that which originated under what is known us the Cowper-Temple clause, being given as a basis, and that that basis is one on which all denominations can agree. It does seem to me to be above all things desirable to secure in our schools the teaching of a form of religion which will be accepted by all denominations alike as a basis of common Christian belief. I contend that the present Bill has gone as far as possible to secure,
  1236
  consistently with full control by the authority and the freedom of the teaching profession, efficient elementary schools in every corner of the land, and to provide for religious instruction suited to the needs of the great majority of the parents of the children attending the schools, with special arrangements for the special needs of special cases.
  LORD COLCHESTER: My Lords, it is thirty-five years since the adoption of the compromise of 1870. At that time I had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House, and I have carefully noted all the modifications of legislation which have taken place; but it is only now for the first time that we have seen any responsible statesman of either party coming forward with a measure like the present, which tears to pieces the first principles of the Bill of 1870. Those principles were supported equally as much by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Forster as by Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour, and hitherto they have been respected. The noble Earl on the front Bench opposite endeavoured to show that they were disregarded by the Bill of 1902; but that Bill maintained the same condition of things, under which there wore two sorts of schools, one wholly maintained by public funds under the control first of the school boards and afterwards of the county councils, and the other built by private effort for the maintenance of religious teaching, which were to be still in part supported by voluntary funds as far as the maintenance of the fabric was concerned, to carry on the denominational instruction according to the religion of those by whom they wore founded. The Bill of 1870 respected the work which had been solely built up by voluntary effort, and especially by the effort of the Church of England, while on the other hand it provided for efficiency by the machinery of the board schools.
  Something invidious has been said as to the grants of money which have been given to the voluntary schools. But it must not be forgotten that when it was not so clearly held as it now is that it is the duty of the State to educate the children, these schools were doing the State's work, and the money paid to them may be regarded as being paid for doing

  1237
  what the state is now inclined to consider its own business. This Bill for the first time proposes to break up the system entirely, by establishing a unified system of schools and altogether sweeping away the partially voluntary system. The noble Lord opposite spoke with great enthusiasm of everything being under municipal control. The great evil of this Bill is that it establishes one unified system, and I contend that no unified system, whatever it may be, can meet the various wants of the country. I can appeal on this point to a high authority which will command some respect from noble Lords opposite. Years ago Mr. John Stuart Mill said that while it was the duty of the state to see that the children were educated, schools wholly controlled by the State ought to be merely one experiment among many, and that their business should be to be an example and encouragement; that it would do mischief, and cramp and narrow the minds of the people, if they had one system of education imposed by the State—that is by the dominant power for the moment, whatever it might be— which should try to impress its own mould upon the whole of the children. I must say that I respect Mr. Mill as a higher authority than Mr. Birrell, and it is the radical vice of this Bill that it intends to impose one unified system upon the whole country.
  We have been told in some quarters that this is the plain will of the people. I suppose that that statement is founded on the result of the last general election. We remember that Lord Salisbury, I think it was, said that the people at a general election were in the position of a jury who had to decide a number of oases and give one verdict upon them all, whatever their merits. The noble Lord opposite suggested that no Liberal candidate would have been accepted who was indifferent upon this subject. We all know that a candidate who says anything to offend a portion of his supporters is an undesirable candidate; but will the noble Lord, or any noble Lord on that side of the House, assert that their success was wholly due to this one question of education? If education had been the one question before the country, would their Party be where it is now? There is no proof of that whatever. I was not one of those who agreed with
  1238
  the objections raised to, or shared in the alarm created by, the idea of a small duty on com, but we know what effect it had in the country. I cannot admit, however, that the men who imagined that the price of corn was going up to sixty shillings a quarter were, in consequence of their vote on that subject, to be considered as strong advocates of a unified system of education. I do not believe that any of those who took the advice of the noble Duke who spoke first to-night, and voted as he recommended against all who took a particular view of the fiscal question, thereby proved themselves to be strong opponents of the Bill which the noble Duke himself piloted through this House. I do not believe that the country has ever spoken upon this subject. You have a Parliament elected on a powerful cry, in which this education question was merely an incidental matter. I hope, indeed, that we shall have some expression of the views of the country during the Recess, so that we shall be able to judge what really is their view.
  We have heard a great deal about the necessity of public control, and the noble Earl used the argument that he who paid the piper should call the tune. The same argument was used in 1902, and I remember the very effective answer then made to it when it was asked whether those who used the argument would be prepared to allow the majority of rate-payers, if they wore denominationalists, seeing that they who paid the piper should call the tune, to set up everywhere strictly denominational schools, with or without a conscience clause as they pleased, and to impose whatever tests they thought fit on the teachers. That would be local control. But what you have in this Bill is a mere one-sided control, as it allows the local authority to establish secularism but not to establish denominationalism—to exclude the Bible but not to admit the Church Catechism. If you had local control which could be worked either way, under which both clause 1 and Clause 7 might require the consent of the local authority before they became law, your local control would be a reality, and not the empty name and mockery which it is in this Bill. The condemnation of this plan is to be found in the existence of any clause like the Cowper-Temple clause itself, because every argument used for them is an

  1239
  argument in favour of withdrawing the question from the local authorities. The argument that it might create burning local animosities is in itself an argument which goes to the root of the whole principle of local control, and is identical with the arguments used in the seven-teeth century against the extension of the powers of Parliament, namely, that it would create faction. That argument was a powerful one, but we have not found it powerful enough to induce us to object to our Parliamentary Constitution. Something may be said for settling all these matters by a central authority, and something may be said for allowing thorn to be settled by the locality; but these two principles cannot be reconciled. The man who is enthusiastic for local control cannot be enthusiastic for the restriction of the local authority in the matter of denominational teaching.
  I do not wish to detain your Lordships by going into the question of tests; I should not have mentioned it at all had it not been that the noble Lord on the Woolsack alluded to what passed in the school board. I think in a letter which he wrote some time ago, and which attracted some attention, he asked how it could possibly be that the other Party in the school board had acquiesced in the resolutions to which he alluded. A good deal has been said about finding a common basis of agreement. The noble Lord alluded to the vehement religious controversy which arose. I think it would be worth while mentioning that it arose on a point which I should have thought was common to all Christian bodies. It was proposed to insist on the teaching in all schools of the solemn doctrine accepted by all Christians. The proposal was opposed by almost every Nonconformist representative on the board, and by the whole of the Party who acted with them, on the ground that one dogma would be followed by another, and that it would involve denominationalism. In the midst of this contest, when considerable obstruction was going on, the majority of the school board being unwilling to raise a fresh controversy which would occupy what was left of their time, which needed to be otherwise devoted in order that they might carry through what they thought were very important matters, said they were willing to agree to some-
  1240
  thing which otherwise they would have objected to.
  Then as to the facilities for denominational teaching, I cannot see why they should be given in the urban districts only. It seems to me that it is not in the urban districts only that parents may have a care for the religious education of their children, or that there may be a reasonable desire to have such teaching. Why should the demand of the majority be disregarded unless it is a majority of four-fifths? I cannot see how the minority can be injured; they would be under protection. If the minority was smaller than one fifth, there might be a danger of their rights being infringed upon; they might feel the singularity which they would incur; but there could be no singularity whore the majority was not much larger. I cannot see, on the ground of simple justice, why a bare majority should not be allowed to have these facilities. I hope that this Bill, if it passes this House, will do so only after the most drastic Amendments. We shall be threatened, no doubt, with possible consequences to this House if we do not pass it. We have heard that threat before. On a former occasion when this House rejected a Bill, we read next day in the Press of a statement by a member of the Cabinet who had even ventured to discuss the manner and method as to how a Bill might become law without the services of this House, which meant, of course, the possibility of dispensing with this Chamber. I, for one, fully realise the constitutional privileges of this Chamber, and while we enjoy those privileges it is for us to deal with all matters submitted to us in the manner in which we think the interests of this country as a whole may best be served.
  *LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I desire to make a few remarks during this debate on the attitude of Roman Catholics towards this Bill. The noble Duke who spoke last evening pointed out what was the attitude of Roman Catholics in this country, and of the Roman Catholic Peers in this House. The noble Duke explained to the Government that although the Roman Catholic Peers might acquiesce in the Second Reading of this Bill, that action must not be taken as

  1241
  showing that they were satisfied with the Bill, and he stated that in order to meet their wishes the Bill would have to be drastically changed. As the noble Duke spoke on that subject it might seem unnecessary for another Catholic Peer to address you. I am, however, not only a Roman Catholic, but also an Irishman, and in speaking I wish especially to ask the House to bear in mind the position of my co-religionists and follow countrymen in this country in regard to this Bill. They are for the most part very poor people, living in the industrial centres in this country, far from their own land, separated from their friends, taken, so to speak, out of their natural surroundings and the religious atmosphere of their own land, and forced by the calamitous events of the history of their native land, to leave it and seek a livelihood elsewhere. On their behalf, on behalf of the Irish Catholic parents and children of this country, whose interests and position must and do, both on national and on religious grounds, appeal, most strongly to me, I wish, therefore, to say a few words. And I would that I had the abilities, and the eloquence, and the debating experience, all of which qualities were so admirably placed at the service of this cause by the Irish Nationalist Members in another place. I differ politically from those hon. Members, but I desire to be allowed to associate myself wholeheartedly with them in the splendid work they have done in this cause. But, in saying that I am thinking mainly of the Irish Catholic children in this country, I should not like to be understood as meaning that I excluded in any way from my sympathy and J support the religious and educational I interests of other denominations, but I know and can see and hear what powerful advocates they have in this House.
  My Lords, when we come to look at this Bill and to consider the clauses which deal with voluntary schools and which purport to give religious facilities to them, I must say I agree with previous speakers who have shown that these clauses, as they stand, are so bad and illusory and worthless that it seems waste of time to dwell on them. And so one is forced to leave them aside and consider the Bill in its general character and effect. As I understand this Bill, under its provisions the voluntary schools, numbering, in this country, about 20,000, will cease on January 1st, 1908—the hegira of the
  1242
  new Nonconformist era—to be recognised or assisted out of public funds, and are cither to be starved out of existence or robbed of their religious character, unless they can come to certain arrangements with local authorities and come to certain agreements, and unless they can comply with a number of exacting conditions, which arrangements and agreements and conditions, if made use of, must deprive the great majority of the voluntary schools of their religious character. My Lords, I believe the Catholic schools of this country would rather starve than give up or jeopardise their religious work. Their schools have been built by faith and enthusiasm, and faith and enthusiasm will defend them, if necessary. They have been founded and supported by the pence of the poor or by the noble-benefactions of those who have recognised the religious and educational wants of the industrial classes of this country. The question before the House and the country is whether those schools are to be starved out of existence and deprived of their religious character in spite of the wishes of their founders and supporters. For that is the present aspect of affairs, that is the religious intolerance and liberty with which we are threatened by the Liberal Party. For this is not an Education Bill. It was not brought in to provide education for anyone, or to improve the education of anyone, but it is an attack on religious liberty. The Bill, as it stands, I fear shows unmistakable signs of political bias and unfairness and intolerance of any religion but that of one political body. And is religious intolerance any the less religious intolerance because it is exhibited and practised by a Parliamentary majority? How is it better than that of any despotic power? We read of such things in history and deplore them. Yet certain sections of the Liberal Party pride themselves on this self-same intolerance because they have been placed in power by the votes of an election and possess what they call a "mandate."
  It will be said, perhaps, that I am exaggerating the lack of provision for religious education under this Bill, because, it will be alleged, religious education is provided for under the Cowper-Temple clause. Now, my Lords, I wish especially to draw attention to the relation of the religious teaching that can

  1243
  be given under the clause to the Roman Catholic position. The teaching that can be given under that clause may or may not satisfy the Protestant community in this country. It is said that it does satisfy some Protestants, and that for others it is good so far as it goes, but that it does not go far enough. But in the eyes of Roman Catholics, the religious teaching that can be given under the Cowper-Temple clause is not merely imperfect or inadequate, but it is hostile and opposed to the whole Catholic ideal and to Catholic teaching. Because it is essentially Protestantism, and if you change a Roman Catholic school into a council school you not only confiscate it and deprive it of its religious character, but you are turning a Roman Catholic school into a Protestant school. As between this Protestant sect and that Protestant sect, Cowper-Temple religious teaching may not be denominational or distinctive of one sect more than another, but, to a Roman Catholic, that teaching is denominational and distinctive. Why, my Lords, was not simple Bible teaching the very cry that separated Protestants from the Church of Rome, which has always maintained and taught that Christ founded a church to guide the faithful and to interpret the Scriptures? Therefore, I should like to point out to the Government and to the Nonconformist body that you are going to endow out of the rates Cowper-Templeism, and we are to pay for it though it is in our eyes denominational and distinctive religious teaching. You are endowing a form of religion, and making us pay for it, and it is, in its essence, spirit, and context, Protestantism, and distinctive of that creed as compared with Roman Catholic teaching. But I should be very much misunderstood if I were thought to be suggesting that we objected to paying for the religious teaching you can give under the Cowper-Temple clause. For we are under no circumstances secularists, and we recognise that Cowper-Templeism satisfies or suits the religious aspirations of a great number of the people of this country, and we are willing to pay our share for teaching it to them; but you in turn must not grudge us the teaching of our religion in our own schools. Religious teaching in the education of the child is, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, of
  1244
  supreme importance. We think it to be of importance for the sake of the individual child, both here and hereafter, and also for the sake of society and of the State. Secularism in any form is abhorrent to the Roman Catholic Church, and we believe it, also, to be most injurious in its social aspect. We do not believe for a moment that the State, by banishing religious teaching from its schools would conduce to its own stability or produce "perfect citizens." I read, the other day that an unfortunate individual who threw a bomb into the midst of a certain Royal Procession had received "an excellent secular education," and the information is significant. Therefore, my Lords, we Roman Catholics who are a small and a poor body in this country, but also an earnest one, ask to be allowed to continue our Catholic schools for poor Catholic children with teachers employed in them, who can, by their personal example and influence teach so much more to the little children under their care than can be taught by the mere word or lesson in the religious instruction class. I hope then that this House will so alter the Bill by widening the application of the "facilities" clauses and by ensuring their efficient operation as to make the measure a fair one for the entire community, and I hope the Government will assist us and so bring the measure into consonance with the speeches of the President of the Board of Education and other Ministers. And, by so doing, I believe that this House will prove that this is one of those striking occasions when the true, and just, and sober spirit of the country has looked to this House and not looked in vain — unruled as it is by the influence of momentary cries and election mandates and party reprisals—to express and give effect to its real feelings and its abiding sense of what is right and fair.
  LORD NORTHBOURNE: My Lords, I have only a few words to say on the Second Reading of this Bill. There has been a great deal of controversy and a great deal of wordy strife, and I doubt whether the slightest benefit will be conferred on one individual child after all has been said and done. We had a most capable and interesting speech from the noble Duke this afternoon. I gather that he based his views concerning the

  1245
  educational system of this country on the Act of 1902. To a great extent that Act was due to the late Archbishop of Canterbury. My noble friend Lord Stanley, in a speech made a short time ago, referred to the events dealt with in that wonderful essay of the late Archbishop entitled "the Educational World." I go back co the speech which the late most rev. Primate delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1902. It was the last speech he delivered in this House. He said he considered that that Act of 1902 must be regarded as a compromise. Nobody will deny that the late Archbishop knew and understood his subject. Will anyone deny that he was a broad-minded man? That Bill of 1902 was a compromise. The late Primate was right; he knew the conditions; he had given years of his life to the cause of religious education. One thing he said was that he knew many clergy in this country who, for the sake of these schools, had starved themselves, their homes, and their families, in order that they might keep up religious instruction for the children. Are the efforts of these men to be set aside at one single swoop? This Bill not only does violence to them in material things, but it does violence to their minds. Is it possible to reconcile such a state of things with religious liberty or religious equality? It would be interesting to note what has been the motive power behind the Government in bringing in this measure. I doubt whether there was any strong feeling in the country on the subject during the General Election. Out of the Act of 1902 there has sprung into existence what is known as "passive resistance." I do not approve of that attitude: I rather condemn it. I do not know the source of it. I have heard that it had its source in the University of Oxford. I consider it a very dangerous weapon, anyway, for it is a two-edged weapon. It can cut both ways. I am certain that if this Bill passed in anything like its present form, you would find passive resistance spread all over the country, and to such an extent that you probably would have to build additional gaols to put the people in. We know the views of the Roman Catholic community and we know how they regard this Cowper-Templeism. It would not afford me any surprise to
  1246
  learn later on that what had been "passive resistance," had sprung into active resistance.
  In order to satisfy the Nonconformists the Government have brought in this Bill, the very first clause of which relates to popular control. The question of popular control already has been dealt with very ably by the noble Duke. But I should like to say one word on the subject as it affects the Nonconformist body and the Anglican Church. I know the Nonconformists: I have represented many of them in Parliament from time to time. I consider the Nonconformist element to be a most valuable element in the community. I know how it has kept up the standard of morals, and in in regard to many public questions, we have had to feel grateful for Nonconformist influence. But circumstances are greatly changed. Nonconformists do not stand quite in the same position that they did sixty or seventy years ago. The greater part of their grievances have been redressed. They have not the same political strength nor the same political influence that they had, insomuch that they had become divided into bodies, some of which are anxious to give support to the Anglican Church. I remember what was once said by the late Mr. Gladstone, who was fond of quoting Sir Thomas Grenville. When Mr. Gladstone asked Sir Thomas Grenville what he considered to be the most striking factor in modern history, he said that nothing appealed to him so much as the vigour and activity of the Church of England. This was sixty years ago. What would be said of their activity and their disorganisation, the extension of the Episcopate, the work of the Ecclesiastical Commission and their schools now? The Church of England is much stronger and greater now than it was in that day. And the Church of England regards nothing as being of greater importance than its schools.
  However, the electors have returned the Government with a big majority and the Government have taken advantage of it and are asking us to accept the Bill which we are now considering. We understand and appreciate to the full the principle of popular control. But it is a very different thing to give to A what belongs to B. I am a trustee of one of these schools, and I can say that it is not a question of taking away property so much as the

  1247
  taking away from me of what is more sacred than property. The trust I hold is that religious instruction shall be given to the children of the school, and it is only common sense that I, with all other trustees of schools, should desire to continue to fulfil that trust. We have already had a simile in respect to this question upon the subject of sterility in milk. I am going to ask you to listen to another story on the same subject. An unfortunate woman who had been living in a dilapidated condition for a number of years felt constrained to ask her neighbour to oblige her with a little milk. Her neighbour, being a kind-hearted man, was anxious to oblige her, and he said he would send to the farm and see if he could get her a a supply, or, if the woman preferred it, she could go to the farm herself. The woman went to the farm, not once, but many days, and she actually got into the habit of believing that the cow which gave her this supply of milk belonged to her. She kept on believing this, and so firmly had she become convinced that the animal was her property that when she died she left the cow in her will to her nephew. Now, my Lords, these 14,000 voluntary schools are being treated in exactly the same way by His Majesty's Government. This Bill practically is dead. It has given satisfaction to no one. It does not satisfy the Anglicans, the Nonconformists, or the Roman Catholics. As to the teachers who will be employed under this Bill, I can only say that I have known many teachers—excellent persons of ability—who dutifully and with pleasure instructed the children in religious lessons and without any interference secured the very best results. Now these teachers will have to be under the supervision of some central authority. The whole Bill is mischievous and irritating in the extreme. I can only say that I hope it will never pass into law in anything like its present shape. Already it has been productive of a great deal of harm. Personally I have taken no part in the agitation that has been going on in the country, but I know the feeling that exists in my own county. Nothing can be more unfortunate than the continual stirring up of religious controversy and strife. I am quite sure that when the Bill has been through this House it will be so altered that the Government will have difficulty in recognising their own child. I am absolutely
  1248
  confident that in the long run those who have stirred up this religious controversy and strife will meet with their proper reward from the common sense of their fellow countrymen.
  *LORD WINTERSTOKE: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to speak on this great question, because this is the first time that I have spoken in this House, and in consideration of the number of very able speakers who have preceded", me. This Bill should be regarded as an amending Bill pursuant to the Act of 1902, which Act the new Bill certainly would strengthen in character. The Bill by no means contains all that we might desire, but it is a compromise, and should be a settlement which will give us peace from the everlasting discussions on the subject of religious education. There is much stronger ground for calling the Bill of 1902 an Anglican Bill than for designating this a Nonconformist Bill. It is not a Nonconformist Bill. Whatever claims are made by Free Churchmen they make as citizens and not as Nonconformists. They claim that all public voluntary schools shall be under popular control, and that is what the Act of 1902 purposely avoided. It was not unnatural that the Party then in power should try to strengthen their position. I do not blame them. But it would have been better for them and for the country if they had adopted a more moderate and conciliatory measure. The feeling which the Act of 1902 created in the country was very strong indeed. I know how strong it was in my own county. And now it cannot be said that the action of the Church Party in opposing this Bill is an unnatural one. The Church, which less than forty years ago enjoyed the privilege of compelling every child in the voluntary schools to learn the Catechism and to go to Church on Sundays, cannot be expected to give up its vantage ground without a struggle.
  Whatever Amendments are made in this Bill, I hold that the measure, as it stands, is most valuable because of three principles which it embodies; first of all, that schools will be under local and State control; secondly, that religious opinions will not be tested in the appointment of teachers; and thirdly, that no religious teaching of a sectarian.

  1249
  character will be allowed in schools. It is upon this third point that the Church Times has been continually pouring out the vials of its wrath in a manner which could not be more bitter if it were the faith of Mahomet which we were trying to force upon the rising generation. The Church Times said on November 29th, 1901 —
  "there is always with us the Cowper-Temple Clause."
  Now the Cowper-Temple Clause was the work of a strong Churchman, and not that of a Nonconformist, and yet certain of the clergy have described it as establishing a new religion and enforcing heresy on the children. I draw the attention of the House to this fact, that in 1902 Sir William Anson moved an amendment to apply the Cowper-Temple clause to secondary education. The result was that 318 members voted in favour of it and only twenty-nine against. If we were strictly logical we should teach elementary education and leave religious instruction to the religious bodies. But the country is not prepared for that. There are the other alternatives; namely, denominational teaching, which is not possible, and there is the Cowper-Templeism, which is satisfactory to the great majority of the electors of this country. I have been for many years in a position which enabled me to note the wishes of the industrial classes in regard to education, and I am sure that the average working parent does not desire any more religious teaching for his child than is contained in the syllabus of the London School Board and that of Bristol. Lord Hugh Cecil claimed the right of the parent to choose the sort of education his child should receive. No one disputes that, but we cannot teach all the different opinions in one school. If the children receive the religious instruction which is provided in this Bill, they will be well grounded in the teaching which it is contended is necessary for the moral welfare of the nation. I regard this Bill as an honest endeavour to effect a lasting settlement of the question, and I shall support the SECOND READING.
  LORD BLYTHSWOOD: My Lords, I have read this Bill through from start to finish, and I cannot find the slightest evidence that the children of.this country will be one tittle the better
  1250
  for its having passed. It leaves us en tirely where we were before, and I think it is a great compliment to the Act of 1902 that the authors of this Bill should not have seen fit to change the provisions of that Act. No one denies that the instruction which is to be given is to be undenominational. It may be Cowper-Templeism or anything else, but it has to be undenominational. I draw your attention to the meaning of the term "undenominational." It means that in no case shall any denomination have any cause to be annoyed by any teaching that may be given in the schools. If you teach the doctrine of the Atonement you offend the Unitarians, and if you teach the efficacy of the Sacrament you offend the Society of Friends. It is not possible to teach any single form of religion which will satisfy everybody, but I would point out that you propose to give what you call "education of the highest character" and yet you leave out the most necessary part of that education, simply because you say someone will object to it. Remember that—
  " Offences will come, but woe unto him through whom they come."
  I say that the children of this country will call out to you for the Bread of Life in future days and you will give them a stone. I am opposed to this Bill root and branch. If we can amend it so much the better. I will do my very utmost to amend it, so as to secure that teaching in the schools of the country which alone can make the lives of our people happy.
  *LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I have here a copy of the Return to which the Archbishop of Canterbury referred a short time ago, the Return which deals with the class of teaching adopted in our board schools. This Return gives us some idea of the religious teaching which the children can in these board schools receive. And I think the instances, taken at haphazard, I am able to quote will satisfy your Lordships that the scholars are not without Christian and religious instruction of a very helpful kind. I take a passage relating to the Bedford County School, in connection with which it is provided that the Bible shall be read and that they shall be given such Christian instruction as is suited to the capacities of the children. It is of course necessary to leave it to the teacher to say how the

  1251
  lessons shall be given to the children of different ages and in accordance, with their individual capacities. I turn to another page and refer to the Hastings county schools in connection with which it is provided that the parables and miracles of our lord, the Betrayal, the Death, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc., shall be taught along with its ordinary moral and home duties. I turn to the next page and refer to the Maidenhead Borough, where there is a very liberal system of religious teaching. There the Old and New Testament Scriptures are taught and there are five pages describing the lessons to be given. This does away with the idea that religious instruction is not given in the board or provided schools. I think, my Lords, that you will have gathered from the speech of Lord Halifax the reason why a large number of our fellow-countrymen, both Churchmen and Nonconformists, were determined that the children of the country should not be handed over to the teaching which Lord Halifax and his friends and the Roman Catholics desire. I hope that the appeal made last night by the Bishop of Ripon will have effect, and that your Lordships will consider whether we cannot pass through this House a working Bill which the country will accept. We cannot expect to satisfy the Roman Catholics entirely, or the extreme Party represented by Lord Halifax; but I think we can expect to satisfy the great middle common sense community of this country.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley in the speech which he made and which should appeal to the sense of all moderate men, suggested a plan whereby this House might be able to present a practical measure to the country. I believe a large majority of the people of this country would support an Amendment to provide that religious teaching should be given during school hours, if only for the sake of the physical welfare of the children. It has been pointed out to me that bad parents probably will keep their children out of school during the hours of religious instruction in order that their children may earn the extra few pence which the parents seek. We know there are such parents and we have to consider facts as they are. The parents probably would keep the children away from school during the early part of the day and the
  1252
  children would get no religious teaching at all. Then in regard to the teaching. I think the majority would also wish that, the teacher should have the right to give religious instruction. I do not think the country would accept the re-imposition of tests, but I think they would like to see this right given to the teacher. Under any circumstances it must be considered a desirable thing that the head teacher at any rate should believe that which he teaches, and that which his staff teaches to the children. I will mention an instance given to me shewing how the present system works, told to mo by the chairman of a sub-committee appointed to choose a teacher on which there were two agnostics. There were five teachers from whom to recommend a headmaster. There was one man who stood out clearly as the best—there was no doubt about that from his qualifications—but it was pretty clear that he wag not probably a member of any Christian Church, and probably did not much trouble about religion of any kind. They were asked to arrange these, and the Prebendary, who was in the chair, said we must put down so and so as No. 1. The agnostic said, "I shall move that we recommend No. 2, because I think that probably you will find that the other man has not given much time or thought to the higher instincts of the child." He said, "I quite agree, but I should not have thought of suggesting it myself." It was then moved, seconded, and carried. He said to me. "I find if you treat your opponents fairly, they will treat you fairly in return. If I had tried to make No. 2 the best, I should not have had a chance of carrying it."then we had Huddersfield referred to by His Grace the Archbishop as not having religious instruction, in the board schools. Do you not think the better way was not merely to hold Huddersfield up as irreligious, but to try to influence the opinion in Huddersfield as in Birmingham, where a wonderful change has taken place since it has been left to the people to decide for themselves.
  With reference to one other point. We have had a good many instances given to us with reference to a point about which many in your Lordships' House, and especially on the Episcopal Bench, are much afraid, namely, that the Church and not only

  1253
  the Church, but that religion will suffer—for I honestly believe they do not merely think of the Church of England but of all the Churches of the land—that they would suffer if the schools were not in their hands or in some way under their influence. As a Scotsman I may perhaps take a view different from some of your Lordships. As a member of a school board there, and as chairman of it for some years, as well as from my connection with many schools in England, I believe that in Scotland since we went in for a national system of education we have found that the people are at heart religious and do want religion to be taught to their children; and that if once we have settled our minor differences, and if once we can get agreed to go forward in a national system of education, placed on a religious basis, and further, it is, I think, the duty of the Churches to impress upon the young people that they should go in as teachers and take up that profession—one of the noblest anyone could possibly take, not second, if I may venture to say so, oven to the holy ministry itself. In the foreign mission field we have attracted many of the best of our young people, but I am afraid here we have not succeeded in impressing on young people in this country that to be headmaster of a school is one of the greatest honours that can be given to any man. May I just give another experience in connection with one of our school missions? We have had some illustrations one way; may I give one another? Within fifty yards of a certain mission school there was a large school board. They did not want the trouble to build up a new school and they wanted 600 more places at an additional cost, I think, of about £30,000. The board had merely to ask for the £30,000 and they got it, and I think they had 1,600 children when I last visited the school. The children were known just as well in that board school as they were by any clergyman in his own school. I need not multiply examples, my Lords, because there are plenty of them, but I do hope that the appeal of the Bishop of Ripon will remain in our hearts and memories, and, through the Press, will be read by every member of your Lordships' House; and that when we meet in October we shall meet with a desire to sink minor differences, to agree to such a Bill as may be to the benefit of the children
  1254
  of the land, and hand on to them not the strifes and quarrels of which we have been so often reminded during the past year, but a national system of education based on religious principles. I believe England may have just as good and religious a national system for its children as they have in Scotland, and that together, clergy, laity, and Nonconformists, may all work for the benefit of the children to hand on to them the best education we can after we have passed to our reward.
  EARL NELSON: I want particularly, as Lord Halifax is not here, to correct one statement of the noble Lord. He represented that Lord Halifax had said that his desire was to teach the Roman Catholic faith. His desire was to teach the Catholic faith, not the Roman Catholic and the errors connected with it. The thing he pointed out that what our Church schools were wanting to do was to teach the Catechism and the Creed. I am pleased indeed to find that we have all realised the importance of this education question, for the future of the country depends upon the way in which our children are brought up; and I am pleased that we do not seek to end, but rather to mend the Bill, because for the sake of our education and the sake of our people, we want to heal as soon as we can the divisions which have been caused and to get some statesmanlike settlement which will be fair to all. Then we may hope for some permanent settlement of the question. Unhappily, the Bill as it at present stands, so far from doing this, makes it a perpetuation of religious strife. Even when you come to the question as to how many parents decide this and that, there must be an election every three years to decide how far people will go one way or another. That will in nearly every parish create religious strife. The noble Lord behind me has been speaking with approval of the different syllabuses that are supported by the local governing bodies. It is perfectly true the syllabuses are given, but they are not enforced in the parishes under the control of the local governing bodies. The local governing body is always changing— it is an elective body. Every three years there will be all the religious bitterness possible for the purpose of getting a

  1255
  majority one side or the other of the Churches who are interested in the religious question. That, again, is another reason why you can never have peace if you have opened the door for this continual animosity. I was very much surprised—I think it was Lord Stanley told us we need not be troubled about becoming a Christian nation or not. It all depended on what the people wished, and the people could show what they wished by appointing good Christians at these elections every three years. But what we feel is that if the principles of this Bill are carried out as it stands, all the denominational teaching will be set aside, and the coming generations will grow up in an un-Christian manner. They will have no standard to go by, and then you will have — you are already preparing for it by your Bill— you will have that secular education which you profess not to want to have. The Bill comes up to us with one very curious mark or mandate upon it. By a very large majority secularism has been put down and said to be an impossible thing at the present time. The Government profess to say that their Bill is to prevent secularism, and they claim for it that it is a religious Bill; but I venture to say that as long as you have no compulsory attendance at the religious hour, and so long as you take 14,000 schools where now the Christian religion is taught by catechism and by creed and by well-trained teachers, and hand them over to the mercies of the local governing body, which is, as I say, an elective body, and you give no mandatory directions to have religion you may call your Bill a religious Bill, but it is perfectly impossible that it really can be so.
  It is very generally supposed that our existing law is an utter failure. I have been interested from my early youth in the education of our people, and a greater advance to the general cause of education than our present law has been is not to be told. In my own schools I took an interest in getting or trying to get to represent the county council and the parish the most prominent Dissenters we could have. There is no doubt there is some difficulty—there are some inconveniences, but they have boon very much exaggerated. In the first place it is said that there are such a lot of different bodies
  1256
  of Nonconformists that we cannot by any possibility treat them as a whole. Well, now, in a great number of our country districts there is only one body of Nonconformists — the Primitive Methodists or the Methodists. In other cases there may be more, but all I can tell you about the religious difficulty is that in one school of which I am chairman I had two passive resistors, and we also had at our school a Wesleyan teacher. When I first took the chair of my new body, I said that I was perfectly prepared that the Wesleyan children should be put during the religious hour under the Wesleyan teacher, and I was told that they had no objection whatever to the religious teaching that was going on in the school. On another occasion, in another school that I was connected with, I had a petition from the Wesleyans, who said: "Will you allow us to come and teach in the school during the religious hour?" I immediately gave them leave. There was some difficulty about it, but if a system of that sort had been generally accepted there would have been little difficulty about religious education as far as general agricultural villages are concerned. It is not the education that you give, but it is the man who gives it. I will not occupy your time long, but the other day I came across a sermon by Dr. Clifford reported in the Christian World. I have every reason to suppose that it would be well reported. The subject he took was the religious atmosphere. I will read you two short extracts. He says that many of the mistakes of Parliament as well as of the Churches arise from their failure to recognise the power of atmosphere in the training of a child. The training was of course effected by such things as books, mechanical arrangements, maps, plans, etc., but it was pro-eminently a question of atmosphere. For the educational culture of a spirit made in the likeness of God an atmosphere was necessary in which were various ingredients. First there was the ruler—the superintendent, the manager, the person in command—then there was the room or building in which the children were confined. Much depended upon that, also the display on the wall, the pictures representing great facts and personalities. And then he finished by saying a good teacher was the making of a school. The school would be a good school if it had a good teacher;

  1257
  it would be a bad school if it had a bad teacher. His weekly visits to his Sunday school had practically no value except to himself. It was the teacher with his scholars around him looking into their eyes and bringing out his religious influence who was doing the real work of teaching. What we want is that the education of this country for the future shall be a Christian education. We want religion to be written on the face of the Bill as it is in Germany, as it is in Canada, where they take care that whatever the religious teaching may be, there shall be an inspection to show it is properly given. We want to have it given by trained teachers who have at heart the religion they profess to teach, and in that way and in that way alone, when the country comes to understand it, shall we be able thoroughly to carry out the country's demand for a religious basis to our education.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, I have no right to interpose in the debate to-night as one dealing mainly with educational questions in Ireland, but I have always taken a very deep interest in education. I have gone abroad to study what has happened there. I have also worked hard in my own district, and I am glad to say that I am now managing five or six schools in the sister country. One thing which strikes me in the debate to which I have been listening —listening, as I say, rather as an outsider; but very often the outsider sees a, good deal of what is going on—is that though the Bill is called an education Bill nearly all of the speeches made have been upon the question of religion. Now education may be secular, it may be denominational; but I do not think it is considered to be entirely a religious question. Therefore I venture to say that the issue of the Bill and its object seems to me to be rather confused by many of the speakers. I would venture to say also that the three great essentials of good education are (1) control by the people who pay for the education, (2) a proper thorough training to fit children to compete in the world and to compete also and especially with foreign nations, and (3) religious teaching when desired and where desired. The Bill, in my opinion, gives us these three essentials. 'The most noble Prelate the Archbishop
  1258
  of Canterbury, dealing with the first essential, gave his qualified approval of the mandate which the country has given to the present Government, that is for the control by the people of educational questions. So too, I may venture to say, it fulfils to a certain extent No. 2. The great problem of education to my mind, is —does the Bill provide a good system of teaching, one which will fit the present generation to compete in the struggle of life, I have been studying, as I said before, education in many countries. I have been studying the problem for some years, and lately I have had the good fortune to be in Belgium and study the problem there. I honestly say in this House—I daresay it may be a strong statement— but I do not hesitate to say that nearly every child in Belgium is infinitely better fitted by the educational system in that land than our children. Training is much more comprehensive, and much more perfect, and I would ask you to note, too, my Lords, that they have a religious training which is very similar to that provided in this Bill. Some of the clauses of this Bill dealing with religious training seem very much, when one looks into the Belgian law, as if they had been taken from the laws of that country. While I am on the religious point, I would like to say how much struck I was by the terse and strong speech of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke on behalf of the Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic Party. Living in Ireland as I do, I yield to none in my admiration of the splendid lives lived by many of my fellow countrymen, Roman Catholics—all through love of religion—and the high moral tone of their lives, but I would ask them, and if my noble friend were in his place I would ask him, if they are satisfied, as I understand they are satisfied in Belgium with the training that is given to children in that great Catholic and industrial country—I would ask them how can they find fault with the religious teaching which is provided for in this Bill. I have by me the education law of Belgium. I will quote you a very few clauses dealing with religious teaching, and show you, if you will permit me, the analogy. I do not propose to inflict on the House the reading of the clauses in French, but I will try and put them as rapidly as possible into English. These are the clauses

  1259
  dealing with primary instruction in Belgium. Primary instruction comprehends necessarily the teaching of religion and morals, writing, reading, arithmetic, the legal system of weights and measures, elements of language, geography, history of Belgium, notions of hygiene, singing, gymnastics, and for girls it also brings in working with the needle, and for boys a, knowledge of agriculture. Then it goes on to say what is most interesting to us, that what is the local authority there has the right to extend the different systems where they are possible and where they are well advised. Then as far as the religious question goes, the ministers of different religions are invited to give in the primary schools submitted to the present law, teaching in religion and in morals, and the law goes on to explain the hours that are to be given for religious instruction; and then in the last clause of all it refers to the inspection by Government of the religious instruction to see that that instruction is properly given. Now, my Lords, there is an analogy which I venture to say exists between what is the present Belgian law and what is, roughly speaking, the suggestion made in the Bill.
  What strikes me—again, if I may use the word, as an onlooker — is that the value of necessary education during these debates is being forgotten in pursuit of what I may venture to call a religious shadow. The child and its teaching, even the future of its existence, are being made, if I may say so, the shuttlecock of politics. I believe in religious training, but I do not believe in bewildering children with dogmas. If the parents in Belgium, as is provided under the law I have quoted, are able to do their duty as they are—I have been there and asked the question— then this Bill gives ample scope if they are vigorous in this country to do their duty here. If the local authority which is put into the Bill does not do its duty and does not interpret the Bill in the spirit desired by those who pay the rates, and who pay for the work of education, and control education, I must say I think very poorly of Englishmen if they are not able to see that the work they pay for is carried out in the way they would wish it. I rejoice to see in the Bill that Wales has been able to secure, so to speak, a council of
  1260
  education for itself. I think it does great credit to Wales, and to the Welsh people, and it does great credit, if I may say so, to the Government for dealing so broadly and liberally with these people. Wales has done fine work educationally, and her people, I think, will very likely set a good example to other local authorities throughout the land. This brings me to the essential of the best training to fit a child for life and work. That is the great problem you have to face. The Bill, as we have it, has many facilities, and I hope the local authority, as the directing and controlling power, will act vigorously and, fearlessly. I fancy Wales will give a very good example, as I said before, to authorities throughout the land. I have been through a large part of the Continent studying this question of education, and I say there is very little time to lose if we are to fit our children as the children, of the Continent are being fitted. They are bettor equipped than we are, and if we remain squabbling over the question of religious teaching, they on the Continent will be forging ahead. From the very able and kindly speech that I heard from the most rev. Prelate the Archbishopof Canterbury, and from other indications, I cannot help hoping that in all likelihood, when we come to Committee, means may be found to make this Bill a great, if not a final, settlement. I would ask all those who are here to remember when that time conies that then, and as long as this education contest goes on and the fire is kept alight, we are delaying the proper treatment of education while our competitors are, as I said, forging ahead. We thereby endanger—and I think it is the greatest danger to which a nation can be exposed—the future of the children of this generation. We endanger their future in life, we endanger their existence, and I think I may safely say we endanger the very existence of the nation itself.
  *LORD HYLTON: My Lords, after the President of the Council rose yesterday afternoon, he expressed regret that while the Church of England and the Church of Rome were well represented in this House, there was nobody, he thought, who could speak with equal authority on behalf of Nonconformist bodies. I think we all welcome the appearance of so weighty a representative as my noble friend Lord Winterstoke. We

  1261
  do not agree, perhaps, with all his conclusions, but it must be of considerable advantage and value to our deliberations, that Nonconformity should be represented in this House by one so well calculated to speak on its behalf as his Lordship.
  I should not have ventured to intervene, my Lords, this evening if I had not sat for some years as a member of a County Education Committee, and, like a great many of your Lordships, attended pretty regularly to my duties as manager of one or two elementary schools. I take, of course, an interest in education, but I do not know, thinking it over, whether that really is any excuse for my rising to-night. My noble friend Lord Cast let own just now gave as his J reason for speaking his zeal and interest in education, but the fact is, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker, this Bill, though professedly a Bill for the better promotion of education, has hardly anything to do with education at all. The noble Earl, Lord Crewe, lamented in his speech yesterday that some nineteen-twentieths of the discussion which had taken place in regard to this matter within the last six months related to so-called religious difficulties, but surely the fault of that, if fault there be, lies at the door of His Majesty's Government. This Bill is almost exclusively concerned with the question of religious observances, and if passed in its present form I have no doubt whatever that it would result eventually in the ousting of religious observances from nearly every one of the elementary schools of this country. I am perfectly willing to admit that such is not the intention of the framers of the Bill. Lord Crewe and others who spoke on behalf of the Government have told is that suck is not their intention, and we on these benches are perfectly willing to admit that they are accurate in what they say on that point. But I think this Bill might be correctly described as a Bill for rendering doubtful the continuance of religious instruction in on schools. The Government is not entirely to blame in this matter, for the situation has been growing very grave ever since the passage of the Bill of 1902. The evil will be greatly increased, I believe, if the present Bill passes into law, but the evil has been growing ever since the
  1262
  Act of 1902 was passed. I will return to that point presently, but all of us on this side of the House expected and understood, as a result of the late General Election, that some amending Bill would be introduced in regard to that measure. I for one — of course I can only I speak for myself — could not oppose various Amendments to the Act of 1902. No measure that is passed in Parliament is a perfect measure, and no doubt the Act of 1902 did require and did suggest Amendments. There were many of us I know on this side of the House who would have offered no opposition whatever to an amending Bill endeavouring, where grievances could be proved to exist, to remove those grievances. I will not refer in detail to what those grievances were—those of the passive resisters, and, in certain cases where further so-called popular control should, be given in the voluntary schools. Wherever grievances could be held to be created by the Act of 1902, I am convinced many on these benches would have cordially supported His Majesty's Government in a measure to redress them. But the grievances that I believe did exist under the Act of 1902 were not, I think, general throughout the country. They were only of a sporadic nature. Your Lordships will have in your recollection the case of Kennington that was referred to by the most rev. Primate yesterday. The most rev. Primate referred to this case in his knowledge where voluntary and board schools existed side by side, where there was no compulsion on the parent who disliked voluntary schools to send his children there, and how could it be said that in places like Kennington any grievance existed which made it necessary that legislation of so drastic a character as this should be brought in? The only grievance that in a case like Kennington can be said to exist is that in denominational schools denominationalists retain the right to appoint the teacher, a right dearly purchased by sums provided by voluntary efforts for providing sites and buildings. The case like that of Kennington is by no means an isolated one; there are similar ones all over the country. In my own neighbourhood I happen, to know of three small towns, or large villages, where the population

  1263
  consists largely of miners, nearly all of them Nonconformists, and in each of these villages or towns there exist a voluntary school and a board school. The parents have the option of sending children to one or the other just as they please, and in cases like that again how can any grievance be said to exist? Take the case of another large group of schools such as that at Seaham referred to by the noble Marquess Lord Londonderry yesterday evening. Seaham, the noble Marquess mentioned, has a large Church of England school which is attended by numbers of children of Nonconformist parents, but not one of those children was taken away from the religious instruction in that Church of England school, and there was no grievance, no religious difficulty felt whatever. My Lords, I am anxious not to take up unnecessarily the time of the House, but I could have quoted the case of another Church of England school well known to me in the village where I live myself. There are a number of children of Nonconformist parents attending that school, and I asked the clergyman if he had ever known a case of a single child of Nonconformist parents being withdrawn from religious instruction in that school. He told me not one, and he added that the religious instruction given in that school was and always had been of a character calculated in no way to ruffle any susceptibilities nor to include any doctrine or formula that could be distasteful or objectionable to the parents of Nonconformist children that attended the school. I mention that case because I think, my Lords, it may perhaps strengthen my argument that the religious difficulties we have heard of are not general at all, or spread over a wide area, but are essentially of a sporadic character; and surely in cases like those I have referred to, the most fair, generous and liberal course would be to ascertain the wishes of the parents of the children attending the schools before any change is made in the existing conditions.
  After the eloquent speeches we have listened to yesterday and to-day from right rev. Prelates it would be useless for me to insist upon the necessity of our maintaining religion
  1264
  as the basis of all elementary education in this country. I think, with hardly any exception, that is the general wish both of your Lordships' House and of the country. If your Lordships were not convinced by the eloquent speech of the most rev. Primate there is nothing else that I can say, but I believe all of us must agree that some religious instruction should be given, and that the children must attend it unless the parents like to take advantage of the Conscience Clause. I cannot admit the argument of the noble Earl the President of the Council that religious teaching is of no value where it is compulsory. I think the noble Earl might just as well attempt to argue that secular education would be of no value where it is compulsory. What do noble Lords do in the case of their own children? When it is Sunday they tell their children that it is time to go to Church. When it is time for them to go to school, they tell them to go to school. There is compulsion in that. Whoever heard of children being able to receive any education, secular or religious, unless to a certain extent it was compulsory? My Lords, if we are agreed that some religious instruction should be given in every elementary school, how are we to attain that object? The noble Earl Lord Carrington said yesterday that religious and not secular instruction was one of the principles of the Government measure, but when he was challenged by the Bishop of St. Asaph to explain how that principle could be found in the Bill, it was quite impossible for him or for anyone else to find that principle included in the Bill. It is certainly not in Clause 1, and it is not in paragraph 2 of Clause 8. Let us try to insert that principle in the Bill by which we shall please not only those on our own benches, but I hope also the noble Earl Lord Carrington.
  Whilst I contend that the principle of religious as opposed to secular instruction is not contained in the Bill, there are certain clauses indicatory of the principle, but they are clauses of the most slippery and elusive character. By the Bill all voluntary schools must relinquish their property; but that is a mere question of £ s. d., and comparatively unimportant.

  1265
  The voluntary schools have to relinquish a great deal more than their property, and that is, their present opportunity of giving I religious instruction. We are taking away all certainty in the matter, and in return we get chances. We get a chance of facilities; a chance of extended facilities; a chance of contracting out I of the Bill under Clause 5. But then, suppose we succeed in getting these chances, at a cost of what friction, what strife and what waste of energy shall we have secured them? Supposing we do not succeed in getting these facilities or extended facilities, then we must fall back on what the Education Committees like to give in the way of syllabuses, that simple Bible teaching. which no teacher may teach and which no child need be taught. That must eventually lead to secular instruction, and the mischief, I am sorry to say, has begun already. His Majesty's Government is not wholly responsible for that. It is partly the result of the legislation of 1870 and 1902. We learned yesterday from the discussion what is taking place in Wales, where, in numbers of schools, no religious instruction is being given at all. And then we learned of Huddersfield. There is nothing to prevent that spreading. I have here a Return from the County Education Committee in Somerset as to the syllabus of religious instruction followed in the county schools, and this bears out thoroughly the contention that religious instruction is gradually being whittled away under this system. The syllabus is an excellent syllabus and is followed in ninety-two cases, but in forty-six schools an abridged form, is followed, and in four schools there are syllabuses other than that adopted by the Committee. I am not going to trouble your Lordships by going at length into details, but of twenty-six schools enumerated on the first page of this Return I may mention that in sixteen there is no inspection whatever of the religious instruction that is being given. Under those circumstances, I think I may say that the religious instruction that is being given in the provided schools is not quite satisfactory and not likely in the future to be of a satisfactory character. I should like to see it, in Committee, made illegal in the case of provided
  1266
  schools for these religious syllabuses to be tampered with or curtailed or for others to be used in their place. I should like to see the power of drawing, up these syllabuses withdrawn from the Education Committees, and for Parliament to resume the power delegated in this matter. This is a national matter, and not a local one. Religion, it seems to me, is as vital in Wales or Huddersfield as in Hampshire or any other county. Many of these syllabuses are excellent. The Minister for Education, when introducing the Bill in another place; particularly singled out one or two-counties. However different their views of thought—Roman Catholics, Church of England, Dissenters—on the different county education committees, they meet together, and in almost all cases have found no difficulty in forming syllabuses on which they could agree. I should like to see this done in a national way, and I cannot see why it should be impossible for a Conference to meet in London, or elsewhere, where leading men representing all Parties, laymen as well as ecclesiastical, should meet and that some national syllabus should be drawn up-for use in all provided schools. And I should like to see Parliament then-sanction the labours of the Conference and make it statutory for local authorities and managers to see that such syllabus; was used in all provided schools. I should not object to seeing it applied in Church of England schools, where the majority of the parents wish, though, of course, different treatment would be required for Roman Catholic and Jewish schools. But this is an age of tolerance, and I cannot understand why so many politicians should take such an intolerant view of this matter as it seems to me they are doing. There are, of course, many other provisions of the Bill, but at this late hour, and after having, I am sure, exhausted your Lordships' patience with the remarks I have already made, I shall only say that I hope this Bill will be most drastically and thoroughly altered in Committee when October comes.
  *LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, it is not necessary for anyone to make a

  1267
  special apology for speaking on this occasion. One and all, I imagine, feel in a special degree the responsibility imposed upon us by the Constitution of the Realm, and that sense of duty which was so eloquently expressed by the noble Duke who spoke from these benches in the name of Roman Catholics yesterday evening. I think that any Member of your Lordships' House who thinks that on account of what he has heard or seen or observed, he can add something to the discussion, ought to do so on this occasion. It is on those grounds, and on those grounds alone that I venture to address your Lordships. This is a national question. All questions, of course, are in a sense national, but this is in a particular degree a national question, a question we cannot leave to be fought out on conventional Party lines by the two front benches of this House under rules and restrictions as rigid as those of a field day at Aldershot, and with a result as certain and inevitable as that of a stage duel. We want to discuss this question, because we hope for something more than a mere Party vote to result. It ïs a discussion which we hope will lead to the alteration, the formation, and the confirmation of opinions. I speak, not only for myself, but also I am sure for many others on this side of the House when I say we should be heartily and sincerely glad to see His Majesty's Government solve this question to the general satisfaction of the nation. Your Lordships will note that. I say the nation, and not merely the large majority in the House of Commons. That is a different thing altogether, and I think it is pretty clear that no noble Lord on the other side of the House would attempt for one moment to deny that the nation as a whole will not be satisfied with this Bill. It is not necessary for me to dilate on the dissatisfaction itself, or the nature or cause of that dissatisfaction; that has been done amply and sufficiently already. That it exists, nobody in their senses can for a moment deny, and I shall therefore endeavour to confine myself to a brief examination of the general principles for which we are striving.
  1268
  I think the Lord President was perfectly right when he said in the opening words of his speech that our object is to establish a national system of education. That is the object of the Bill. I think it is equally beyond dispute that the nation does actually want a national system of education. The nation is not always able to express clearly what it does want, but undoubtedly there was a mandate for public control where there is public expenditure, and I think that the inner meaning which lies beneath, that mandate is a conscious or half conscious desire for a national system of education. I also freely and fully admit, while I am on the subject of mandates, that there was a mandate for a final settlement of this longstanding problem—a mandate for the removal of the grievances of Nonconformists, which I do not think are denied by any fair-minded or reasonable Churchman. So far, then, I admit the existence of the mandates on which His Majesty's Government rely. There is no doubt that we must have a Bill giving full public control over public expenditure in the matter of education, and we must have that Bill with as little delay as possible in order to put an end to this interminable and embittered strife.
  But another thing, I think, is perfectly clear, although it is not said to be supported by a mandate, and that is that the nation is not prepared to have, in fact, will not have, education divorced from religion. It seems to me to follow from this—of course every man can only speak for himself and from how things appear to him—it seems to me that what follows from this is, that what is required is a Bill to establish a national system of education of which religious instruction is to be an essential part. That, my Lords, I believe, was the mandate of the nation, and so far almost all men, I think, are agreed. But it is precisely at this point that we come to the difficulty, and that is, what is to be the form of that religious instruction? The only solution I can see is that each denomination should be equal, absolutely equal in the eyes of the State, and absolutely equal in the eyes

  1269
  of the law. And I cannot, for the life of me, see why such a system cannot be established. It has been done, and with great success, in other countries. I was very glad when the noble Lord who spoke from the Government Benches a short time ago, alluded for the first time to the subject of educational systems abroad, for it is my object to say a few words this evening on that point, passing on as quickly as I possibly can. The Bill does not provide that each religion shall be equal in the eyes of the State and in the eyes of the law. The Lord President, in moving the Second Reading, told us clearly that it is an undenominational Bill, and that the object of Clause 1, which he declared to be the Bill, was to place an undenominational school within the Teach of every child whose parents desired it to attend one. That, he added, would remove the Nonconformist grievance. I think the noble Lord was more honest I than discreet when he made that statement, for in doing so, my Lords, to use a somewhat vulgar phrase, he let the cat out of the bag. What we cannot get to be understood, and yet it is the whole point of this difficult question, is that un-denominationalism is not neutral, it is not non-religion, it is something very definite, and something which is just as abhorrent to ardent Churchmen and ardent Roman Catholics as Churchmanship, Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, are to Nonconformists themselves. Undenominationalism is, in fact, the religion of the Free Churches, and the point of the whole question is that you cannot establish undenominationalism, on the assumption that it is something neutral, in preference to other systems of religious instruction. What you must have is equal facilities for all. I said just now that other nations have been through the same difficulty. When the noble Lord who spoke last but one began to allude to Belgium, I hoped very much indeed that he would tell you how the neighbouring country of Holland has been through precisely the same difficulties in regard to the educational problem as we are now engaged in ourselves. In fact, the history of the religious and educational questions in Holland affords a most striking parallel to that same question in our country during the past 100 years. I will not presume to detain your Lordships
  1270
  by dilating upon or explaining that parallel. Probably it is familiar to many Members of this House, and anyhow the whole history of the question is easily accessible. The only thing I should like to suggest is that the systems of these other countries are well worthy of consideration at the hands of those who are endeavouring to solve this problem.
  The foreign system on which I wish to say a few words this evening is that of Germany. I have a special reason for wishing to do so, and that is that I was brought up in my youth to a great extent in Germany, and that I have a very great affection and admiration for Germans and things German. I do not think I need enlarge any further on my reason for referring to the German system. I am only surprised that the German system, which I think is very generally admitted to be one of the most thorough and efficient in the world, has not been brought into these discussions, either in this House or in another place. The thing which I think strikes one first of all in considering the German system of education is that the Germans know what they want in the way of education. They have an ideal. They know what they are striving after. They know what they want education to do, and therefore they know equally whether it ought to be, and what they want to make it. I daresay your Lordships have seen an interesting book on Industrial Efficiency by Professor Shadwell. I trust you will allow me to quote a short passage from it because it expresses better than I could in my own words the idea I wish to convey to your Lordships' minds. He says of the German system, that—
  "the aim is clear, precise and practical. The function of the elementary or pupil school (Volksschule) concisely defined, is to train up the young in religion, good conduct, and patriotism by education and teaching, and to instruct them in the general knowledge and the acquirements requisite for a civil life. This definition gives the key to the whole educational scheme. Character and conduct are the primary objects, then love of country, then such general knowledge as will enable the child to take its part in the ordered life of the community whether as men or women."
  What I want your Lordships to note is that religion comes first as the

  1271
  foundation of morality and conduct. The German people have decided, if I may quote once more—
  "That morality cannot lie taught efficiently apart from religion, and further that religions teaching to be effective must be dogmatic. For this the law carefully provides. The schools are denominational and separate for Roman Catholics and Protestants except where there are not enough children of one confession to form a separate school. In that case they are mixed—Paritätische or Simultanschvden—but the children receive religions instruction from teachers of their own confession. In many towns there are also Jewish schools, and occasionally one or two of tome other sect."
  I must not delay your Lordships long with the details of this system, which are extremely interesting and which have a very real and practical bearing on the problem we have to face. When it is not possible to form three schools, two schools are formed, and where it is not possible to form two schools, one school is formed which receives the children of the three or more different confessions. In those cases the headmaster is chosen from among the members of the church to which the majority of the parents belong. The second teacher represents the religion of the parents of the minority. That is roughly the principle, and even if there is a minority of no more than twelve children, the local authorities are bound to provide separate religious instruction and financial difficulties are not admitted to be an excuse. That is the German system, and it seems to me to solve the very problem we are struggling with ourselves. These German schools are in all cases on a footing of equality before the State and the law, which ordains religious teaching, but leaves the choice absolutely free.
  Let me say a word or two about the instruction itself. This instruction is divided into (1) Biblical history, (2) Catechism. The latter, of course, is dogmatic. Each has so many hours a week given to it, as a rule three to Biblical history and two to Catechism. In Evangelical schools both are taught by the teachers. In Catholic schools Biblical history is taught by the teachers, and the Catechism by the clergy. I should like to tell your Lorr1 ships, if I may read one more extract, what in the opinion of Professsor
  1272
  Shadwell, a great student of foreign systems, are the results of this system. He says—
  " Just as the Germans have known how to retain the classical element in their higher education while adding the higher developments of science and other modern studies, so they have known how to build up the most complete system of national education on the old foundations of character and conduct. They have-not flung away the old in acquiring the new, but have combined both. The retention of systematic religious teaching has a far-reaching influence on the national life which is plainly visible in many directions, and not least in the industrial sphere. To it may be traced the sense of duty and responsibility, the respect for law, the steady effort, the self-restraint, the maintenance of a higher ideal than the materialism of Social Democracy. And to these may be added the striking absence of corruption in public life which is the indispensable condition for the healthy exercise of those municipal functions that are carried on upon so large a scale in German towns to the benefit of the community."
  I have only one more word on the German system, and that is, that the teachers are trained in seminaries or State colleges, that they have the rights or duties of civil servants, and that as a matter of general observation, the German school teacher has no need of self-assertion and consequently he does not teach it. It is idle to assert that there are not alternatives other than those which have been already mooted when we have these examples of other countries before us. The noble Lord, Lord Burghclere, who spoke yesterday, professed to have exhausted all possible alternative schemes, but he devoted his energies chiefly to flogging a dead horse in disposing of an alternative not seriously advocated by any large number of people in this country, viz., the so called secular solution. The Lord President, in his pleasant and witty speech, made an eloquent final appeal. He said: Is it not possible that this long strife may be made to cease? My answer to that is yes, if the Bill is purged of those elements which lead to religious strife. But it is for his Majesty's Government, and for those who support them, to make the first move. It is for them to withdraw that which is destructive and that which is vindictive in the Bill. It is for them to withdraw those things which many people in this country consider unfair, unjust, and an

  1273
  outrage to their consciences. It does not matter at all whether the majority think these people are wrong in considering the Bill unjust and unfair. The fact remains that a number of our fellow-countrymen do, and you cannot have a settlement of this question unless you provide some arrangement which will not seem to them unjust, unfair and outrageous. It is possible to bring an end to this strife if His Majesty's Government will not rob Peter to pay Paul; if they will not, in endeavouring to remedy old grievances, create new ones for ourselves—I mean for the members of the Anglican Church. We do not want concessions and facilities. What we want is justice and the maintenance of our rights. We do not want an undenominational Bill any more than the Nonconformist wants an Anglican Bill, or the Roman Catholics a Free Church Bill. What we want, and I think what the nation wants, is a national Bill, a Bill which instructs the local authority to provide schools of all classes, Church, Roman Catholic, Undenominational and Jewish, in which children can be instructed in accordance with the wishes of their parents. And when I say children, I mean all children. There should be no possibility of any child being excepted from these facilities. Give to every single parent in this country what he wants. Give us a national Bill like this, and I am sure that I am not speaking only for myself when I say that we will help His Majesty's Government with all our hearts.
  *EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, there has been I think we shall admit one very noticeable thing with respect to the Bill we are now going to discuss—I mean the wide divergence between the statements made by individual members of His Majesty's Government and the result when we attain to the collective wisdom of the Cabinet. The country was thrown some time ago, I think, into a certain state of fancied security chiefly by statements made by the President of the Board of Education, until one day we found laid before us the Bill that we have to discuss to-night, and then the security afforded by the statements of the President of the Board of Education seemed to fade away. I think it is
  1274
  worth while to consider for a few moments some of these statements, for they show us at all events the trend of thought of some of those who had studied education carefully; yes, and had studied it from the Nonconformist point of view, and before that pressure of political exigencies came about which has resulted in the production of the present Bill. Pious hopes were expressed by various members of the Government that they would do all that was fair to every parent. Every parent was to select what he wished as to religious instruction, and all these individual members of the Government were going to see that the parent got it. May I quote a short sentence from a speech by the President of the Board of Education only as far back as January last? He said he longed to see one kind of elementary schools for the whole country. He believed it was not passing the wit of man to devise a scheme whereby the public authorities should have complete public control over all the public elementary schools in the land, and whereby the wishes of the parents should be consulted as to the kind of religion they wished to be taught, and when and how they wished it taught in those schools. Those were the views of the President of the Board of Education in January last. I am afraid we seek in vain for one sign of that policy in the Bill before your Lordships' House to-day. I ask where in the Bill can you find that the wishes of the parents are to be consulted and safeguarded as to the religious teaching they wish for, or when and how they wish it taught? All is relegated to the control of the local education authority; and at the beck and call of the local education authority all religious teaching in any school may, if this Bill passes, be swept away. Nowhere in the Bill can we find any parent secured the religious teaching he demands for his child. Nowhere in the Bill, as it now stands, can he have secured to him the teaching for his child by the teacher whom he selects. The statement of the student in his calmer moments studying the real educational requirements contrasts badly with the action of the politician forced to accept a Bill which he cannot and does not like and which he has to accept because of political exigency.

  1275
  My Lords, we are told very often—I think we have been told in this debate already—that we cannot provide religious teaching for all the sects because of their number. May I quote an authority on that subject, dating back only as far as 1903, after the passing of this poor Education Act of 1902 of which we have heard so many hard things? What does my authority say?—
  "there still remains the question as to the nature of the religion taught in all the schools. Here the parents really must, whether they like it or not, conquer their shyness, and making their first appearance in this ancient and horrid controversy, tell us, when they send Tom and Jane to school, whether they wish them to receive any—and if any, what— religious education. There is no chance of the multiplication of strange parental religions. We are not an imaginative people. Jews, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Dissenters in a lump will usually exhaust the list. The great body of Dissenters will be found ready to accept the same broad simple Bible teaching which for the most part characterise board school Christianity."
  My Lords, those are weighty words, and they are the words of the present President of the Board of Education written in the Independent Review for October, 1903. What becomes of the statement that you cannot deal with all the claims of the different sects because they are so numerous, and what becomes of the statement of one of his colleagues that to talk of Dissenters in a lump was an insult to them? There seems one peculiarity about this Bill when one comes to study its details, and that is that wherever there is any facility granted or any concession made in principle there seems to dog the steps of that concession some evil spirit within or behind the Cabinet, I know not which, which inserts into the machinery of the Bill that which makes the concession worthless. May I give your Lordships a few examples? First of all, I touch on Clause 2. There there is no mandatory power to compel the taking over of a school by the local authority, and therefore the taking over of the school by the local authority becomes void. It need not be carried into effect, though you profess openly that these schools are to be taken over. We have plenty of pious hopes that they will be taken over, but that is not business, and I do not think we shall thrive on them. There is no power to compel local authori-
  1276
  ties to take over any schools if they do not choose, and if facilities are pressed for the local authorities can still decline to take over the schools. Then what becomes of your facilities under Clause 2? I say they are destroyed by the machinery of the Bill.
  Then I come to Clause 3. There we have no definition of facilities at all. No one can tell what they are. Parliament apparently is not going to decide what facilities are. You are going to leave it again to the local authority and what can the local authority do? The President of the Board of Education admitted some time ago that though he hoped all authorities would behave sensibly—he went so far as to mention the words "stupid" and I think "obstinate" with respect to some of them—without expressing any opinion on the subject, but assuming that some are stupid or obstinate or vicious, the local authority can get rid of the facilities under Clause 3 absolutely and entirely. They can restrict hours under which religious teaching is to be given exactly as they please; they can restrict the number of days as they choose. Parliament and the Government may say they think facilities should be applied to every day, but the local authorities are much bigger people than the Board of Education and the Cabinet itself. They can regulate these things exactly as they like, and though we put down what we think should be done, there is nothing to ensure facilities under Clause 3 and there is no appeal.
  I now come to Clause 4—that clause which is considered to be a safeguard of many interests affected by this Bill, and which we are told was introduced— I know not if it be true or not—in order specially to meet the case of Roman Catholic schools and Roman Catholic children. We have the ballot by parents, and though I do not mean to dwell upon it I detest the idea of ballot by parents in voluntary schools. We are to have a ballot by parents, and first of all it is to be conducted by the local authority, to whom the parents are appealing for a change in the regulations of the school. That ballot is to be secret. We are told that is one of the great merits of the Bill. We accept that and

  1277
  we assume the Government wills that it is made absolutely secret. What happens then? Turn to Sub-section (b), Clause 4, and the four-fifths who apply in order to get extended facilities. Under Clause 4 four-fifths must prove that there is public school accommodation in schools not affected by a permission given for the children attending the school whose parents do not desire those facilities. What is the result? Your ballot is secret, absolutely secret. You do not know who the four-fifths are who have voted in favour of the extended facilities, and therefore you have not the slightest idea who the one-fifth are. You do not know the minority,and if you do not know the minority how are you going to make the inquiry to satisfy anyone that this minority of the children can be given accommodation in other schools? It is an impossibility. Unless you know and can put your finger on the children of the minority you cannot say whether there is a sufficient and proper accommodation for them in that particular district. The only answer to anyone holding the inquiry under the terms of this clause must be that the case is not and cannot be proved for extended facility. Therefore, I say again that Clause 4 is made nugatory, killed and made of no effect, simply by its own machinery. It is a serious thing to say, but it is nothing much less than a fraud—I do not mean an intentional fraud for a moment: I do not want to use so hard a word as fraud—but it is an absurdity that you should offer with one hand certain extended facilities, of which so much has been made, and yet allow the machinery of the clause to make them an absolute impossibility. There may be an answer to this, and if anyone can tell me what the answer is I shall accept it with gratitude, and with much humility.
  With regard to these extended facilities it is true that the local authority need give none. I should have thought the extended facilities ought to have been made mandatory. Further, I should have thought that the natural duty of the Education Department was not to say yes or no as fancy determined, and as political exigency might affect the decision, but to see that the mandatory
  1278
  effects of an Act of Parliament were carried into force. That, I am afraid, is far from the intention of the Bill, and that again to my mind makes the whole of Clause 4 practically useless for the purpose for which it is intended.
  I want to touch for a moment, if I am not detaining you too long, on one point in Clause 5. I should be very glad if some Member of the Government would tell us what is the object of Sub-section (3) of that clause—inserted so I am informed on Report. It states, with reference to the appeals as to extended facilities, that an appeal under this section shall not be entertained unless it is made before the 1st January, 1908. Why, I am at a loss to conceive. Why not after the 1st January, 1908? Is it not possible that a rural district may change to an urban district after that date, and that a population of 4,999 may possibly grow into a population of 5,000? Is it not possible that a majority of those who wish for extended facilities may come into existence after that date? Is it not possible that an alternative school may have been provided? In each of these cases the extended facilities would; be justified and would be the right of the people in that district. But for some reason I do not know how to explain the door is to be closed on 1st January, 1908, and apparently however large a district may become, however much the population may grow, however many schools may be built, you have, shut the door as far as appeals under this clause is concerned. Perhaps it will be explained, but at present I do not understand it at all. I do not suppose an injustice is intended, but if the point I put is a true point there must be the grossest injustice in the future—after the clock strikes on the 1st January, 1908. Whatever be the rights of parents they should be extended into these districts when and as the cases and conditions differ and change, and I can see no reason why that extended facilities appeal is to be barred because they happen to have reached one particular date.
  One further point on that. The ocal education authority only take over these schools for a term of years, and

  1279
  I think this applies also to cases that come under the orders of the Commission set up by the Bill. They could then drop an agreement, make a fresh arrangement and grant no facilities. But if it is past the 1st January, 1908, no one has a remedy or appeal under the Bill. These are questions, I submit with deference to His Majesty's Government, which ought to receive a clear, definite and absolute reply.
  One more point as to the Commission. The Commission set up under the Bill is to act on the principles of the High Court, though no sooner have we said that than the Bill proposes, under Sub-sections (a) and (b) to abolish the principles of the High Court, but to abolish them only in one direction. It only abolishes them and says they are to be deviated from in directions suitable to the local authority. The whole of the deviations are in favour of the local authority and against those who may be appealing before the Commission. Why tamper with the principles of the High Court? If they are good enough for the High Court I should think they are good enough for the Commission under this Bill. But if they have to be deviated from there are many more which should come in so that the deviations may be all-round deviations and not unfair and onesided deviations as they are to-day.
  I crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few words words with regard to Part III., which includes the Council for Wales—a very astonishing proposal dealt with in the most astonishing way. I have never heard this proposal supported by anyone in charge of the Bill either in this House or in another place. The President of the Board of Education, in another place, slurred it over and left it aside. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill into your Lordships' House—you will remember the way he dealt with it. I do not think he gave us the impression that it was a part of the Bill near to his own heart. If he did so he had a peculiar way of showing the inner workings of his own heart. But what is this Council of Wales to do? Indeed, it is very difficult to know. One has to watch the Bill of the Government day by day to see what is going on with regard to this part of the Bill. What is perfectly clear is that this
  1280
  part of the Bill has been thrown on the Table of the House of Commons and is now set on the Table of your Lordships' House without any thought as to its details or any knowledge as to what it is intended to do. Let us see first what the original proposal was under this Bill, for though it is only one clause it has taken three entirely separate and different forms within a very few days, and to find out what has been going on you have to read three separate Bills. Let me read the original proposal as it appeared in the Government's Bill—
  "the following powers and duties, so far as they relate to Wales shall, subject to such exceptions as His Majesty may make by Order in Council, be transferred to the Council in Wales: (a) the powers and duties of the Board of Education; and (b) the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture with respect to instruction connected with agriculture and forestry; and (c) the powers and duties of the Central Welsh Board for Intermediate Education. The Board of Education shall in each year pay to the Council of Wales any money which may be granted by Parliament in respect of education and science and art in Wales, with the exception of money granted in aid of universities and university colleges."
  The Council is to have the whole of the powers of the Board of Education in that draft of the Bill—they are to receive £800,000 a year of Imperial funds for grants, to be handed over without any check, control, or Ministerial responsibility of any sort. That I do not eomment upon, but that was the proposal in the Bill when it was first printed. In Committee, and as I am informed without any notice at all, the following Amendment was carried:—
  "the Order in Council shall provide for the appointment by His Majesty of a Member of Parliament, whether a Member holding office under the Crown or not"
  —mark this, my Lords—
  " who shall be responsible to Parliament for any act of the Council of Wales done in the exercise of any of the powers of the Board of Education delegated to the Council under this section, and shall have full control over the Council in respect of the exercise of such powers."
  What became of the Council then? You have first of all pleaded that it is a necessary thing to give to Wales its own Council and its own absolute control of £800,000 a year of Imperial money to be dealt with without check by any human being, and now, by a stroke of the pen.

  1281
  you abolish and get rid of the whole of that, because if you have a Minister responsible to Parliament for the act of that Council we know what that means: he is to be responsible for the doings of that Council all the way through from beginning to end. But what happens? Before the ink of that was dry something else takes place. It seems as if one was telling a sort of fairy tale, but I assure your Lordships I am speaking solemn facts dug out of the proceedings of Parliament. On that Amendment of the clause this extraordinary Minister—by-the-by I ought to have said he was not to have provided for him any office, or any salary, or any control over the Council he was to represent, and for which he was absolutely responsible to Parliament—it is an absolute fact, my Lords; I am perfectly serious. He was to assume a control which the Government told us then was to be a real control. I do not know what happened in the inner workings of the heart of his Majesty's Government, but I remember very well a Member rising in another place and complaining that this would never do—if this gentleman received no salary how were they to move to reduce it? Where was his responsibility to Parliament and how were they to touch him? Perhaps those arguments prevailed and accounted for that very curious Minister's disappearance two days afterwards. Now we come to number three. On Report the Minister disappeared and in place this Amendment was carried without one word of discussion, without one syllable of explanation of any sort or kind—I think I am correct in that—
  " Any money which may be placed at the disposal of the Council of Wales by Parliament for the purpose of education in Wales on Estimates submitted to Parliament for the purpose by the Treasury shall be administered by that Council subject to the control of the Treasury."
  My Lords, how is the Treasury to control the expenditure of the money by a council extended over all Wales for educational purposes? There is no means of doing so. They have no inspectors and there is no office for the purpose of taking up these things. They would have to accept everything the Council in Wales told them, and what becomes under
  1282
  this Amendment of your promised control? What becomes of the responsibility of a Minister or Department for the control of this Council? Can any one tell which of these proposals is going to hold good to-morrow—any of them or none of them? If the noble Lords would take my advice they would purge their Bill of this muddled arrangement altogether. No one knows what they mean. It is clear the Government have no definite idea themselves or they could not have changed their minds three times in a week. If they do not know their own minds surely they had better take time to consider and see if they cannot come to some better form of Home Rule for Wales by degrees. These are the positions. Position 1: A Council with all the powers of an Educational Department and with £800,000 of Imperial I funds without control. Position 2: I Complete control and responsibility by a Minister to Parliament for every farthing spent and every act done. Position 3: The Minister disappears and the Treasury, which is perfectly useless for the purpose of control of any sort or kind, steps in. And this, my Lords, is said to be the scheme upon which Wales is unanimous. Which scheme? In Heaven's name, which scheme is it? Are they in favour of the scheme that is going to give absolute control of £800,000 in Wales? I can conceive of that being an attractive scheme, though not from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the ratepayers of this country. Or are they in favour of making it what it would be under the control of a Department and a Minister— nothing but an advisory board? Is it that about which there has been such a blowing of trumpets in Wales? Or are we going to drop that and start with Treasury control and are we to be shown that the Treasury control is a real, definite, and effective control? I think we have a right to ask His Majesty's Government under which of these three interesting schemes they propose to continue discussions on this subject, because it leads to a little awkwardness when we have three at once and when there is no knowing whether we may not have three or four more in the course of the next week. I think my

  1283
  noble friend Lord Crewe rather intimated that he thought there was unanimity in Wales. I will read his words—
  "In Wales there was general agreement as to the creation of some central council of education. It was agreed that if Wales wanted a council, the admirable manner in which the Welsh Intermediate Education Act had been carried out by the Joint Committee and the Central Board made it almost imperative that the wishes of Wales must be met. Wales desired that certain powers now vested in the Board of Education should be transferred to the Treasury. This was the first time in his experience that he had found any body of persons nestling up to the Treasury."
  I deny entirely that Wales is nestling up to the Treasury. Wales had never heard of the suggestion of the Treasury. Others have been nestling, but do not put it down to Wales that they were nestling up to the Treasury when we never heard, until the thing appeared in print on Report, that there was any suggestion of the Treasury having anything to do with the matter at all. I can assure the noble Lord that the information furnished him as to the unanimity of Wales in reference to this Council is utterly incorrect. I do not know where he gets his information, but there are one or two reasons why I think that information is not to be relied on. A great deal has been said about the Cardiff Conference. That Conference took place in March last. Many people were invited and there was a large attendance, and it is said that there was unanimity at that Conference. I wish to tell your Lordships exactly what took place. There was one resolution carried unanimously and one alone. I will read it to your Lordships—
  "That this Conference is of opinion that it is expedient to create a Council of Wales, representing Welsh education authorities, which shall have powers to supply or to aid the supply of education of all kinds in Wales and Monmouthshire."
  That was the only resolution carried with unanimity at that meeting, and there was no word in that resolution as to the transfer of powers of any Government Department. There was another resolution. It was also carried, but many did not vote upon it and some voted against it, and certainly no one can allege, I do not think it is alleged, that it was carried unanimously. It was—
  "That this Conference is of opinion that to such council shall be delegated certain of the
  1284
  powers of the Board of Education in regard to public, education in Wales and Monmouthshire, and other powers relating to education now exercised by the Home Office and the Board of Agriculture, together with the powers of the Central Welsh Board as to intermediate education, and to which may be granted such incidental powers as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions."
  This, I believe, was carried, but, as I said, not by any means with unanimity. A good many opposed it, a certain number did not vote, and I can vouch that the representatives of one county council present were absolutely opposed to it and were sent by their county council in order that they should oppose it. I have sat on that county council myself and speak with knowledge.
  And now, as to this unanimity, may I note how far it is really stated to have gone. Of course I know that that unanimity has been put before the Government—put strongly by some of their own followers. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking at Cardiff at the time of this meeting, used these words, and if they mean unanimity I can only say that my ideas of unanimity and his do not agree. He said—
  " So long as they talked on general principles, talked in the air, it was wonderful how they agreed."
  We have often seen that, my Lords—
  "It was when they came to reduce their dreams to some practical plan that criticism came from every point of view."
  And after that we are told that at this meeting there was unanimity as to the carrying out of such a scheme as is laid before your Lordships' House to-day. One other quotation I think I must make to show what was said with regard to unanimity. The President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading of the Education Bill, after stating that the Bishops came to the Cardiff Conference, said—
  " Every Conservative candidate for a Welsh seat was summoned, and most of them attended."
  There were two of them present, my Lords—I can give names if necessary— and I am afraid there were more Unionist candidates than that who lost seats at the last General Election. And yet the same right hon. Gentleman said that at this Conference, so representative, a resolution was passed unanimously in

  1285
  favour of asking the Government to set up this Central Council for the control and direction, of education in Wales. I ask if that can fairly and properly be described as unanimity? There are other powers which perchance may have escaped some of your Lordships' attention. For the ordinary purpose of a consolidation of local authorities there is power under the Act of 1902, and nothing but unanimity was necessary to bring it into force. There has been an effort to bring about an arrangement under the Act of 1902. I do not know what has happened to it within the last few months. I know what happened at the close of last year. Then there had been a failure by the authorities applying to show there was unanimity among the County Councils of Wales which would entitle the Education Department to allow such a scheme to be carried through. Where is their unanimity now? If they could not get unanimity to carry out that clause of the Act of 1902, are they now going to come to Parliament to get powers to make those join who would not join willingly? I want to say something as to what was in the mind of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I thought from what fell from him that he was under the impression that there was some precedent for this proposal in the Welsh Central Board. May I explain in a few words what the Welsh Central Board is, what it does, what its powers are, and how vitally they differ from the proposals we are discussing here? The Welsh Central Board is a consultative body; it is largely composed of experts, not merely appointed by county councils, because some are appointed by colleges and some, I believe, by the Education Department. They exercise none of the powers of the Central Board and none of the powers of a public department. They did have the power of inspection delegated to them by the Board of Education, but the Board of Education still kept their hands on the pulse of every school and college, and I am informed that, as a matter of fact, out of ninety-five schools which come under the purview of the Central Board, no less than eighty-nine have been inspected by the Board of Education
  1286
  themselves. The Treasury fix the conditions of the grants, and the Central Board have nothing to say to them but to accept them. They make their references to the Treasury, but the Treasury is the authority which fixes the conditions of the grants. There is no resemblance between the suggestions, the one in practice and the other made to-day. The grant made to the Welsh Central Board amounts to £25,000, and there are ninety-five schools with 10,000 children in them, but the Board has no real authority as a department over them at all. The proposed Council, under the original proposal, would have been absolutely free from all Departmental control of any sort or kind. They would have 8,000 schools and 400,000 children under their control, and ££800,000 a year from Imperial Funds, which they could allocate and deal with exactly as they liked. Therefore it is idle to contend that there is the slightest precedent in what the Welsh Central Boards doing. There is not a shred of foothold in the Welsh Central Board to lead up to this extremely curious suggestion of a Welsh National Council. The Welsh Central Board has done its work extremely well and has carried on its functions admirably, but I repudiate the suggestion that it affords anything in the nature of a precedent. We cannot forget that this Council if it came into operation would be a simple and representative body of the local authorities, the whole of them elected by the county councils. They would be their constituents, and their interests would be the rate. How are they going to check the grant to any incompetent schools and the expenditure of Imperial funds? The whole of their interests are in the other direction, because every penny they cut off the grant they will have to put on to the rates. Therefore, so far as its Imperial aspect as to finance was concerned, the thing is as rotten as in every other respect. This agitation for a National Council for Wales is not merely an. educational matter. It goes far wider in its intentions than that. I will not give your Lordships my idea, I will give you the idea of a Member of the Cabinet. Speaking of this Council

  1287
  at Carnarvon in January this year the President of the Board of Trade used these words:—
  "Once the Board in set up, delegation will follow, but I am in hope that the powers to be delegated will not stop with the Board of Education. There are powers under the Local Government Board which I hope to see delegated, and also powers under the Board of Trade and the Home Office."
  He had not left out much except the Army, the Navy, and the Foreign Office. This shows pretty clearly what the ideas of the President of the Board of Trade were when he tried to get the first step taken in this most unwise suggestion of a Council for Wales. He said:—
  "I am looking forward to the time when a Bill is introduced providing the same powers given to local authorities shall be delegated to the Council for Wales. I should like to see certain control every time given to such a Welsh authority, and I have great hope that we shall see all this realised in the course of the next four or five years."
  I hope that whatever else your Lordships may have to do with regard to the Bill you will not give way to any authority which comes to you and lays before the country that programme and asks you to go one step in the direction of Home Rule for Wales.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid that, not being a member of the Government, but only an ordinary Member of their Lordships' House,he should not embark on the drafting and interpretations of the clauses and considerations which had occupied so much of the eloquent time of the noble Earl. Speaking generally, wherever in the Bill they had "may" he would like to put "shall," and wherever they had "shall" he would like to put "may." For the same reason he intended to leave Part III. severely alone. Plucky little Wales could, he felt certain, take excellent care of itself. From what the noble. Lord told them the Minister for Wales would be a very poor place, and he certainly should not apply for it. After listening carefully to the noble Earl, he saw no reason for reconsidering the carefully prepared words which he had proposed to intervene in the debate. He would say what he meant to say at first; namely, that he was glad of the opportunity of doing his best to prosper the progress and passage of the Bill. He did
  1288
  not pretend that it was an ideal Bill or that it was based upon counsels of perfection, but he believed it would commend itself not to the political, Parliamentary, and platform sense, but to the political sense in the way in which the Archbishop used the word "political" the previous night; the political sense and the utilitarian instincts of a large majority of the people of the country. To put it broadly, they relied upon common-sense and that unromantic, common-sense, practical aptitude which resided in our fellow countrymen and women to work out the Bill. The noble Earl talked a great deal about the political exigencies in which the Government found itself at the time it had to draft the Bill. He quite admitted that the Government was in a strait. He might with truth say to Mr. Birrell and his colleagues: Delicta majorum immeritus lues; they had to pay for the criminal mistakes of their predecessors. The noble Lords opposite would do well to remember, though perhaps they would very much prefer to forget, that it was when they passed the Bill of 1902 that they made the Bill of 1906 inevitable. He might perhaps here avow something more than a platonic affection for Lord Malmesbury's proposals. He thought they must all admit that he did very well in a rather uncomfortable position. In one of the scraps of talk which he had had with the Archbishop of Canterbury and which he valued extremely, he told him that he had a sneaking liking for Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, and the Archbishop said they were ideal in theory but quite unworkable in practice. On that he would say a word or two presently. Nobody would be surprised to hear that he was now coming to the religious difficulty. Mr. Gibbon, who would have greatly relished this debate, laid it down somewhere or other that all religions were equally true to the people, false to the philosopher, and useful to the magistrate. He believed Mr. Birrell and Lord Crewe would substitute for the word "useful" "perplexing and unintelligible." the Bishop of St. Asaph once described the religious difficulty as "gaunt and emaciating." It had lost none of its old characteristics, and it was becoming exceedingly irritating. They could not do with it in the West

  1289
  Riding. It had tired them all out irrespective of creeds and camps. He must avow a certain amount of church-ness or denominationalism. He attended the other night the great Churchmen's meeting in the Albert Hall. He listened to eloquent speeches from the Bishop of London and Dr. Wace, but it was not the speeches which took such hold of him as the opening prayer and the familiar hymns, the wave of a "sursum corda" tendency and emotion, and which at such times convinced him that we could not live by bread alone. To come to more practical and less sentimental considerations in this grave matter of national education, he was gradually being driven to the conclusion that churchness and denominationalism, whether of the Established Church or of Nonconformity, was a mistake, and that Mr. Chamberlain and the Bishop of Birmingham might be right, when, by very different roads, they arrived at the same result; and when they told them that the only way of putting an end to all this was by having no State-assisted or State-taught religious education, but by special facilities—which he (the noble Lord) understood to be bricks, mortar, better drainage, times, and teachers— being granted to religion and irreligion alike, everybody having the right to freely teach their own dogmas. That was, he believed, the view they held as to the only way of freeing education from this parasite—the religious difficulty. He felt that anyone intervening in the debate at this period was gleaning after the gleaners. But as he had always found that other people's ideas were embarrassing to his own originality, he must try and make the best of it. He would spare their Lordships any comments on the backbone of the Bill, Clause 1. He would not go into its obedience to the great principle of public control and the abolition of tests, and its acquiescence in that new and terrible portent, the mandate. Nor would he go into the practical difficulties of Lord Malmesbury's plan, which parties on both sides told him were insuperable, although he was confident that those difficulties would have to be faced in certain eventualities. He believed most people would agree with The Times newspaper that the speeches of the Archbishop of
  1290
  Canterbury and of the Duke of Norfolk held the field as regarded the debate so far as it had gone. They were very cogent and very remarkable. He would take that of the Duke of Norfolk first; and he believed that secularism would have to be faced if full effect was given to the able and constitutional speech which they heard the previous night from the noble Duke. The speech was penetrated and informed by a high constitutional spirit and argument, and he delighted in listening to it. He listened to it with the greatest possible envy. The noble Duke declared in that English of which he was a master what he and his friends meant to do with the Bill in Committee. He had no doubt that the noble Duke would stand by what he said, and he had no doubt that he would get a considerable amount of support from what he might call the independent franctireurs opposite. What would be the alternative if the Bill was wrecked in Committee and lost? He believed it would be secularism and the secularisation of education. He would now turn to the cogent, eloquent and remarkable speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury. A great portion of his argument was rested on what seemed to him a very shaky proposition. It was that Parliamentary encouragement at one time and in one set of circumstances carried with it Parliamentary encouragement for all time and in a totally different set of circumstances. Holding this view the right rev. Primate appeared to have advised his friends to make very considerable gifts to the Church, and he also appeared to have given them a sort of personal guarantee that Parliamentary action and encouragement which was taken and given in 1870 was an indefeasible security for any action which might be taken in 1902 and 1906. His friends appeared to him to have been ingenuous enough to have taken him at his word; and he (the noble Lord) only hoped the right rev. Primate did not implement the guarantee in any way. Instances abounded to show how impossible it was. There was the example of the Encumbered Estates Act established to encourage by Parliamentary assistance ownership of land in Ireland; since then Parliament had devoted itself to discouraging such ownership;

  1291
  and there was the parallel of the Guards. They were told only a fortnight ago that Parliament was going to reduce the battalions of the Coldstream and Scots Guards, whereas it had only recently raised those battalions and the Irish Guards. These cases showed that the proposition on which the Archbishop rested the first part of his speech was not only remarkable but exceedingly shaky. He was also very grateful to the Archbishop for bringing them face to face with a real live Rousseau-cum-Voltaire teacher in the national school. He told them of a Gentleman who administered, he believed skilfully, a most generous religious syllabus when professionally occupied, and who in his leisure moments devoted himself to writing articles and leaderettes discrediting the Resurrection and subjects of a kindred kind. He confessed he had often heard of this type of teacher, but he never knew he could actually be brought before them as he was brought before them the previous night. He also told them about the anti-religious ways which seemed to be most regrettably of the local authority at Huddersfield. He did not say that the Primate drew conclusions from those exceptional cases. So far from that he had guarded himself very carefully from any ex uno disce omnes argument, but he said with perfect truth that these cases had happened and that they could happen again under the Bill; and they all knew the spell of such suggestion which could be exercised by a wielder of words of the calibre and authority of the Primate, especially when that suggestion was addressed to noble Lords who were hearing exactly what they wanted to hear. He agreed there was one very strong point which the Archbishop made and on which he should like to say a word. It was where he argued that the Bill gave full control to local authorities, but limited powers wherever it was concerned with religion. He admitted that with regard to religion, which was the Archbishop's point; but let them compare it with the Act of 1902. That Act reserved in stringent and explicit terms— they all remembered the adamantine front the noble Duke presented to every arugment they used on that side when in Committee—the important function
  1292
  of choosing teachers to denominational managers, and, seeing that this restriction of popular control and its inevitable partnership with strict tests for teaching posts and appointments had caused a lot of unpleasantness up and down the country, it was quite clear that the present Government had no alternative in their Bill, but were bound as far as possible to give full control to that authority. He did not pretend that the Bill would "tune discords to angelic harmonies." there was a, great deal of what Mr. Kinglake, when speaking of the then Czar of Russia, who, he had no doubt, was a strict denominationalist, called "ferocious Christianity" about. It always had come gallantly and noisily to the front on these occasions, and he believed it always would. He did not think it was altogether a bad thing. Friction was the concomitant of motion and activity. What was more, he did not know what divines, different in kind but not perhaps in degree, like Dr. Clifford and the Bishop of Manchester, would do if a permanent atmosphere of "peace, perfect peace" were to brood over this stimulating, controversial and intellectual area. He thought they enjoyed rather than disliked it. The House were not going to a division, but if they had been he would have given his vote cordially in favour of the Bill, and he should do all in his power to see the Bill through the House in as near the form as it had come into the House as possible.
  LORD ROBERTSONsaid he proposed to violate what appeared to be the conventions of this debate and make a brief speech. He should address himself to two subjects, which he thought were not irrelevant to a. Second Reading debate. He should consider concurrently what was the occasion for the Bill and what were the gist and substance of it. When His Majesty's Government faced the question, they were confronted with one palpable fact, and that was the existence of a vast number of voluntary schools, recognised by the public Education Department as being efficient and doing good work in the country. They were unquestionably private property,

  1293
  governed only by the conditions annexed to the receipt of public money. What were the suggested reasons for the interference of those schools, embodied in the Bill? He took the House to witness that it had never once been suggested in all the various speeches that the schools were to be confiscated upon the ground that they were not rendering adequate and efficient service to the community. The contrary was palpable, and fortunately they did not require to go back upon vague generalises about which one man might contradict another. All those schools were under the inspection of the Privy Council and anyone who knew anything about the community in which he lived knew perfectly well that, excellent as the board schools were, they were not the same in ethos or characteristics as the Church schools. The Government were face to face with this large fabric of schools, and if there was no allegation against them in point of efficiency, why was the transference made? He was not going into any minute details, although he must own that he had been surprised, he world not say at the levity, but at the facility, with which noble Lords on the other side of the House had glided from the arguments and had never come to close quarters with them. The whole object of the Bill was to extinguish Church of England teaching in the schools of the country. No other reason had been suggested for dealing with the question at all, and, when he turned to the clauses, he found one thing consistent, and that was that the one aim was to put down Church of England teaching. Clause 1, in a sense, was the Bill, because it said that there should be no independent schools, but that they should be public schools after a certain time, though there might be restrictions and modifications enabling religious education to be given. Clause 4 had comparatively little application to the Church of England. It was manifestly intended for the Roman Catholics, though possibly it was also intended for the Jews. He did not grudge it, and he thought it was merely a small portion of what they were entitled to. He mentioned Clause 4 to exclude it from the main question he was considering, viz., the exclusion of the Church of England. Clause 3, which
  1294
  was really intended for the Church of England, wanted to be clearly stated. It would be observed that the owners of voluntary schools had to enter into negotiations with the local authority. They were to come to an agreement with the local authority, but they knew already that the agreement was very much at the point of the bayonet. Then came the question as to whether there should be any stipulation about religious instruction. Here the Act did two things, and they were most important. The very best which could be done for the Church under the Bill was to give two mornings in the week. That was the optimum maximum of the Bill. Apparently they negotiated on equal terms, but really it was not so. Let them suppose that the local authority said that they would not give the facilities; they were entitled to do so. The Bill, curiously enough, in the circuitous methods which were adopted, expressed: it as follows:—
  " Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction."
  The reader had got to keep in mind that it was equally true that nothing in the section would prevent the refusing of the facilities. He would therefore, and he was entitled to do so, take the case of a hostile local authority. That authority might perfectly well say they would not grant the facilities, and no one could force them, because, they would observe, that when they turned to Clause 3, which was the charter of the rights of the Church for ordinary facilities, it was only if the agreement had been come to that it came into operation at all. He was quite certain that in the country a great deal of play had been made of the appointment of impartial, highminded commissioners, to deal with the Bill, but the country had not been told that these impartial, highminded commissioners never came into play unless the local authority pleased, and therefore the Church of England, which was concerned with Section 3 of the Bill, was at the mercy of the local authority. If the local authority refused the facilities, there would be none. If that were the outcome of negotiations, for an agreement, then they got Cowper-Templeism substituted for Church of England teaching in the schools. He

  1295
  should imitate the noble reserve which had been exercised by persons very much more entitled to speak upon the subject than himself, but he thought it right in his place in Parliament that he should say that Cowper-Templeism was something totally different from the teaching of the Church of England. The Church of England was a religion with definite dogmas and beliefs; it taught children through the Catechism, a religion which was personal and supernatural. It began by asking the child its name. It went on to ask how it got that name and then it dwelt upon the fact that, when it got that name the child was made a member of the mystic Body of our Lord, and it deduced its responsibilities from that supreme fact. Therefore, to tell him a teacher had a perfect right under Cowper-Templeism to read passages from the Bible to the child, but that he could not tell him that our Lord was Divine seemed to him the most idle of all teaching of religion. He resented the arrogating to themselves by the Dissenters or their political friends the words "Bible-teaching." the mere reading of the Bible was one thing, but they had no right on that account to claim to teach simple Bible truth. What was done was simply to read passages from the Bible as they might from Marcus Aurelius, or from many of the admirable writers of philosophy. It would leave the child entirely ignorant of everything essential which was taught in the Church Catechism. He had spoken of the Church Catechism for this reason. One of the things which the Government had unconsciously done under the Bill was to bring together Churchmen who were a little alienated before, upon the common ground of the Church Catechism. He had dwelt upon this clause because the result of their legislative enactments was to wipe out Church of England teaching and set up Cowper-Templeism. He was understating the case, because there was no obligation upon the local authority to teach even Cowper-Templeism. On the contrary, they had got the option of teaching no religion at all. The Bishop of London had mentioned that Cowper-Templeism had declined in quality during past years, but he would venture to point out that now,
  1296
  by the choice of the noble Lords opposite and their friends, questions had been raised and consequently increased attention would be drawn to the lower option of no religion at all. He could quite understand that with local authorities a compromise might be come to. Some might propose no religion at all and others might propose Cowper-Templeism, and on that there might be a compromise arrived at—not formally upon expressed Resolutions, but by way of producing harmony— that Cowper-Templeism should be as remote from dogmatic religion as it possibly could be. He had one further word to say upon the subject, which he hoped he had treated without indelicacy and without presumption. He objected altogether to people supposing that they left unimpaired the churches while they were capturing their schools. In pronouncing what religion their children were to receive in the schools the inevitable result would be to diminish the authority of what was afterwards taught in the church. If the children were brought up in this diluted and unauthoratative religion they would not readily submit themselves to the yoke of dogma and authority. If children up to fourteen years of age thought that they had got options from existing religions, was it likely they would be so amenable to the authority of the Church when the time came for their confirmation? He hoped he had made good his promise to prove that the facilities professed to be offered to the Church of England under Clause 3 were illusory because they were entirely optional.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Facilities are only so far optional that the school may not be taken at all.
  *LORD ROBERTSON: I can assure the noble Lord I am not ignorant of that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: But the noble Lord did not say so; if he will pardon me, he said something entirely different.
  *LORD ROBERTSONsaid he was not able to say all the various points which completed his argument at once. He

  1297
  was going to say that in all this talk about Commissioners and what not there had been an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the public and to persuade them that all was well because there were Commissioners appointed in the Bill. Let them see what they could do. He had dealt hitherto with the case of an agreement not being come to; but, when they came to an agreement, what took place? Could the owners of the Church schools apply to the Commissioners? They could not. The initiative was solely with the local authority. There was no access to the Commissioners except through the local authority. Perhaps he was anticipating the question of the Bishop of London to the Lord Chancellor, which the Lord Chancellor was best qualified to answer, but let them suppose that the proprietors of a school were suddenly deprived of the Government grant and less suddenly of the rates and found themselves unable to carry on the school. Then the local authority would go to the Commissioners and say the Church people could not carry on the school and accordingly ask that it should be handed over to them. That was the course of affairs. If the noble Lord meant to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Church could raise the money by her own unaided efforts, then it was quite true they could go on and nobody, as he understood, could prevent it, but there would be no Government grant.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That is correct.
  *LORD ROBERTSONsaid he believed it was accurate, and he did not think it was reasonable to expect him, of all people, to try to evade a difficult question. He now turned to the question of the extended facilities. He found in Section 5 exactly what he found in the previous section, and that was a manifest intention to keep the Church out of the facilities. Apart from the limitation of area and of population they had all sorts of fences to take; they had to go through the ballot or inquiry, or this and that, and then finally the thing could be gone back
  1298
  upon as soon as the figures adjusted themselves, or were adjusted, so as to enable the local authority to withdraw this power. He had treated this of such importance because he wished to concentrate attention upon the position of the Church of England in the matter. He noticed, as a very curious result, that the Government had been afraid to put in a direct appeal from the local authority with the effect that the superior power could order the thing to-be done. What happened when the appeal was found to be just? The school remained a State-aided school; and accordingly the whole scheme was upset in favour of the Roman Catholic schools. They were, when they could satisfy the Commissioners, to revert to the position before 1902, and they would therefore have a set of Roman Catholic schools on the old system before 1902 while everybody else was elsewhere. He asked the House to permit him to call its attention to the very grave question that this was private property, private in the best sense of the term, because it was charitable property. The noble Lords opposite had—he did not say unfairly—very fully developed the point that the State had met the givers of those gifts in a handsome way. Sometimes, however, as the most rev. Prelate had pointed out, the contributions from the State had been so small that they were nothing more than an imprimatur of the effort made by voluntary contributions. This was the taking over of those large properties in order to divert them to purposes substantially different, to Cowper-Templeism from the Church of England. What was the reason of it? Was it that the principle was wrong; was it that it was impossible for this country at this time of day to sanction the giving of public money where doctrinal or dogmatic religion was being taught? If it was not that, what was it? He would tell them what it was in a moment, but he would ask them to solve the problem for themselves by an easy test. He was quite certain they had received eager and unswerving support from the Liberal Members for Scotland, and, if they asked them or their own Education Department, they would learn that dogmatic teaching of a most absolute kind was common in the board schools.

  1299
  They taught the Shorter Catechism, in which Predestination and all the mysteries of that scheme of religion were found, to children, and yet he had never heard that it had shocked the consciences of noble Lords opposite. He knew, having been a dissenter from this doctrine himself, that he had paid rates and taxes for the support of that form of religion, but he had never yet been in prison. If the desire of the conscience, or whatever was the proper name for it, to have satisfaction was acute upon this question, surely they were entitled to ask whether a Bill would be brought in for Scotland to prevent the teaching of dogmatism. He had promised to say what he thought was the real reason for the Bill, but he had reserved his opinion until he had heard the speeches of the three Cabinet Ministers, to which he had listened with the most profound attention. He acknowledged the graceful and literary diction of the President of the Council, but he was involved in the details of a very complicated measure, and he could not say he obtained a very clear insight into the necessity or scope or the gist of the measure. He must not, however, omit the Minister for Agriculture. He could not say with great respect to him that he gathered more information from him on the subject, but he certainly learned much of his own heroic virtues and intentions. He heard also the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and again he must take leave to remark that he derived great satisfaction from the conclusive evidence the speech afforded that so little of his time was abstracted from the affairs of the Admiralty and devoted to these miscellaneous topics. He mentioned those speeches because they afforded a glimpse of the proceedings of the Cabinet Council. What coherent or intelligent policy was represented by these utterances? The great Liberal Party, with all its mandates, had felt itself unable to cope with the disestablishment of the Church of England, but, deprived of that eager spoil, it had thought that that deficiency in their programme might be made up by setting up Nonconformity in the schools. That and nothing else was the explanation of this measure. It was idle to say that the Cowper-Temple clause, which was merely.negative and
  1300
  prohibitive of definite creed, represented in terms Nonconformity, but, when they found that those who were unanimously agreed and eager in support of the measure were the Nonconformists, and that all the dogmatic religions were against them, he thought it was legitimate to say that they were the people who were welcoming, if not inspiring, it. If that was so, he thought the Party on his side of the House had good reason to congratulate themselves on the position in which they stood. One of the pristine traditions of the Conservative Party had been its attachment and support to the Church of England, and that not merely in the old days when there was privilege and the prejudice which attached to privilege, but in the modern days when the Church of England had struck deep root into the democracy of the country, and when the future of the Church of England was bound up, not with the privileged classes, but with the whole population. The Liberal Party had done this for them: they had united the Church which formerly upon some subjects had been a little divided; and they had put into their hands a momentous weapon of political warfare. The people of the country had a warm feeling towards the Church of England and towards fair play, and when they saw that the Opposition were identifying themselves, in the defence of the Church, with the cause of fair play, he did not doubt, in the utter barrenness of argument in support of the Bill, that it would be ultimately defeated.
  *LORD REAYsaid he admitted that the point of view from which he looked at the Bill was very different from that of the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken. In his impressive speech yesterday the most rev. Prelate seemed to him to acknowledge the merits of the Act of 1870 and to regret it was no longer the educational code. To a great extent he shared that regret, but the Act of 1902 had undoubtedly made a return to the Act of 1870 impossible. He always considered that the principles of the Act of 1870 were based upon a solid foundation. He thought they might assume that the exclusion of religion from the school was not desired

  1301
  by any large section of the community, and that experiments in secularism would be very likely to break down as they had broken down in Birmingham and elsewhere. There was a difference of opinion as to the method of the recognition of religion. He was pleased to hear the admissions of a noble Lord opposite—Lord Ampthill—that a Bill had to be introduced establishing public control and also a national system of education. That was the origin of the Bill. There should be in every parish in the country a school to which parents could send their children without fear of their hearing anything which was opposed to their own principles; but the great majority of parents wished to have the Scriptures taught to their children in accordance with Christian principles, in accordance with the Apostles' Creed. That was what the Cowper-Temple clause allowed. It did not introduce a new religion. It accepted Christianity in the form which was common to all the Churches, which divided them least. It excluded formularies, it did not exclude dogma. It could be given by teachers to whatever denomination they belonged. It was the foundation on which the Churches could build their own specific doctrinal views. It was neither Nonconformist nor Church of England. Presbyterians had a distinct creed and distinct formularies—and the noble and learned Lord would not deny that they were dogmatic — but they did not insist that they should be taught, not because they were indifferent, but because they recognised the impossibility of insisting on denominational teaching south of the Tweed in public elementary schools. That applied to other Nonconformist bodies. No distinctive Nonconformist principles were taught, and the children of parents who were attached to the Church of England would not hear anything opposed to the creed of the Church; and experience showed that a great number of parents belonging to the Church of England were satisfied with the religious instruction given in provided schools by the teachers. He had no hesitation in stating that the religious instruction given in the London Council schools had been in the highest degree beneficial to thousands of children and that hardly any difficulty
  1302
  had been experienced in carrying out the syllabus of instruction. He had been informed by those who were concerned in the management of board and of voluntary schools that there was hardly any difference between the method of Bible instruction, and that the only difference was that in the voluntary schools the Catechism was taught. If facilities were given in the transferred schools for the Catechism — and he did not anticipate the difficulties on which the noble and learned Lord laid so much stress — the difference would not be perceptible. The transfer of Church schools to the local education authority was inevitable as soon as the voluntary element almost entirely disappeared. It was foreseen. They must never forget to render to the Church of England their gratitude for its erection and maintenance of schools in former days, but the Act of 1902 was an admission that the State alone could grapple with the educational needs of the country. The answer to the noble and learned Lord's question why this Bill was inevitable was a very simple one, viz., that the Act of 1902 transferred the voluntary schools to the rates. The Church of England claimed to be the national Church. As such it was comprehensive, and various schools of theology were represented in it. Much hostility had been displayed to this Bill, but he had seen no assertion that the Church was prepared to undertake what had been transferred to the State. It would be well if so great and so influential a body as the Church of England accepted, as a national Church, a national solution of the educational problem and cooperated with the State in preserving the Christian character of the schools. Many eminent men in the Church, and the Bishop of Ripon, in his eloquent speech yesterday, had clearly pointed out the danger of an irreconcilable attitude. The argument that no religious education was of value which was not conducted on denominational lines and not directed to the aim of attaching the children to a particular denomination struck him as a negation of the transcendent efficacy and power of Christianity. Christian teaching could be given to the children of Christian parents by Christian teachers. That teaching was given in 9,000 schools

  1303
  to 3,000,000 scholars, and no serious difficulty had arisen. It was not intended to detach the children from the denomination to which they belonged, and he had not heard that it had had that effect. No one had ever contended that it was injurious, only that it was insufficient. In as far as it was insufficient in transferred schools, there would be the two hours a week, the whole of Saturday and the Sunday school to fill the gaps. Apart from the special facilities schools, if the direct influence of the Church of England was not to be the same in the future as in the past its indirect influence was not threatened. In the training of teachers, in the drawing up of the syllabus, in watching the effect given to the syllabus, in controlling the facilities for denominational instruction it would have a field of operations in which it could co-operate with all those who desired to uphold the Christian character of the schools. There need not be any antagonism between the Church of England and Nonconformists. On the essential truths of Christianity there was no difference of opinion. The Cowper-Temple clause did not offer any impediment to instruction in those truths. It was an injustice to the children not to teach them the truths on which all Christians were agreed because at a certain point differences arose. These were not vague aspirations. His experience of the London School Board enabled him to state with confidence that Christian teaching could be given in public elementary schools which was approved by parents who were members of the Church of England as well as by those who were Nonconformists, although no tests were applied to the teachers. As regarded their knowledge of the Scriptures, the children of the London County Council schools were not inferior to those of any other schools. He did not believe that anyone acquainted with the facts would desire to alter the system, and he was convinced that the adoption of what was called the right of entry would not give such good results and that it would injure the religious teaching and the discipline of the schools. The London syllabus had been generally approved and deserved the praise which had been bestowed on it. It was undoubtedly desirable that the teachers
  1304
  should be well qualified to give the religious instruction. The University of London had provided at their Training College for instruction in Scripture teaching, and the Senate of the University of London was undoubtedly a body representative of very diverse opinions. Religious instruction was the salt of our educational system. It was given by the teacher in accordance with his convictions, and tests, if they were applied, would not give any security for the reality of the instruction. They had to rely on the teacher and to trust him. He could not conceive a teacher undertaking to teach truths in which he did not believe. That was a sufficient safeguard. No tests were imposed on the teachers at public schools, and Mr. Page, at a recent meeting, over which Lord Jersey presided, had said that nine-tenths of the religious teaching in those schools was simple and un-sectarian. There was no provision in the Bill to ascertain whether a teacher who was willing to give religious instruction was fit to give it. The local authority would be able to ascertain it. He would remind the House of the interpretation given by Mr. Gladstone to the Cowper-Temple clause on June 30th, 1870. Mr. Gladstone said the object was—
  "To provide for the reading of the Scriptures and to exclude the use of Catechisms and distinctive formularies, but not beyond that to impose limitations upon the freedom of teaching. If we are to have teachers who are really to teach religion, that religion must spring out of their own hearts and consciences, and it will not submit to be confined by definitions so artificial and unreal as these [proposed in an Amendment]. "He must, when he finds occasion, refer to the motive of fear, to the motive of hope, and above all, to the motive of love.… It does not impose upon religious teaching that kind of restriction which would reduce it to a formality."
  The local authority was not forced to give religious teaching, and Mr. Forster stated, on June 30th, 1870, that—
  "the forcing of religious teaching on the local boards would have given strength and power to the small minority who now disapproved it, and an opposition to religious teaching would have been created in quarters where no such feeling at present existed."
  In giving the local authority a limited discretion with regard to the adoption of religious instruction and unlimited discretion with regard to its exclusion, the

  1305
  Bill simply continued the powers conferred in 1870—and it should be noticed—not interfered with by the Act of 1902. Leading Nonconformists in a recent declaration had declared in favour of instruction in Bible truth as an essential factor in the education of the young and that such instruction should not be inconsistent with the Apostles' Creed which represented the general consent of Christendom on the fundamental facts of the Christian religion. The Bishop of Ripon yesterday considered that declaration satisfactory, and he (the noble Lord) had no doubt that the large body of opinion in the Church of England represented by the right rev. Prelate could co-operate with the Nonconformists who held those views. In education continuity was desirable. Constant changes of system were undesirable. Those who were engaged in the schools were entitled to consideration. The local authorities who would have to carry out the provisions of the Bill would have to take into account the wishes of the parents of the children in the various localities. They might trust them, he thought, and the guidance they would receive from the Board of Education. The Bill is a compromise which was imperative if public control of the schools is to be adopted with a minimum of friction. But if we are to advance along the line of least resistance, if the children are to be educated in the fear of God, if the schools are to be in the real sense National, this Bill contains a practical solution of a very delicate problem. He would conclude with Mr. Gladstone's view of the Cowper-Temple clause—
  " We think it is the best mode in which we can recognise the prevailing and very general desire and conviction of the people for including religion in the career of education, within rate-founded schools, and that it is the most equitable manner in which, while imposing a certain limitation upon the discretion of local boards, we can on the one hand bring together the conflicting opinions of various parties and, on the other, if not wholly get rid of what may be called denominational controversies, yet in a very great degree abate their acrimony and diminish their range, besides in a large number of cases, abrogating them altogether."
  It was certainly the ardent wish of those interested in educational progress
  1306
  that there should be less denominational friction and acrimony and more unity of purpose.
  Further debate adjourned till tomorrow.

  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.
  FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended): Bill read 3a, and passed.

  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
  House in Committee according to order.
  Lord RIBBLESDALE in the Chair.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP said he was very anxious to meet the convenience of their Lordships, and, if it was in accordance with their wishes, he might move his Amendments together. They were drawn up in order to meet the wishes of certain opponents in another place. They did meet their wishes entirely, and the Bill, as amended by their Lordships, would have no opposition in the House of Commons.
  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.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Commons Amendments to Lords' Amendments, and Commons reason for

  1307
  disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to order).
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Perhaps it may be convenient that I should say a few words as to the position in which we find ourselves with regard to these Amendments. I would, in the first place, remind the House that this Bill passed through Committee with an amount of cordial support which Irish measures do not always receive. There was a general desire, not only that it should become law, but that it should become law as soon as possible and that the undoubted advantages which it confers upon the labourers of Ireland should be placed within their reach with as little delay as possible. Your Lordships inserted a considerable number of Amendments in the Bill, some of them Amendments of a very material importance, which I venture to think greatly improved the measure. There now remain three Amendments, with regard to which there is a difference of opinion. Perhaps I may call your Lordships' attention to those three Amendments. In the first place your Lordships struck out Section 4 of the Bill, under which the period of one month was substituted for a period of fourteen days, as that within which answers might be given to notices. The House of Commons has rejected that Amendment, has re-inserted Clause 4, and has substituted twenty-one days for the period of one month which your Lordships desire to have in the Bill. Then, my Lords, there are two other Amendments on page 7 and in Clause 11 of the Bill. Your Lordships in the first place struck out Sub-section (9), which enacted that in determining the amount of compensation payable to any person the arbitrator should not make any additional allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory, and further on, in the same clause, your Lordships added to Subsection (11) words which empowered the Court to decide whether the amount of costs which are limited by the Subsection to £10, should not, in certain cases, be exceeded. With regard to those three Amendments I would venture to express an opinion. The first Amendment—that which substitutes
  1308
  twenty-one days for a month—is not really a very material matter, and your Lordships need not think it necessary to insist upon your Amendment. The other two Amendments are, to my mind, of a much more serious nature, not only on account of their intrinsic importance, but because the objection of the House of Commons raises the important question of privilege, a question which has often been debated in this House. As to the value of those two Amendments I would only say that I am advised on very high authority that the first— that which precludes the arbitrator from making any additional allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory— really has very little effect and leaves the law very much where it is at present. The other Amendment—that which limits the cost in every case to £10—seems to me, I must say, to involve a very considerable hardship. I have been assured by many noble Lords with practical knowledge of the subject that there would be frequent cases where the payment of £10 would not be sufficient to cover the costs and where very great hardship might be placed upon the person who thus found himself compelled to accept the sum of £10 in satisfaction of a demand which might reasonably be fixed at a much higher point. The real importance of this Amendment lies in the fact that it raises the question of the privileges of the House of Commons. I think I correctly represent your Lordships' feeling when I say that this House has always wished to respect the privileges of the House of Commons in regard to financial legislation. But the precise limits within which we might or might not interfere with such legislation have, as far as I am aware, never been strictly defined and this House has been careful on more than one occasion to make it clear that we do not accept what I may call the extreme interpretation of the House of Commons claim. We have never admitted that we were precluded from legislating upon questions of principle merely because of the application of those principles involved indirectly or remotely a charge upon the rates. I need not point out to the House that if that doctrine were to be accepted in its extreme form, your Lordships would be absolutely precluded

  1309
  from dealing with a great part of the most important legislation which comes before you. It would have been really at many points a paralysis of the powers of this House. Each House, however, has been tenacious of its own view, and the matter is one about which no doubt a very acute controversy might conceivably arise. I should greatly regret that such a controversy should arise in reference to this Bill, which hitherto has been conducted in the most amicable and considerate manner. There is also this to be said, that if such a controversy were to be initiated it would involve postponement of the further consideration of the measure until much later in the year and thereby retard the moment when it can come into operation. In these circumstances it seemed to us that the case was one where, if possible, a reasonable settlement was desirable, and we have to propose to your Lordships what we believe to be such a settlement. It is as follows: In regard to the first Amendment, as I have already said, we do not propose to raise any objection. We do not insist upon our Amendment. In regard to the Amendment dealing with the question of cost we propose not to insist upon it, but we suggest a form of words which I understand from the noble Earl opposite will probably be acceptable. The words runs thus—
  " Provided, where the Court is satisfied in any particular ease that, owing to the difficulty of showing title, the cost properly or necessarily incurred in respect to such payment amounted to a larger sum, the limit of £10 may be exceeded."
  Those words have the same effect as the Amendment of Lord Donoughmore which your Lordships carried, and I suggest if those words are agreed to that your Lordships may accept them in lieu of the Amendment of Lord Donoughmore. I suggest that we do not insist on our other Amendment relating to the question of compensation in cases of compulsory purchase, but I am extremely anxious that your Lordships should not be held to do anything involving a surrender of your right to legislate upon such questions as these and it seems to me that the best mode of guarding this House against the use of this case as a precedent which might after be cited with
  1310
  the object of restricting the powers of your Lordships' House would be that we should agree to place upon our journal some such Resolution as that which I now propose to read to your Lordships. It might run thus—
  "That this House, although not insisting on its Amendments in page 7, to which the Commons have disagreed, maintains its right to legislate with regard to the principles of valuation upon which property may be taken for public purposes."
  I think if that Resolution is agreed to by your Lordships and remains upon our journal it will render it impossible for anyone to contend that in regard to this particular episode we have accepted any other view of the rights of this House than that which I have endeavoured to express to your Lordships.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid that he wanted, with the permission of the House and as the mover of the Resolution, to say a few words on the subject. When he moved his Resolution, by which Sub-section (9) was thrown out, which sub-section the House of Commons now proposed to re-insert, he had not the slightest idea that it could be construed into a breach of privilege. Nor, he was sure, had His Majesty's Government any such idea, otherwise the objection would have been raised at the time. He had raised the question on the Second Reading of the Bill, but neither he nor other noble Lords, when they took exception to the principle of the sub-section—that the arbitrator should be prohibited from taking compulsion into account—knew that there would be any difficulty in the sense of a question of privilege being raised, or that there would be any difficulty in moving an Amendment on the subject. If they had known this it was most probable they would have assumed a different attitude on the Second Reading. He spoke with the utmost diffidence on the question of privilege. An objection was made that the Amendment imposed an additional charge on the ratepayer. It did not necessarily do anything of the kind; all it did was to leave the arbitrator unfettered as to whether he would consider compensation or not. It might be argued that any Amendment of any

  1311
  measure dealing with the public service might in some contingency or other impose an additional charge upon the ratepayer or taxpayer, and if that principle were accepted the legislative power of their Lordships' House would be narrowed in a most dangerous manner. He was glad, therefore, that the noble Marquess did not accept the principle that privilege was involved in this matter. The question, however, would naturally arise in the mind of anyone who had followed what had occurred in their Lordships' House, that the decision in the matter either turned on the question of privilege or did not. They were assured that it did not turn on a matter of privilege. It was therefore a very remarkable thing and they in Ireland had the right to complain that the House, having expressed its sense of the injustice of the provision by throwing it out on Monday by a large majority, should consent to its re-instatement on Thursday. The matter was not in itself a large one, They objected to the provision, not so much on account of the sum involved as to it being in their minds a dangerous precedent. They still adhered to their objection, but after the decision of the noble Marquess they were naturally powerless to take any further action in the matter. They could only hope hat in any future measure this would not be accepted as a precedent and that any claim they made for fair treatment would receive more consideration than on this occasion.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid the House had determined to reject Sub-clause (9) and they objected most strongly to putting in words that were a restriction on the arbitrator. It was a question for their Lordships to decide whether the Resolution the noble Marquess had suggested really kept the privileges of this House as they were. They felt in Ireland that their privileges had been encroached upon, because if the clause were put back into the Bill the arbitrator was restricted. Their Lordships' decision the other night was given by a majority of fifty-four, and if they were content to reverse it they, the noble Lords from Ireland, would have to bow to that decision. They must, however, remember that the
  1312
  question of compulsion was much more serious to them in Ireland than it was in England. Compulsion was a principle which might be applied to very large measures, but they must bow to the decision of their Lordships' House, and if their Lordships were of opinion that such a protest put on the journals of the House covered the privileges of the House, all he had to say was that he bowed to that decision. He could not utter another word on the subject. They had entered their protest.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am exceedingly sorry the noble Marquess (Lord Ripon) is not able to be in his place. He would have spoken with an authority derived from his unique experience of this House which is infinitely greater than I can lay claim to. I fully endorse what was said by Lord Lansdowne as to the general consideration shown by noble Lords opposite in dealing with the different clauses, and I think they will admit we did not show an unconciliatory spirit. We were able to meet Lord Ash bourne and also the noble Earl who spoke last, on an Amendment of some substance, and I think therefore we showed that we were desirous as far as possible to meet noble Lords in this matter. As regards the different Amendments made by the Commons, I understand, so far as Clause 4 is concerned, that noble Lords opposite agree to the suggestion made by the House of Commons which was the same as that made by my noble friend in the course of the debate in Committee here. I understand the noble Marquess opposite proposes that the Amendment to leave out subsection 9 of Clause 11 should not be insisted upon. I think it right to remind your Lordships that the question of privilege was not raised in another place by the Government but by the Speaker, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland when moving, as it was his duty to move, that that House should disagree with your Lordships' Amendment, explicitly stated that he did so in obedience to the ruling of the Speaker. I think I may be able in some degree to reassure the two noble Lords from Ireland with regard to the Amendment of Clause 4. They have in mind not so much what may happen under the operation of this particular

  1313
  clause as what might happen under some future circumstances in Ireland. They fix their mind, I think, upon the possibility of some general scheme of land purchase to which a similar principle might be applied. I express no opinion whatever as to the probability or possibility of such a scheme, but I do point out explicitly that I do not think that their alarm in this matter is well founded, because the case which has to be provided for here, namely the purchase of small plots of ground by local authorities, is completely different from cases which might arise if there were a general scheme for the purchase of land from landlords by the tenants or by any body existing, or not existing, similar to the Land Commission. If—and I again speak quite hypothetically—any such scheme were to be formed the whole subject of the conditions of purchase would, in my opinion, have to be considered on the then merits of the case. I now pass to the second Amendment in Clause 11, the words of which were read out by the noble Marquess. I merely have to say that those words meet with our entire approval, and we are very glad that the clause should go back to,the other House in that shape. I think, however, I ought to point out that it is more than probable that on its arrival there the clause, in its new form, will be declared by the officers of the House to constitute a breach of privilege. It is always open, however, to the other House to waive what it considers to be a breach of privilege, and, I should hope, there is a very strong probability indeed that having regard to the fact that the clause is sent down in a different form, the House of Commons will agree to waive its privilege and that the clause in that form will form part of the Bill. As regards the general effect of what has occurred, I take it that the House of Commons will retain their opinion that both these clauses constitute a breach of their privileges, and I think it is evident from what fell from the noble Marquess that the majority of your Lordships are of a different opinion. And it is with that view that the words read out by the noble Marquess are intended to be placed on the Journals of the House. We on this side offer no objection to their being so placed, and the matter therefore stands thus. The
  1314
  question between the two Houses will not in any sense have been decided, but each will retain its own opinion as to the existence or non-existence of a breach of privilege in these particular cases, and any discussion on the general question of privilege will by these means be avoided on this occasion. Perhaps I may, in conclusion, be allowed to say that if this happy result is achieved I shall be exceedingly glad both because it would be a great regret if the two Houses were to come into collision on this matter, and also on the ground if this particular measure were to be sacrificed to a difference of opinion between the two Houses there would he acute disappointment in Ireland, where it has been looked forward to with the greatest satisfaction during the last few months.
  The EARL of DUNRAVENhoped the solution would be considered a satisfactory one. After all, they had to remember that the Bill had been amended in the most important of all matters, that of securing judicial appeal, and that that Amendment had not been objected to. The other Amendments as regarded the option of an arbitrator to add something to his award in the case of land being taken compulsorily, so far as it affected this particular Bill, was not really of very great importance. He thought they might feel satisfied that in not insisting upon their Amendment they were not in any way raising a precedent which might be applied to legislation of a different character. It appeared to him that the words which the noble Marquess suggested were, practically speaking, with a very little alteration, carrying out the third Amendment which the House of Commons had objected to, and he thought their Lordships would be well advised to be perfectly satisfied. He did not think it was at all necessary for him or for anyone else on the present occasion to go into the question as to whether the Amendments involved any possible abuse of privilege. It passed his wit as an ordinary layman how the Amendments of their Lordships could by any possibility necessarily add one farthing to the rates, seeing they were merely giving an option to an arbitrator to add something for compulsion which he was not obliged to exercise, and which

  1315
  even if he did exercise need not of necessity add in any way to the rates. For, although the money was allocated under the Bill to acquire land and build cottages, there was nothing in the measure to say what land should be acquired. The arbitrator might limit the land to be acquired, and in that way his award need not add to the rates.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he hoped nothing he said would renew any possible controversy. The Motion of the noble Marquess, in his opinion, ought to be passed unanimously. The House was face to face with a much larger extension of the claim of privilege than he had ever seen in his experience. He could, however, comfort his friends from Ireland by saying that he did not think the Amendments were of much importance one way or the other. He had been an arbitrator and no arbitrator need disclose whether he had added 10 per cent, for compulsion to his calculations. All that he had to do was simply to pitch his calculations a little bit higher. Providing they had a competent and honest arbitrator he did not think it mattered whether the words were in the section or not. He should not have risen at all if it had not been for one remark which fell from the President of the Council in his conciliatory speech. He said it was not the Government which raised the question of privilege. Of course it was not; that was not the way these things were done. The question of privilege was always raised in one particular way by the officers, who very properly took the opinion of the supreme authority in the other House. The point for them was not the source from which the question arose, but the fact that it had been raised and decided in this particular way. He would give them an illustration of what this might cover. If the other House were to pass a Bill saying that part of a house or property should be taken for public health purposes and their Lordships were to put in the clause an Amendment that they were not to take the half but the whole, then that would in just the same sense as the words of the Amendments to the present Bill be an addition to the responsibilities and rating of the
  1316
  local authority. And that was a thing that had been done scores of times.
  It was absolutely impossible to overrate the importance of the principle which was now being raised for the first time, and he was sincerely glad that the noble Marquess proposed to put on the Journal of the House words with the avowed purpose of declaring that they at any rate did not admit that wide interpretation of the question of privilege. He had, in saying that, carefully avoided one single word of censure or reproach upon anyone who was not amenable to this House. The noble Marquess, the late Lord Salisbury, on these matters always used to say that each House was the guardian and judge of its own privileges. They had been enabled by the promptitude of the noble Marquess and by the conciliatory spirit in which he had been met by the President of the Council to avoid any discussion on the merits of the question on this occasion. He was very glad it had been settled in that way, and he cordially agreed that if this were allowed and admitted by their Lordships it would be a most dangerous admission so far as their privileges were concerned.
  Moved, That the omission of Clause 4 with which the Commons have disagreed be not insisted on and that Amendments made by the Commons to the said Clause be agreed to.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Moved, That Amendment on page 7 to Clause 11, in line 30, to which Commons have disagreed be not insisted on. —(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Moved, That Amendment to Clause 11 page 7, in line 41, to which the Commons have disagreed, be not insisted on, but that in lieu thereof the following Amendment be agreed to: "Provided where the Court is satisfied in any particular case, that owing to the difficulty of showing title, the cost properly and necessarily incurred in respect of such payment amounted

  1317
  to larger sum, the limit of £10 may be exceeded."—-(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Moved, That the following Resolution be placed upon the Journals of this House:—"That this House, although not insisting in its Amendments in page 7, to which the Commons have disagreed, maintains its right to legislate with regard to the principles of valuation upon which property may be taken for public purposes."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  On Question, agreed to, and ordered to be entered on the Journals.
  Bill returned to the Commons, with the Amendment.

  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Third Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow. (No. 204.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock a.m., till Twelve o'clock noon.