Sitting of 3 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edderton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS, INCLUDING TELEPHONES.
  Account presented, showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March, 1906, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 369.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 18, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Belgium respecting Commercial Travellers' Samples. Signed at Brussels, 10th November, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3734 to 3736 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to Native Disturbances in Natal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education for the year 1904–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled attention to the fact that a notice of Motion in the name of Sir James Woodhouse, who was no longer a member of the House, stood upon the Notice Paper. He asked the Speaker to direct that it be expunged.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the officials of the House had anticipated the hon. Member, and the notice did not appear in the Order Paper to-day.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It was on the Paper that I saw.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have the order book in my hand, and it certainly does not appear there.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Pay of Dockyard Workers.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in reference to the statement just issued by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, whether he can fix a date when an answer may be expected to the following requests which are stated therein to be still under consideration, viz., that smaller deductions may be made from the pay of hired men when placed on the establishment, and that overtime pay may not be subject to deduction, and that the wages of all chargemen of the principal trades at Chatham and Sheerness shall be assimilated and a definite scale of pay instituted.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am not at present in a position to say when the decision will be announced in regard to the question of the deduction made from the pay of hired men when transferred to the establishment. As regards the other two points mentioned in the Question, instructions will be issued to the yards at an early date.

  Salary of F. M'Govern, Postman at Curlough.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster - General whether he has received a Resolution from representatives of the people in Curlough, county Cavan, asking that Francis M'Govern, postman on the Bawnboy to Curlough, walk, do have his salary increased; and will the matter have his sympathetic consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not yet seen this application, but I can assure the hon. Member that it shall receive careful consideration.

  Damage to Postmen's Capes at Cheltenham.
  MR. SEARS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Cheltenham postmen are forbidden to hang clothing upon the hooks in the retiring room apparently provided for that purpose; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this order, the men are obliged to put their capes,

  541
  etc., in their lockers, and that in five cases damage to the capes has resulted, and the men concerned have been fined 2s. each; and whether, in the circumstances, he will order the repayment of this money.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will inquire into this matter and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Vacancies for Telephone Exchange Managers.
  MR. WILES: To ask the Postmaster-General when the vacancies for telephone exchange managers announced in the Post Office Circular, No. 729, on the 21st August, will be filled; whether he can state the number of vacancies which exist; and whether the appointments will be announced in the Post Office Circular.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The selection of officers for the situations in question, five in number, is under consideration, and I hope to be able to arrive at a decision in the matter very shortly. Appointments of this nature are not announced in the Post Office Circular.

  Portadown Post Office Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster - General whether a revision of the staff of the post office in Portadown is contemplated; if so, how long has the question been under consideration and can he state the approximate date upon which a decision in the case is likely to be arrived at; whether under such a revision a considerable increase to the indoor staff is intended, and, if so, what is the probable number; whether it is proposed that the present staff shall be obliged to continue for a further considerable period to perform the duties which in course of time will be distributed over an increased staff; and is he aware that some members of the present staff are and have been for some time past discharging the duties incident to the position of supervisors but without official recognition.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Proposals for a revision of the indoor staff at Portadown post office were submitted in February last. The revision provides for a small increase to the indoor staff, and will, I hope, be sanc-
  542
  tioned shortly. Temporary force has been provided to cope with the increased work pending the carrying out of the revision. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question I will have inquiry made.

  Withdrawal of Cavalry from Scotland.
  MR. MCCRAE: To ask the Secretary of state for War whether, having regard to the feeling existing in Scotland as to the proposed withdrawal of cavalry from Piershill Barracks, he can make any statement as to the policy of the War Office with regard to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am well aware of the feeling alluded to, but I am not at present in a position to make any announcement as regards the future of these barracks further than I have already done in this House and in a letter I have addressed to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh in response to a communication from him.

  Allowance to Sheriffs.
  MR. TILLETT,: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a petition presented by the sheriffs of certain citiesand towns being counties of themselves, praying that similar allowances may be made to them as are made to sheriffs of counties at large for, amongst other matters, advertising assizes, the attendance of the sheriff and under-sheriff upon His Majesty's judges of assize, the use of the sheriff's carriage for His Majesty's judges, the impanelling and summoning of jurors, refreshments, board and lodging of jurors when ordered to be detained, and for the fee paid to a common hangman for carrying out a sentence of death; and whether, seeing that in the case of counties, of cities, and towns, the whole of such expenses fall upon the sheriffs themselves, save in two or three cities and towns where by ancient custom allowances for certain of the above expenses are payable out of the boroughs' funds, he will say what steps he is prepared to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) Long-established practice is the reason for making grants in these cases to sheriffs of counties who are appointed

  543
  by the Crown, and for not making them to sheriffs of cities and towns who are appointed by the corporations, and I do not think that there is anything in the circumstances of the present time to call for a departure from that practice.

  Strength of Militia Battalion.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the full strength of a Militia battalion, and what

  Names of Battalions below 500 Officers and Men.

  Strength of the Permanent Staffs detailed for service with each.

  Strength on 1st November, 1906.

  Officers.

  Militiamen.

  3rd Battalion Royal West Surrey Regiment

  30

  21

  465

  3rd Battalion Royal Lancaster Regiment

  30

  12

  451

  4th Battalion Royal Lancaster Regiment

  30

  14

  403

  3rd Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment

  24

  15

  379

  4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment

  24

  11

  479

  3rd Battalion Devonshire Regiment

  24

  16

  409

  4th Battalion Devonshire Regiment

  24

  16

  357

  3rd Battalion Somersetshire Light Infantry

  24

  14

  242

  4th Battalion Somersetshire Light Infantry

  30

  17

  338

  3rd Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers

  30

  11

  421

  3rd Battalion Cheshire Regiment

  30

  13

  469

  3rd Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  24

  14

  347

  4th Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  24

  13

  417

  4th Battalion South Wales Borderers

  24

  10

  388

  3rd Battalion King's Own Scottish Borderers

  30

  17

  469

  3rd Battalion Scottish Rifles

  36

  9

  418

  3rd Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers

  24

  15

  250

  4th Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers

  24

  12

  366

  5th Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers

  24

  15

  414

  3rd Battalion Gloucestershire Regiment

  30

  15

  404

  4th Battalion Gloucestershire Regiment

  24

  15

  475

  is the strength of the permanent staff detailed thereto; the number and names of the battalions below 500 officers and men; and the strength of the permanent staffs detailed for service with each.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Return showing the number and names of the Militia battalions below 500 officers and men, and the strength of the permanent staffs detailed for service with each. Dated 1st November, 1906.

  Names of Battalions below 500 Officers and Men.

  Strength of the Permanent Staff detailed for service with each.

  Strength on 1st November, 1906.

  Officers.

  Militiamen.

  6th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment

  30

  13

  476

  3rd Battalion Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry

  24

  13

  205

  3rd Battalion Border Regiment

  24

  8

  432

  4th Battalion Border Regiment

  24

  10

  209

  3rd Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment

  30

  19

  361

  3rd Battalion Dorsetshire Regiment

  24

  14

  311

  4th Battalion Oxfordshire Regiment

  24

  14

  286

  3rd Battalion Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment

  30

  11

  414

  3rd Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment

  30

  16

  474

  3rd Battalion Royal Berkshire Regiment

  24

  12

  339

  3rd Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry

  30

  9

  407

  4th Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry

  24

  8

  293

  5th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps

  17

  8

  380

  8th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps

  17

  5

  346

  3rd Battalion Wiltshire Regiment

  24

  15

  403

  3rd Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers

  30

  12

  473

  4th Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers

  20

  10

  248

  5th Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers

  20

  11

  244

  3rd Battalion Connaught Rangers

  20

  8

  392

  4th Battalion Connaught Rangers

  24

  7

  292

  3rd Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  25

  10

  415

  3rd Battalion Leinster Regiment

  24

  10

  433

  4th Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers

  27

  17

  377

  3rd Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers

  24

  11

  462

  6th Battalion Rifle Brigade

  30

  16

  439

  Civil Service Rules of Seniority.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the rule of seniority among clerks of the higher grade of the second division of the Civil Service; does it depend on the service and standing of the clerk in the higher grade, as in a distinct class, or on the total length of service in the second division, irrespective of the date of promotion into the higher grade.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No rule on the specific question has been promulgated, and, in view of the fact that promotions depend on merit and not on seniority, the Treasury thinks it unnecessary and undesirable to make any rule on the subject.

  Employment of Natives in Higher Branches of Indian Civil Service.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Committee on the extended employment of natives of India in the higher branches of the public service may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand my hon. friend to refer to the Committee of the Governor General's Council appointed to consider reforms in the Indian Councils, and I believe that its Report will shortly be considered by the Government of India.

  Purchase of the Estate of Purefoy Poe, of Callan, County Kilkenny.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire of the Estates Commissioners if negotiations for the purchase of the Rossmore estate of Purefoy Poe, Esquire, Harley-park, Callan, county Kilkenny, have been completed; if so, has the untenanted land on this estate been included in the purchase; that provision, if any, has been made to restore to their holdings on this estate the representatives of the evicted tenants John Whelan, junior, and John Whelan senior; and if, in the event of the sale of the untenanted lands, due consideration will be given to the enlargement of uneconomic holdings thereon, and the balance, if any, kept in reserve for the restoration to
  548
  holdings of bona fide evicted tenants, many of whom reside in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that eleven purchase agreements signed by tenants on the estate in question were lodged with them in January last. The lands comprised in the originating application include 147 acres, which appear to be an evicted holding, and which the vendor asks the Commissioners to purchase for distribution by them, and 873 acres consisting of the vendor's demesne, which he proposes to repurchase. No applications for reinstatement have been received from John Whelan, senior, or John Whelan, junior. An application has been received from John Phelan, and this has been referred to an inspector for inquiry and report. The question of the purchase and re-sale of the vendor's demesne and of the untenanted land generally will receive due consideration from the Commissioners when they come to deal with the estate.

  Police as Caretakers of an Evicted Farm at Stoneyford.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by whose orders the police at Stoneyford, county Kilkenny, are acting as caretakers of an evicted farm on the Glauntha estate of the Rev. Mr. Prichard, from which Mr. Richard Reddy was evicted; whether extra police have been. added to the station at Stoneyford for that purpose; whether he is aware that cattle supposed to belong to the owner or occupier of the said farm did damage by trespassing on the corn crop of a neighbouring farmer, named Lee; that, for the purpose of recovering compensation for this damage, Lee demanded the name of the occupier from the police, and was refused; and whether he will order that Lee and others who may suffer from such trespass as in this case will be allowed an opportunity of recovering damages.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Inspector-General that the police do not act as caretakers of the farm referred to, though they frequently patrol near it for the preservation of the peace. No extra police have been

  549
  sent to Stoneyford station for any purpose. In June last Mr. Lee reported to the local police that some cattle had trespassed on his cornfield, and asked the police for the name of the owner. The sergeant informed Mr. Lee that he should make his complaint to the owner's herd, adding that the police did not interfere in disputes as to trespass. The Inspector-General informs me that the sergeant's action was proper, as it is not the duty of the police to supply persons with material for civil proceedings. If such proceedings were instituted upon information furnished by the police, they might become involved in matters which do not concern them.

  Issue of Loan for Building New Schools at Ferns County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant: of Ireland when the loans for the building of the proposed new schools in the parish of Ferns, county Wexford, will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they cannot yet name the precise date when the grants, not loans, for the building of these schools will be issued. The question of the floor-space per pupil to be allowed in the designs for new schoolhouses is now under consideration, and as soon as a decision upon that point is arrived at, which I trust will be very shortly, it may be expected that the issue of building grants can proceed forthwith.

  Sale of Grazing Farms on the Gore-Booth Estate.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the grazing farms of Cletty and Ardrea, on the Gore-Booth, Ballymote, County Sligo, estate, comprising 135 and 354 acres respectively, were offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, in March, 1905, by Sir Joselyn Gore-Booth, with the consent of the occupying tenant of one of these farms, Mr. Robert Gorman; and, if so, will he explain the cause of delay in completing purchase negotiations.
  550
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that last week they made an offer to Sir Joselyn Gore-Booth for the purchase of the lands of Cletty, which are in his own occupation, and also for the lands of Ardrea and Cloonagashel, which are at present in the occupation of Robert Gorman. The owner has not yet informed the Commissioners whether he is prepared to accept their offer.

  Sale of Tulinaglug Estate, County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Tulinaglug, situate near Tubbercurry, County Sligo, and until recently owned jointly by Messrs. Phibbs and Cogan, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board by the present owners, Messrs. Martin Phibbs and Bernard Martin, or whether any portion of this estate, which is in Chancery, has been offered for sale to either of these departments recently.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to both branches of this Question is in the negative.

  Puchase of the Begley Estate, Claremorris.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Begley estate, comprising the townlands of Iskerlavally and Drimneen, in the electoral division of Claremorris, union of Claremorris, has been offered for sale by the landlord to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, what price has he asked, and what number of years purchase, if any, has been offered by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that the property in question has not been offered for sale to the Board.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of Joseph Coote, of Carne, County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application

  551
  for reinstatement from Joseph Coote, who was evicted in December, 1893, from his farm in Carne, Ballyjamesduff, County Cavan, by Lord Farnham; who is in possession of this farm now; and what prospect has this evicted tenant of being restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Joseph Coote an application for reinstatement, and have referred it to an inspector for inquiry. Until the Commissioners have received and considered the inspector's report they are unable to answer the remainder of the Question.

  Extension of Arklow Pier.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Government will allow the work of extending Arklow Pier to commence.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In reply to the hon. Baronet's Question of the 5th November,† I fully stated the position of affairs in respect of Arklow Harbour. The expert advisers of the Government are unanimously of opinion that the proposed extension of the pier would not effect the desired object, and might involve a lamentable waste of public money. They are further of opinion that the requirements of the case would be met by a continued dredging of the entrance to the harbour, and, moreover, that the necessity for dredging would not be diminished by the proposed extension of the pier. These views have been commended by the Government to the earnest consideration of the Arklow Harbour Board. It is not the intention of the Government to withhold the grant which has been promised for the improvement of the harbour, but it is obviously their duty to secure, so for as may be possible, that the grant to be made from public funds should be expended in such a way as to give the best results. All the £14,000 allotted will be spent upon the harbour; the only question is as to what mode of spending it will really benefit the town, the industrial development of which
  † See (4) Debates, clxiv, 93–94.
  552
  largely depends upon the harbour; and, in face of the strong opinion of their expert advisers, the Government must satisfy themselves, and, if possible, also satisfy local opinion, as to what that mode is.

  Grants to Fishermen on South-East Coast of Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will permit some portion of the money now utilised and lying to the credit of the Department of Agriculture, to be devoted to the assistance of the fishermen on the South-East Coast of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the purposes to which the unallocated balance of the endowment fund of the Department of Agriculture may be applied have received the consideration of the Agricultural Board, and it has been decided that this balance, amounting to about £130,000. is required to meet the present excess of annual expenditure over normal income for the purposes of agriculture and other rural industries, and sea fisheries, as defined in Section 30 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act of 1899. The Department point out that they have expended and are expending considerable sums of money on the improvement of fishery piers and harbours in connection with the South-East Coast fisheries, namely, at Arklow, in County Wicklow, at Courtown, Poulduff, and Slade, in County Wexford, and at Passage East, Dromore, Ballinagoul, and Ardmore, in County Waterford. The Department are not prepared, in the present state of their funds, to undertake further expenditure of this nature.

  Sale of Lord Orkney's Estate—Tenants Grazing and Turf Privileges.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lard-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application has been made to Lord Orkney, who has sold his estate to the tenants at Castle My, County Tipperary, for the purchase of a large cottage, with two acres of untenanted land on the estate, to be used as a school teacher's residence and a village hall,

  553
  formerly used by his gamekeeper; whether he is aware that Lord Orkney has given it to his bailiff, James Hynes, who holds 100 acres of land on this estate and 40 acres on others, and also has made him and his brother, Andrew Hynes, tenants of large portions of cutaway bog and thus deprived the small tenants of grazing and turf privileges which they have enjoyed for over fifty years; and whether, under these circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will sanction the sale of the estate without inquiring into this matter and inspecting the small holdings, and, if possible, seeing that the cottage be obtained for the above useful project.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the circumstances alleged in the; Question. Purchase agreements signed by James Hynes and Andrew Hynes in respect of holdings on the estate of the Karl of Orkney were lodged with the Commissioners in July last, and the circumstances connected with the purchase of these holdings will be duly inquired into when the estate is being inspected.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of William Maher, of Thurles.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to reinstate William Maher, of Ballycahill, Thurles, county Tipperary, in his holding, evicted tenant on the property of Dr. Lambe Atthall; whether an inspector of the Estates Commissioners has yet made any inspection of it; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estate Commissioners inform me that they have not received an application for reinstatement from William Maher, and have, therefore, taken no steps in the matter.

  Application of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make arrangements with the Department of Agri-
  554
  culture, with a view to the more effective application of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, whereby their veterinary inspectors, stationed in the country, will receive notice of any reported cases of disease within their districts direct from the police, and whereby, in reported cases of swine fever where their inspector is satisfied that the disease exists, the Department will authorise them to proceed forthwith with the slaughter of the animals affected, and thus obviate the delays consequent upon the present system.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The veterinary inspectors of the Department of Agriculture are in charge of large districts, and are frequently absent from home on duty. If notifications of disease were sent direct to their private addresses by the police there might be considerable delay in such communications reaching them. Under the existing system, notifications of disease are sent by the Department, with the necessary instructions, to the inspectors wherever they may happen to be, and this system has been found, after many years' experience, to be the most advantageous from the standpoint of the effective working of the Diseases of Animals Acts generally. As regards the slaughter of swine for swine fever, that is quite a discretionary matter under the Acts, and it has been considered better that the Department should reserve to itself the power, in the individual cases, of directing whether slaughter shall be carried out rather than to issue a general authorisation on the subject to the district veterinary inspectors.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on Mr. W. Nelegan's Estate, County Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several tenants on the estate of Mr. Walter Nelegan, near Blarney, County Cork, have been paying interest to the Land Commissioners at the rate of 4 per cent., and that others on the same estate are still paving rent, as they have refused to sign for purchase until the tenant who has been evicted has been reinstated; whether he is aware that it has been held out as an inducement to

  555
  the tenants to advance the price offered for the land from twenty years to twenty-one and a half years that the evicted tenant will be reinstated; and, seeing that the present occupier of the evicted farm is attempting to add a large sum to the purchase money in lieu of arrears whether an inspector will be sent to inquire into all the circumstances of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, according to the purchase agreements lodged in this case, the purchasing tenants have agreed to pay interest in lieu of rent at the rate of 4 per cent. on the purchase money pending the completion of the sale. The Commissioners are not aware of the terms offered to the tenants who have not signed purchase agreements or of the circumstances under which they have refused to purchase, but this matter will be duly inquired into when the estate is being inspected. An application for reinstatement on the estate has been received from an evicted tenant whose former holding is stated to be in the occupation of another tenant. This application, with others of a similar nature, has been referred to an inspector for inquiry.

  South African Compaign of 1881.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is among the survivors of the troops who fought in the South African campaign of 1881, many of whom were severely wounded and invalided, soreness of feeling that they have had no form of recognition, even qualified, of their service, although many men who have received medals for the late war were engaged in operations, temporarily unsuccessful, like the operations of 1881; and whether he will reconsider this matter with a view either of giving to these survivors of the operations of 1881 some modified kind of recognition of their services, or, if that cannot be done, at any rate some recognition of some kind to those who were wounded or otherwise disabled in those operations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) This proposal to give medals for the
  556
  campaign of 1881 has several times been considered and negatived, and I see no reason for altering the decision arrived at. Men disabled or wounded in this campaign have received the same treatment as regards pension as those similarly suffering from the results of other campaigns.

  Foreign Office Examinations.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which has been caused in geographical circles as shown by the communication of the President of the Royal Geographical Society, he will reconsider the decision to omit geography from amongst the subjects for the diplomatic and Foreign Office examinations.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The assimilation of the Foreign Office and diplomatic examinations with the examination for the Home and Indian Civil Services was agreed to after careful consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners, the object being, as I have already stated, to attract men of university education. Geography is not one of the subjects in which candidates for the Home and Indian Civil Services are examined, and as a knowledge of this subject is very soon acquired in the Foreign Office it was not considered necessary to add it to the list of subjects for examination. Experience will show if a modification of the new regulations is desirable; but I do not propose to make any further change in the Foreign Office and diplomatic examinations unless it is made in the Civil Service examinations generally.

  Macedonian Finance.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the fact that the finances of Macedonia have been administered, under agreement with the Powers, through the Imperial Ottoman Bank since March 1905, he will request the British financial adviser on the Reform Commission in Macedonia to endeavour to obtain financial statements showing the revenue and expenditure under the different headings for the Macedonian provinces since March

  557
  1905, and any further information which it may be possible to obtain to illustrate the financial position in Macedonia during periods convenient for comparison.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The British Delegate on the Financial Commission for the three Roumelian vilayets will be requested to furnish whatever information on the subject is available.
  MR. LYNCH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed that the sums hitherto derived under Article XII. of the agreement between the Porte and the Imperial Ottoman Bank, or from other sources, and employed to defray the deficit in the Macedonian Budget, shall continue to be so employed, or, it not, to what extent; and whether the additional Customs duties, together with the further amount of £250,000 a year to be provided by the Council of the public debt, will be supplemental to the above sums or in substitution for them.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) As I have already stated, the Forte Has been unable to meet its obligations under the Article referred to out of existing revenues, and the deficits have been made good mostly out of loans. When the resources mentioned in the last paragraph of the Question become available, the Porte will clearly be relieved of the necessity of raising temporary loans for the current Macedonian expenditure.

  King's Plates for Irish Races.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any, and, if so, how much, public money is paid in respect of racing in Ireland; through whom and on whose advice is this money disbursed; whether he can state the names of the racecourses subsidised and the amounts paid in each case; and whether any representative or elected body in Ireland is consulted on the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The I sum of £1,563 is provided annually for
  558
  King's plates to be run for in Ireland, under the Vote for Miscellaneous Expenses, Class VII, 2. The provision was transferred from the Civil List to Votes in 1831. The conditions on which the plates are competed for are determined by the Master of the Horse on the! recommendation of the Lord-Lieutenant, for Ireland. The payments are made to the winners of the plates on joint application to the Irish Government by the clerk of the course and the lieutenant of the county. The present distribution dates from 1900, when the valuation of the plates was altered and the number reduced to eight, the total amount remaining as before, viz;—

  £

  s.

  d.

  The Curragh

  315

  0

  0

  The Curragh

  315

  0

  0

  The Curragh

  210

  0

  0

  The Curragh

  210

  0

  0

  County Down

  197

  6

  2

  Bellewstown

  105

  0

  0

  Cork Park

  105

  0

  0

  County Galway

  105

  0

  0

  £1,562

  6

  2

  Irish Drainage Board.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state the names of the different drainage boards in Ireland, saying when, and how they were constituted, and whence they derive their powers.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I understand that there are 121 drainage districts constituted under the Act 5 and 6 Vic, c. 89, and amending Acts, and 63 districts constituted under the Act 20 and 27 Vic, c. 88. To give their names and dates would exceed the limits of an Answer to a Question; but the honourable Member will find them, as regards the first class, in the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works for 1863–4; and, as regards the second, in their Report for 1904–5.

  Cocoa and Chocolate Contract for the Navv.
  MR. GIBBS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any of the cocoa and chocolate supplied to the Navy is bought in Bristol.

  559
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer is in the negative; but Bristol firms have the opportunity of tendering if they wish to do so.

  Income Tax Excess Payments.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that repayment claims for return of overpaid income-tax are dealt with by the unestablished clerks in the offices of the surveyors of taxes, and that when a surveyor of taxes is on leave all details of income-tax, including special assessments, are accessible to an unestablished clerk as his deputy; and whether, seeing that within the past five years clerks in surveyors' offices have been convicted of fraud in connection with repayment claims, and that business men object to confidential details as to their business and income being in the hands of clerks who are not Government officials but mere employees of the surveyors of taxes, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The routine work connected with most repayment claims is performed for surveyors by their clerks. But where the amount of an assessment under Schedule D. is in question the case is dealt with by the surveyor himself. In the seventy-nine most important districts the assistant surveyor is in charge during the absence of the surveyor. In forty-one of the remainder charge is taken by another surveyor of taxes having an office in the same building as the absent surveyor. In the remaining districts the surveyor of a neighbouring district takes charge. All special assessments and confidential papers are, by the instructions, to be kept under lock and key, and access to them should not be open to a clerk even in the absence of the surveyor. Only one instance of fraud by a clerk in a surveyor's office in connection with repayment claims has occurred within the last five years, and that did not touch assessments under Schedule D. Surveyors' clerks are required to make a declaration of secrecy.

  Cong Canal.
  MR. FETHERSIONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what amount of public money was spent in the construction of the canal at Cong, county May:, intended to join Loughs Mask and Corrib; is this canal, from absence of water, at present entirely useless; has the Canal Commission invited evidence as to this canal and its utility to Ballinrobe and the district abutting on Lough Mask if it were put in order; and, if not, will he direct the attention of the Commission to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Board of Works that they have not the materials for stating the amount spent on the canal at Cong, because this canal formed part of a larger scheme which was only partially carried out, and the records available do not distinguish the amount spent on this part of the works from that which was spent on other parts. The scheme provided for both drainage and navigation. The expenditure on the navigation works of that part of the scheme which included the Cong Canal was £10,583, and the Government bore the whole of this charge. The canal was left unfinished. It is useless for navigation owing to the absence of water, which absence of water is due to the fact that the canal was made through limestone which turned out to be fissured. I understand that the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, besides inviting evidence by notices in the newspapers, also invited evidence directly through the County Council of Galway and the town of Galway, and heard Professor Town-send, the engineer and secretary of the Lough Corrib Navigation, and also Mr. Perry, county surveyor of Galway. I am informed by the secretary of the Commission that if any persons interested in this particular canal still desire to give evidence on the subjects they should address themselves to the Commission, when their applications will be fully considered.

  Ballinagore Police Barracks.
  MR. SULLIVAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the

  561
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the police barrack at Ballinagore, county Westmeath, which was scheduled to be struck off the rolls as unnecessary three years ago, has been retained; whether he is aware that about one-third of the population are infirm and on the outdoor relief list; will he say how many policemen are now stationed there; what was the number of prosecutions for even minor offences for the last twenty years; will he compare the reports, private or otherwise, furnished before the barrack was scheduled to be struck off the rolls, with those made since; and whether, having regard to the small population of the district, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing a police force at Ballinagore, considering that the village is not three statute miles from Kilbeggan and about four miles from the following stations, which surround it in a circle: Castletown Geoghegan, Stoneyford, and Tyrrellspass.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The In specter-General informs me that it was decided two years ago to abolish the police station at Ballinagore, but, owing to the existence of certain disturbing elements in the locality, it was considered desirable to postpone the abolition for a time. Sixteen persons out of a population of 933 are in receipt of outdoor relief. Four policemen are stationed at Ballinagore, During the past twenty years 678 prosecutions for minor offences have taken place in the district. The question of abolishing the station at Balinagore is primarily one for the consideration of the police authorities, who are responsible for the proper policing of the district; and the Inspector General informs me that he will renew his proposal to abolish the station as soon as the state of the district warrants the adoption of that course.

  Irish Land Purchase Return.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to furnish a return substantially similar to those issued under the Purchase of Land Acts, 1885 to 1896, setting out the proceedings under the Act of 1903,
  562
  showing the names of vendors and purchasers, purchase price for each holding, number of years' purchase of each holding, percentage of reduction on rent in each case, amount of bonus paid to each vendor, and the total for each estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the monthly Returns presented to Parliament of advances made under the Irish Land, Act 1903, in which full particulars of every advance made to purchasers are set forth. The form of these Returns was arranged by the Irish Government, the Treasury, and the Land Commission, and it is substantially the same as the form of the Returns issued under the Purchase Act of 1891. The amount of the bonus which may be paid in respect of the purchase money of an estate is not included in these Returns, because the question of the amount of the bonus is not determined by the Judicial Com-missioner or the Land Judge until after the distribution of the purchase money.

  Letterkenny Railway.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any complaints with regard to the treatment of passengers on the Letterkenny Railway on the Kith instant, and in particular as to delays, overcrowding, and failure to provide light in the carriages; and, if so, whether the Irish Government or the Board of Works will take steps to prevent a recurrence of the matters complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I learn that the Board of Works received information that delays to passenger trains were caused on the Kith ultimo by the derailment of a carriage at Cashelnagore which blocked the Burton-port line, and that a local train which was despatched from Letterkenny to Londonderry at 7.52 p.m. in place of one of the blocked trains was unprovided with lights. The Board immediately brought the circumstances to the notice of the company, and asked for an explanation. I understand that correspondence is still proceeding.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Jam for the Navy.
  MR. BOWEEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the jam which has recently had to be rejected was made up in solderless tins; whether he is aware that three carpenters have recently been employed constantly in the victualling yard at Deptford repacking tins in new cases owing to their leakage; and whether it is intended to permit the continued use of solderless tins for jams and other forms of preserved food.
  Notice had also been given of the following Question:
  MR. BOWEEMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the name of the contractor who supplied 269,000 lbs. of jam which were rejected in August last; whether any further quantities, and, if so, how much, have since had to be rejected; and whether the contracting firms supplying the jams are still on the Admiralty list.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIR ALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the two Questions at the same time. The jam in question was not part of a new delivery, but gooseberry jam which had been a considerable time in store. Some tins of this jam were examined in July last and samples were then submitted to the Government Laboratory, and also to the Medical Officer of Health of the City of London. AH the reports show that the jam is in sound condition and fit for food. In consequence, however, of the recent reduction of the reserves it may be necessary to sell what is now surplus stock. There have been no recent rejections of contractors' deliveries. The firms who supplied this jam are still on the Admiralty list, and as no discredit whatever attaches to them the publication of their names is likely to create a false impression. As regards the second Question, the bulk of this jam was in solderless tins, but the doubt raised as to its condition was not due to any leakage, which is particularly rare in the case of solderless tins. From time to time jam has
  564
  had to be repacked at Deptford before shipment, but where this has been due to leakage the tins which have leaked have always been soldered tins. No reason is therefore seen for prohibiting the use of solderless tins in future supplies.

  Condiments for the Navy.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what quantities of mustard, pepper, flour, and oatmeal have been contracted for with private firms; whether he is aware that, during the past few years, the Government have discontinued the manufacture and preparation of mustard, pepper, flour, and oatmeal at Deptford; whether the steam cooperage is practically idle; and whether it is intended to return to the former practice of having these orders supplied from Government establishments.
  MR. LAMBERT; The quantities contracted for since the commencement of the current financial year are as follows— mustard, 40,000 lbs.; pepper, 30,000 lbs.; flour, 2,700,000 lbs.; oatmeal, 35,000 lbs. The manufacture of mustard and pepper in the victualling yards was discontinued in 1896–7, and that of flour and oatmeal in 1903–4. The steam cooperage was discontinued in 1898–9. Modern naval conditions having rendered possible the adoption of cheaper forms of packages, the use of the old service casks has been much reduced, and is altogether too small to enable a steam cooperage to be worked economically. There is no intention of reversing these decisions, as to do so would only mean extra expense.

  Chocolate for the Navy.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what contracts for the supply of chocolate to the Navy are now running, and with what firms; whether any quantities of chocolate supplied to the Naval Yard at Deptford have had to be returned as unfit for use; and whether it is intended in future to have the chocolate made in the Government chocolate mill at Deptford, which is only now employed about one-twelfth of its time or capacity.
  MR. LAMBERT: One contract for 200,000 lbs. of chocolate was placed this year, but it is not considered desirable to

  565
  state the name of the firm. A. considerable quantity (81,000 lbs.) has been rejected under the contract, the failure being attributed to the unusually hot weather which occurred this year while the manufacture was in progress, and which prevented the chocolate from cooling properly. There is no reason to doubt that the firm will be able to make satisfactory deliveries now that the cooler weather has set in. It is intended to continue, as at present, to manufacture the bulk of the chocolate for the Navy at Deptford Victualling Yard. The small quantity obtained annually from contractors is with the object of keeping the trade in touch with Admiralty requirements, so that in a time of emergency the Admiralty output could be supplemented without delay.
  MB. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): Is the statement in the last paragraph of the Question correct?
  MR. LAMBERT: It may be the case.

  Repairs to Turbine Machinery on Foreign Stations.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the result of the Admiralty's consideration as to the provision of artisans and machinery for carrying out repairs to turbines on foreign stations.
  MR. LAMBERT: Preparations are being made which will enable the foreign yards to deal with repairs to turbine machinery when the necessity arises.

  The Coastguard.
  MR. COCHRANE: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Croydon, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to abolish or reduce the coastguard.
  MR. LAMBERT: I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on 21st November.†
  MR. COCHRANE: Is this reduction part of the general naval policy of the
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 813–4.
  566
  Government, and is it to be carried out step by step?
  MR. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman will find a full Answer in the replies of my right hon. friend.
  MAJOR SEELY: May I ask whether the Admiralty, in deciding this question, will bear in mind the large part played by the coastguard in life - saving at sea? Many of our lifeboat crews depend on them for notification of wrecks.
  MR. LAMBERT: I am sure any suggestion from my hon. friend will be carefully considered by the Admiralty.
  LORD BALCARRES: Have any orders connected with the reduction yet been issued?
  MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir.

  Special Reserve of the Navy.
  MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to place the battleships of the "Royal Sovereign" class in special reserve.
  MR. LAMBERT: I am not in a position at the present time to give any information, as the scheme for the re-arrangement of the ships in commission in reserve is still in process of development.

  Channel Fleet—Repairs.
  MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many ships belonging to the Channel Fleet wore awaiting repairs or undergoing refit on 15th November.
  MR. LAMBERT: There wore no ships of the Channel Fleet awaiting repairs at the dockyards on the 15th November; three were in hand undergoing repairs and refit, two of these being battleships and one a third class cruiser.

  H.M.S. "Dominion."
  MR. IDRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the extent of the injuries to H.M.S. "Dominion," occasioned by her running aground in Canada; and how long it will take to repair her.
  MR. LAMBERT: The bottom of the "Dominion" was more or less damaged for a length of about '280 feet. She will be temporarily repaired at Bermuda, and upon her return to Chatham Yard in February next it is anticipated she may be in hand for three or four months to make good the damage, but this estimate depends on the further examination on arrival at Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. IDRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an inquiry has been held as to the cause of the running aground of the battleship "Dominion" in Canada; if no inquiry has been held, what is the reason; and is it intended to hold an inquiry.
  MR. LAMBERT: No inquiry has yet been held in the absence of a senior naval officer, which is due to the fact that the "Dominion" was employed at the time on detached service, and has since been detained at Bermuda for temporary repairs. An inquiry will be held when the ship arrives in England.

  Disturbance at Portsmouth.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state, concerning the three stokers lately sentenced to penal servitude, what were their ages on enlistment; when did each enlist: has each served afloat, and, if so, for how long; what serious entries were against each in the defaulter sheets before the trial; and in what class was each in regard to leave.
  MR. LAMBERT: Only one of the stokers tried by court-martial as a result of the recent disturbance at Portsmouth has been sentenced to penal servitude. This man, Edward Moody, entered the Navy in March, 1905, at the age of twenty-two. He served afloat for six months in the "Majestic." In July, 1905, he was sentenced to five days cells for leave breaking. In the same month he deserted and remained in a state of desertion for seven weeks. On being recovered he was sentenced to twenty-eight days hard labour, and two days after he had completed this sentence he received fourteen days cell punishment or breaking out. A month later he received a further fourteen days cells
  568
  for a similar offence. His character was "indifferent," and he was in the second class for leave.

  Publicity of Courts-Martial.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILLasked whether in the trial of Lieutenant Collard by court-martial, the same facilities would be given for publication of the proceedings as were given on the trial of the stokers.
  MR. LAMBERTreplied that every court-martial was open to the public. Precisely the same facilities would be given whether the trial were held upon an officer or a man of the Navy.

  Chocolate Manufacture at Deptford.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is no practical and experienced confectioner in charge of the Chocolate Department at Deptford; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing some such person.
  MR. LAMBERT: As stated in the reply to a former Question by the hon. Member on the 26th November, t the manufacture of chocolate at Deptford is in charge of practical men. Trained confectioners are not required for this product which is not confectionery chocolate.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: But my Question is, is there a practical confectioner in charge of the Department?
  MR. LAMBERT: I have answered that. The work is done by practical men as I have said.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: No, Sir. I put this Question down on the invitation of the Secretary of the Admiralty, and I ought to have an Answer I think. The real fact is that the head of the Department is a resident engineer.

  Field Force Canteens, Profits in South Africa.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it was reported to the War Office in December 1902 that the
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1223–4.

  569
  profits realised by the field force canteens in South Africa amounted to £700,000; whether the Report of General Lyttelton showed that £140,589 had been expended for the benefit of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, and that the only balance credit consisted of stock valued at £103,528; whether any steps have been taken to fix the responsibility for a deficit of £400,000 which should have been available for distribution amongst those who dealt with the canteens; and whother any part of that apparent deficit has been applied to other purposes than such distribution, and by whose authority.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): As regards the five parts of this Question the Answers are as follows:—(1) No such report was made. The stock in hand of the field force canteens on September 30th, 1902, was at one time valued at the cost price of £722,800, and it is to this that the hon. Member presumably refers. No such figure represented profit. The value of this stock was subsequently found to be, from various causes, very much depreciated, and there were, of course, liabilities to be set against it. (2) Yes, £146,509 is reported to have been so expended. (3) Yes, in April, 1904, the balance credit of the canteens was reported to consist of stock of the nominal value of £103,528. (4) There is no doubt that the profits of the field force canteens were diminished, partly from unavoidable causes and partly from injudicious or bad management; but the hon. Member probably over-estimates the extent of the loss sustained. For losses due to what were considered avoidable causes the officer who held the post of managing director between August, 1901, and September, 1902, was censured and informed that he could not hope for further advancement in the service; he has since retired from the Army. (5) There is a mistake in the hon. Members figures which I have explained. As far as I am aware, all grants from the profits of the field force canteens have been made to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the garrison; but I would here repeat what I said in answer to a previous Question on this subject— that these canteens are administered locally by the General Officer Command-
  570
  ing-in-Chief in South Africa, and the accounts audited by civil accountants appointed by him.
  COLONEL HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement at the beginning of my Question is taken from the evidence given by Mr. Brodrick before the War Stores Commission, and will he inform mo whether any part of the deficit was used in the payment of losses incurred by the management of farms or other similar undertakings in South Africa?
  MR. HALDANE: In answer to the first part of the question of my hon. and gallant friend, I can only say that a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since Mr. Brodrick gave evidence, and the matter has been investigated more completely and thoroughly than it was ever investigated before. It is a mistake to say that £700,000 was lost. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot answer that on the spur of the moment, but, I will inquire if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I will put down another Question.

  Service Pensions.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider, in consultation with the Admiralty and with the Treasury, the possibility of remedying the condition of things under which a man who has given over twenty-four years service to his country, partly in the Army and partly in the Navy or Marines, is held to be ineligible for pension; and whether he will consider the advisability of so amending the regulations, and the instructions given to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, as to preclude the recurrence of such a case.
  MR. HALDANE: Steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of the conditions which gave rise to these cases. The general question is not escaping attention.

  Piershill Barracks, Edinburgh.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps are to be taken to render Piershill

  571
  Barracks suitable for occupation by artillery, in view of the fact that they have been condemned as insanitary and unfit for occupation by cavalry.
  MR. HALDANE: Piershill Barracks are not, as they now stand, unsuitable for occupation by a small body of artillery. They were condemned as insanitary for a cavalry regiment on the ground of insufficiency of accommodation, defective structure, and the changed character of the surroundings. Money has already been spent in improving the drainage. A cavalry regiment has attached to it a larger number of officers and of women and children, as of men, than a brigade of artillery.
  MR. DALZIEL: In view of the great interest of this matter to Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his letter on this subject, published this morning, means that it is intended to continue to have cavalry in Scotland?
  MR. HALDANE: We have every intention to continue cavalry in Scotland. As the hon. Member knows, cavalry are moved from time to time. It is a delusion that any cavalry regiment, the Scots Greys or any other regiment, has headquarters in Scotland. A large number of the Scots Greys are recruited in England and Ireland. The whole question is whether we can have a cavalry regiment in Scotland, and it reduces itself to this: I am asked to put down in the Estimates a large sum of money, without regard to the necessary requirements of the Army generally, for this particular local purpose. Well, I decline to do it.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he did not mention the Scots Greys, nor did he ask about headquarters. He asked whether cavalry were to be kept in Scotland.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Gentleman could not have read his letter, in which he specifically said that it was their intention, as soon as public funds permitted, to have perhaps more cavalry in Scotland. The whole point was whether he was to be coerced into premature action.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether it was not desirable that the recruiting for a Scottish regiment should be confined as far as possible to Scotland.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that raised an entirely different question. He was not proposing to alter the present method of recruiting cavalry regiments. He would be glad to see the regiments associated with Scotland by tradition and sentiment recruited as far as possible in Scotland, but there was no intention of changing the system.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether paying deference to Scottish representations meant coercion.
  MR. HALDANE: No; but people come with local considerations and try to override considerations which affect the good of the Army in general, and in that sense local considerations are not the immediate considerations.
  MR. DALZIEL: Does that refer to Lord Rosebery?
  MR. COCHRAXEasked whether Piershill Barracks were so insanitary that it would be impossible with some slight alteration to provide room for cavalry temporarily.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was in close consultation with the Medical Director-General and other medical authorities of the Army, who assured him that the structure of these barracks was so old-fashioned and so bad that it was not possible to keep cavalry there, due regard being had to sanitary conditions. At present the rate of sickness was much above the average in any other cavalry regiment, and he did not feel justified in keeping cavalry there for the present.
  MAJOR ANSTEUTHEE-GRAY: Are we to understand that as soon as funds permit a cavalry regiment will be quartered in Scotland?
  MR. HALDANE: As soon as funds permit there will be accommodation provided for cavalry in Scotland, but I must be the judge when it is possible to provide those funds. I have said it is the

  573
  intention as soon as possible to have not one, but probably two, cavalry regiments there. They are very useful for the purpose of training the Yeomanry, and, moreover, Scotland is an important part of the United Kingdom, and it is only right that cavalry should be stationed there. We are quite alive to that.

  Artillery at Piershill Barracks.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTIIER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many horses and men will be quartered in Piershill Barracks when occupied by artillery.
  MR. HALDANE: As far as can be said at present, the numbers will be, approximately, 155 horses, and 335 men.

  Royal Artillery Mess Kit.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the unpopularity of the new mess kit of the Royal Artillery, now about to be introduced; whether he is aware that the new mess kit, though costing about two-thirds the cost of the old kit, is calculated to last only about a quarter of the time that the old kit has been found to last; and whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to the old kit, or, under any circumstances, ascertaining the views of officers of the Royal Artillery, especially of those of the junior ranks, before introducing compulsorily the new mess dress.
  MR. HALDANE: There is no intention of introducing a now mess uniform for the Royal Artillery. The existing pattern was introduced in 1902, and permission was given to those officers in possession of the previous pattern to wear it until January, 1907. The statement that the new kit only lasts about a quarter of the time the old one did is not understood, as the materials are identical.

  Lancers and the Lance.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to permitting Lancer regiments to use the lance as a complement to their present service equipment.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not proposed to modify the instructions laid down in
  574
  Army Order 39 of March, 1903, with regard to the use of the lance by Lancer regiments.

  Defence of St. Helena.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House what steps have been taken for the defence of St. Helena now that it has been denuded of its garrison, having in view that it is one of the stations for the all-British telegraph cable between Great Britain and her South African, Eastern, and Australian possessions.
  MR. HALDANE: It is inexpedient in the interests of Imperial defence to give this information, but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the matter has not escaped the attention of my Department.

  The Militia.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the full strength of a Militia battalion, and what is the strength of the permanent staff detailed thereto; the number and names of the battalions below 500 officers and men; and the strength of the permanent start's detailed for service with each.
  MR. HALDANE: In the first part of the Question it is presumed that "full strength" moans the establishment of a battalion. This varies in different battalions from 11 officers and 425 men to 33 officers and 1,273 men; the permanent staff varying from one officer and sixteen non-commissioned officers to two officers and forty non-commissioned officers. As regards actual strength, there wore on the 1st ultimo 46 battalions below 500 officers and men. The names of these battalions, with their actual strength as well as that of the permanent staff in each case, are given in a list which I will circulate with the Votes. †

  The National Gallery.
  MR. MOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the admitted danger caused to the National Gallery in case of fire by the recruiting station immediately at the
  † See Col. 543.

  575
  back of the Gallery, and the promises already made for the removal of this building, he will give instructions to have this carried out without further delay.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not admit that the proximity of the London recruiting depot is a cause of unusual danger to the National Gallery. I would point out that there are some shops distant from the west end of the Gallery about twenty-two feet only, whereas at the nearest point there is a space of 110 feet between the Gallery and the War Department buildings; the buildings which stood upon this intervening space were pulled down at the and of 1902. I notice that there is a fire brigade station at a short distance from the spot.
  LORD BALCARRES: Was it not promised six or seven years ago that the land occupied by these barracks should be allotted to the extension of the two National Galleries?
  MR. HALDANE: Some intermediate buildings were pulled down a short time ago and the space of 110 feat secured. If those responsible for the National Galleries will find the funds for a new recruiting office I shall not stand in the way of any change.

  Reduction of Battalions.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many battalions of regular soldiers have actually been disbanded; what are the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, who have been affected by the order; and what are the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, of the disbanded battalions who have retired from the service, been absorbed in existing battalions, or joined the Reserve.
  MR. HALDANE: 1. Seven of the ten battalions which it was decided to reduce have not existed as separate units since the 15th November last. Two battalions, now in South Africa, are in process of reduction, while the reduction of one battalion (the 3rd battalion, Coldstream Guards) has been postponed for the present. 2. The strength of the
  576
  nine battalions on the 1st September last was: officers, 237; non-commissioned officers, 751; privates, 5,179. 3. The following return gives the information asked for:—

  Officers. N. C. O's. Privates.

  Retired or discharged on completion of service, etc.

  6

  5

  44

  Transferred to remaining battalions of regiments

  6

  514

  2,843

  Transferred to other regiments or staff.

  15

  23

  416

  To Reserve

  20

  322

  Deserted

  25

  27

  562

  3,650

  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a bounty was offered to men of the disbanded battalions in order to induce them to join other battalions of the Regular Army; and, if so, what is the total amount of money paid in these bounties.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, Sir, bounties up to £10 have been offered to induce the men to join battalions of other regiments. The offer is still open, and so the total amount cannot yet be ascertained.

  Ipswich Barrack Contract—Rates of Wages.
  MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a volume of standard rates of wages in the kingdom, published by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade on 1st October, 1906, which on page 19 declares the rates of wages for the Ipswich district, as supplied by the National Federation of Master Builders, are 5d. and 5½. per hour; and whether, in view of this statement upon the subject, he will take such action as may be necessary to compel the contractors at the Artillery Barracks, Ipswich, to pay such rates.
  MR. HALDANE: My attention has been called to the statement of standard rates referred to, and it was partly in view of that statement that I have had a special inquiry made, as mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on the 26th ultimo.† The result, however, of the investigation and of conference with the Board of Trade has been to show that varying rates of wages are at the present time current in the Ipswich district; and it does not appear that the contractors referred to, in paying the labourers 4½d. an hour, are infringing the clause of their contract requring them to pay the rate current in the district. The result of the investigation made is to leave doubtful the Answer to the Question whether there is in point of fact a rate current in the district for competent workmen. I propose, therefore, to ask the Board of Trade to make an independent inquiry.

  Case of Mr. Noreen.
  MR. ALDEN (Middlesex, Tottonham): I beg to ask the Prime Minister what action, if any, His Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to the statements made by the Public Accounts Committee, and especially with regard to the case of the intelligence officer, Mr. Noreen, who defrauded the War Office by sending in a double claim for capturing cattle; and what action they propose to take with respect to Colonel Rickman, who certified the claim.
  MR. HALDANE: The Reports of the Public Accounts Committee are now under consideration in the various public Departments concerned, and in each case such action as may be necessary will be taken in accordance with the invariable rule. I am investigating the circumstances under which the payments to Mr. Noreen wore made. As will be seen from the correspondence printed in the appendix to the Appropriation Account for 1904–05, the case is by no means free from difficulty and even doubt. If, however, after weighing all the facts it appears to me that there is a reasonable prospect of legal proceedings producing any more satisfactory result than further considerable expenditure of public money I shall direct the military authorities in
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1228–30.
  578
  South Africa to take such action as the legal advisers of the Colonial Government may advise.
  MR. ALDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that Colonel Kick-man was justified in certifying the claim?
  MR. HALDANE: I have looked into the circumstances, and it is extremely difficult to tell whether he was justified or whether he was not. I am getting all the information I can with a view to placing it before the legal advisers in South Africa. I will tell my hon. friend privately the circumstances so far as I know thorn at the present time.

  Malta.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any further correspondence between the Government and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malta; and, if so, whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Secretary of State has received two memorials from the Archbishop which will be presented to Parliament.

  Tanjong Pagar Dock Arbitration.
  MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with reference to the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company arbitration, any sums were paid to Lord St. Aldwyn for travelling expenses in addition to the fee of £5,750; and what foes and travelling expenses the other members of the Arbitration Court received.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Lord St. Aldwyn's fee included all disbursements, as did the fee (4,000 guineas) paid to Mr. Inglis, the arbitrator nominated by the Colonial Government. I understand that the company paid a fee of 0,500 guineas to Sir E. Boyle, the arbitrator nominated by them, of which £5,750 was allowed on taxation; I presume that this included disbursements.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not the sum paid to Lord St. Aldwyn the

  579
  exact capitalised value of the political pension he surrendered to the late Prime Minister?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not see how that has any connection with the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We do.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The appointment necessitated Lord St. Aldwyn's going abroad.
  MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square): May I point out that Lord St. Aldwyn was appointed umpire on the nomination of the arbitrator appointed by the company, which was accepted by the Government arbitrator?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I agree. Lord St. Aldwyn had to travel almost the circumference of the globe, and he was away a long period. Expensive as this arbitration has undoubtedly been, I am not at all prepared to say that the expenses paid to him are the least justifiable part.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the cost of the Tanjong Pagar Dock arbitration, how many of the witnesses and counsel heard went out from England and how many were resident in Singapore; also how long the arbitration and witnesses were absent from England, and how many sittings they held in Singapore.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Colonial Government were represented by one counsel from England and two resident in the Straits; the company by two from England and two local counsel. Of the Government witnesses, four went from England and twelve wore resident. Four of the company's witnesses went from England and eight wore resident. I am unable to state how long the arbitrators and witnesses were absent from this country; the latter left England at different dates according to the time required for the preparation of their evidence. The Court held ten sittings in Singapore.

  The Zulu Rebellion and its Results.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies
  580
  whether he is aware that distress exists in the districts affected by the recent Zulu rebellion, more especially in the country between the Tugela and Tongaat Rivers; whether the authorities have sent relief, and to what extent, to such districts; and whether His Majesty's Government will urge upon the authorities the need for further assistance.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Government of Natal are taking, and will take, all necessary measures for the relief of distress among the sufferers by the late rebellion and its repression.

  Mabira Forest Concession.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Mabira Forest Concession in any way nullifies Sir Harry Johnston's assurance to the natives that they would not be dispossessed of their lands and property; and what measures have been taken to prevent the spread of sleeping sickness, in view of the fact that a considerable area of the concession is within the sphere of influence of the tsetse.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The rights of natives guaranteed by the Uganda Agreement are fully safeguarded by the provisions of the lease to the company, a copy of which can be inspected at the Colonial Office. The Secretary of State has not been informed that sleeping sickness exists in the forest; but we have not yet succeeded in discovering effective precautions against it.

  Gambling in the Federated Malay States.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the reasons why the immediate abolition of licensed gambling in the Federated Malay States is impracticable; and if he will also state within what period he expects this evil to be finally abolished.
  The following (Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of the Federated Malay States prohibit Malays, Tamils, and Englishmen from

  581
  frequenting the gambling dons licensed by the aforesaid Government; and if he will state the reasons why the Chinese population is not placed under the same restrictions.
  Mr. LAIDLAW: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the fact that the revenue of the Federated Malay States is largely in excess of expenditure, and that there is now an accumulated fund of $25,000,000 in the hands of the Government; and that no financial necessity exists for the $3,000,000 per annum derived from gambling licences.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will answer the hon. Member's throe (Questions together. The reason why the Chinese alone are allowed to gamble is that in the case of Chinese gambling is a national habit to an extent unknown among the other races inhabiting the Peninsula. Total prohibition is regarded by the best qualified, judges as impracticable at present in the case of Chinese, and the only alternative is to regulate the practice of gambling so that it may do as little harm as possible. In deciding that the immediate abolition of licensed gambling is impracticable, the Secretary of State and the Government of the Federated Malay States have not been governed by financial considerations. They are, however, satisfied that if gambling were at once prohibited the prohibition would be ineffectual. The licensed houses would be abolished, but their place would be taken by secret gambling hells, where gambling would be carried on without any restrictions now imposed, and in circumstances likely to lead to frequent quarrels and disturbances of the peace. Even in the small area of the Straits Settlements, where gambling is prohibited by law, it has been found to be impossible entirely to prevent the existence of such establishments, and the greater area and more scattered population of the Federated Malay States would render the task much more difficult there than it is in the neighbouring colony. There is also a practical certainty that the issue of a prohibition, which could not be made effective, would lead to the corruption of the native police forces by bribery and blackmail. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State considers it better to proceed slowly, and to en-
  582
  deavour to accustom the Chinese population by degrees to the idea of prohibition. As regards the period within which it may be possible to effect a total abolition of licensed gambling, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave in this House on 28th November to the hon. Member for Hoxton.† I can suggest no exact date, but I can assure my hon. friend that His Majesty's Government are no less anxious than he is to put an end to the existing system as soon as it is possible to do so, without causing greater evils than those which it is desired to remove.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet arrived at any decision with regard to the now Transvaal Ordinance which proposes to inflict disabilities upon His Majesty's Indian subjects resident in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has informed the High Commissioner that he is not able, without further consideration, to advise His Majesty that the Ordinance referred to should be brought into operation, and it will therefore not be further proceeded with at present.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report of the proceedings of the deputation which waited on the Secretary of State on behalf of British Indians in the Transvaal on Thursday, 8th November, and appeared in The Times newspaper on the next day, was communicated to The Times by any official of the Colonial Office; and, if so, seeing that no reporters of the Press were allowed to be present, and that the members of the deputation were bound to secrecy, why this report was communicated to The Times and not to those organs of the Press which are supporters of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The report was not communicated to The 'Times by any official of the Colonial Office.
  SIR H. COTTON: May I ask whether at the conference
  † See col. 57–8.

  583
  Lord Elgin said it was at his wish that no reporters were present. How in those circumstances did a verbatim report appear in The Times the next morning?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can only say that no representatives of the Press in the ordinary senso—no reporters—were present, and that no report of the proceedings was supplied by the Colonial Office. The hon. Member is as able as I am to find out how it was the report appeared.
  SIR E. CARSON: Was any report taken at the time for the Colonial Office?
  MR. CHUKCHILL: I do not know; I do not think so.
  SIR H. COTTON: Were there not two shorthand reporters taking a verbatim report?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand from the Question the hon. Member has put to mo that it was at Lord Elgin's desire no reporters were present.
  SIR H. COTTON: Shorthand writers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: If any member of the deputation or anybody else present took shorthand notes, that is another matter.
  SIR H. COTTON: Were not official shorthand writers there?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know, I was not present; but if so there will be a record kept at the office; but the report, however collected, was not communicated from the Colonial Office.
  MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask was there not a similar incident in relation to a deputation to the India Office?
  MR. MORLEY: A report appeared, but it was prepared and issued without the authority or knowledge of the India Office. We had, of course, our own official reporter and a report for our own use.

  Witwatersrand Mines.
  MR. FIENNKS: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  584
  whether he can state what labour-saving appliances have been added to the mines of the Witwatersrand since 1st January, 1906; and, if any have been acquired, what number of unskilled labourers has thus been saved.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State does not possess the information asked for, but Lord Selborne will be requested to send a full report.

  Portuguese Labour.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked what were the objections urged by the Portuguese Government against granting facilities for recruiting native labour in Portuguese East Africa to the Robinson group of mines, and would the correspondence between the mine group and Lord Selborne be laid.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the time for a statement with regard to recruitment of natives in Portuguese East Africa would not have arrived until the negotiations with the Portuguese Government were concluded. No statement could be usefully made till then.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Cannot you answer the first part of the Question?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I said that no part of the correspondence will at present be laid.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the correspondence referred to in the hands of the Government?
  MR. CHURCHILLreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Is the situation at present that one capitalist in South Africa is empowered to recruit in Portuguese territory when no other individual is so empowered?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has made a recent statement in the other House on the question, to which I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention.

  Lagos Improvements—The Houssa Eviction.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether

  585
  he has communicated as promised with the Governor of Lagos concerning the proposed eviction of the veteran soldiers of the Houssa Tribe from houses built at their own expense upon land granted to them by the Government, and with what result; whether the land upon which the houses were built belongs to the Government, and, if not, to whom does it belong; whether, in the case of those who are evicted, full compensation will be granted; whether it is proposed to destroy the mosque belonging to these people, and that the only compensation offered is a grant of £100.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has informed the Governor of Lagos that he relies upon him to prevent feeling of hardship or injustice, and to give liberal interpretation of provisions made for compensation in the case of poor persons affected by these public improvements, and the Governor has replied that Lord Elgin's wishes will be most carefully followed. The land belongs to the Government. Compensation is being granted in accordance with the terms of the Ordinance, which are reported to the Secretary of State to be adequate. But if it should appear that further provision is required to establish these people in suitable homes— means will have to be found for doing so. The mosque has been valued at £100, but the question whether it should be removed or not was still under consideration when the Governor last wrote.

  Immigration and Emigration—Suggested International Conference
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether he has received any proposals for holding an International Conference to consider immigration and emigration with a view to their regulation and control.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Sir Edward Grey): No such proposal has been received.

  Chinese Customs.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information with regard to the circular recently
  586
  issued by Sir Robert Hart on the question of the new Chinese Customs Board; and whether he would cause a copy of this circular to be placed in the Library for the information of Members.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: A copy of the circular will be presented to Parliament.

  Karajovo Massacre.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the recent massacre at Karajovo, many of the assailants wore Turkish uniforms; that, though within sight of the flames of the burning village, the Turkish troops in the neighbourhood offered no assistance to its peaceful inhabitants; and, if the Answer to these Questions be in the affirmative, whether Ill's Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision to consent to an increase in the Customs duties levied upon British imports into Turkey for the purpose of defraying the cost of the Turkish troops in Macedonia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It is stated in the report, which we have received, that some of the assailants disguised themselves as Turkish soldiers in order not to arouse the suspicions of the villagers; and that the Turkish troops, who were stationed at neighbouring villages, saw and heard nothing at the time of the massacre. There is no connection between those Questions and the proposed increase in the Turkish Customs duties. My right hon. friend cannot make any statement about the latter, which is still under consideration. But if it be agreed to, my right hon. friend thinks the hon. Member will see when Papers are published that the last line of his Question is not a fair statement of the main purposes which the Powers have had in view.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Papers are likely to be laid?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any statement at present.

  Page's Estate Case.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to an

  587
  escheat in what is known as the Page's Estate case; and whether, in view of the repeated allegations of official connivance in the loss of this property to the Crown, he will consider the advisability of setting the whole question at rest once and for all by appointing a small Committee to go fully into the subject and report upon the same.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): The circumstances of this case, in which it is alleged that there has been an escheat of certain real estate to the Grown were, in or about the year 1870 and have been repeatedly since that date, brought to the notice of the Treasury, with the result that that Department, acting under legal advice, has always, I have no doubt on sufficient grounds, declined to take any action. In view, however, of the interest which appears to be taken in the matter, I have spoken to the Attorney-General, and we propose to examine the documents ourselves.

  Inland Revenue Officials at Somerset House.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is necessary to maintain in the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House two sets of highly-paid officials to advise the Board, one set with trained and practical experience fitting them to deal with all departmental questions, the other set a clerical staff possessing only piper experience obtained by reading the reports and opinions of the practical men; is he aware that the Board, who are appointed without practical experience, are surrounded by the clerical staff and do not come into direct touch with the practical men, although they are located in the same building; that the clerical staff act as carriers of the reports and papers pro-pared by the practical officials, who must be more competent to explain their own reports and to advise the Board; will he consider whether it would be conducive to greater efficiency and simplify and cheapen the work of the Department, and generally be to the advantage of the Inland Revenue service, for the Board to be in direct touch with their practical
  588
  advisers, and make such advisers the read heads of the Department.
  MR. ASQUITH: the Board of Inland Revenue are unable to admit the correctness of the suggestions conveyed by this Question. In their opinion, which is based on long experience, the present organisation of the office would not be improved in regard either to efficiency or simplicity by the changes suggested. The matter is one which cannot be adequately dealt with in answer to a Question.
  MR. SEARS: Was this reply furnished to the right hon. Gentleman by officials who would be detrimentally affected by a reform of the service?
  MR. ASQUITH: The reply is given on my own authority, and I have satisfied myself as to the accuracy of it.

  Surveyors of Taxes and Repayment Claims.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Surveyors of Taxes, as a rule, certify repayment claims under Section 165 of the Act of 1842, and thus supersede in their functions the Commissioners for general purposes, who alone are responsible for this duty under the section, and for transmitting the claims to the Commissioners for general purposes, and not to the Board of Inland Revenue as such; will he give the authority on which this Board is said to waive in certain cases the certificate of the General Commissioners prescribed by Section 165, seeing that there is no power vested in them for such action under the section; and whether he proposes to amend the law so as to legalise a practice which the Board says saves delay and annoyance to claimants.
  MR. ASQUITH: Surveyors of Taxes examine, and verify the facts relating to, claims to re-payment, and such examination and verification (which they would have to undertake in any case) is accepted as sufficient, without the formal certificate of the General Commissioners, under an administrative order of the Board of Inland Revenue, dated 24th February,

  589
  1887. I do not accept the suggestion that the General Commissioners are "superseded" by this procedure, nor do I think that objection need be taken to any slight deviation which it may involve from the letter of the law, since an experience of nearly twenty years has shown that it results in advantage to the taxpayer without danger of loss to the revenue. I will consider whether any, and what legislation is needed on the subject.

  London Street Ambulances.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take with a view to provide a better ambulance service for street accidents in London.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I am about to appoint a small committee to inquire into the ambulance arrangements of the metropolis, and my hon. friend has, I am glad to say, consented to give me his assistance in the inquiry by becoming a member of the committee.

  Repatriation of the German Gipsies.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has arranged for the deportation of the large band of gipsies who have caused so much expense and trouble in the country; if so, who is going to pay the expenses of such deportation; and whether he has given or will give instructions under the Aliens Act to prohibit the landing of foreign gipsies in the future at any of our seaports.
  MR. GLADSTONE: At my request the Society of Friends of Foreigners in Distress by willing and effective action, which I think should be generally appreciated, arranged last week for the repatriation of the two large bands of gipsies which have been wandering about the country for some time past. No public money has been provided, but the matter is under consideration. With regard to the last part of the Question, I
  590
  have no power under the Act to prohibit the landing of foreign gipsies as such at any port in the United Kingdom.
  MR. FELL: Judging by their habits is not the right hon. Gentleman inclined to think that these gipsies are undesirable aliens?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a question which has to be considered on its merits by the Immigration Boards.

  Police Arrests.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any and what instructions are given to a police constable to obtain the names and addresses of bystanders who witness the arrest of a person in a public place for an offence there committed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No general instructions could usefully be given to police constables on the subject; on the one hand a constable's attention would in most cases be fully taken up in attending to his prisoner, while, on the other hand, oven if he had an opportunity of asking bystanders for their names and and addresses, the bystanders would be under no obligation to give them.
  MR. FIENNES: But what facilities are accorded to a person arrested in the streets to got together his witnesses?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should like time to answer that Question. I think that full facilities should as far as possible be given.

  Marriages with Foreigners.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the suffering of our countrywomen who may be led into marriage with foreigners and may discover that such marriage is farcical, he will consider the necessity of compelling all ministers of religion, or at any rate all registrars, to have some knowledge of the marriage laws of foreign countries, and to inform our countrywomen of the danger they may ineur.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This matter has engaged attention fur some time past, and has, I am glad to say, been dealt with this session by the passing of the Marriage with Foreigners Act, which received the Royal Assent on the 29th November. The provisions of Section 2 of that Act will soon, I hope, apply to marriages contracted by British subjects with subjects of several of the principal European countries. Moreover, instructions have already been given by the Registrar-General that in every case where a British subject proposes to contract a civil marriage with a foreigner a warning of the possible dangers of such a marriage must be given.

  Pewsey Medical Officer.
  MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Hoard whether the Board received a letter from the Pewsey rural district council respecting their medical officer of health, and asking for an interview, dated 11th December 1905; will he explain why this letter remained unanswered until 31st August 1906, an interval of over eight months; whether the Local Government Board received another letter on the same subject from the rural district council, dated 3rd September 1906, which letter has not yet boon answered after an interval of three months; whether the Board will reconsider its refusal to receive a deputation on the subject of the medical officer's salary; and, if so, when the rural district council may expect to receive any communication from the Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): This particular case stood over, as some general questions affecting the subject to which it related were under consideration. The Local Government Board have, however, consented to the interview desired, and it is proposed that it should take place this week.

  Vaccination Acts.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now prepared to state what improvements he proposes to
  592
  make in the administration of the Vaccination Acts in the directions indicated by him on 25th April.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As I lately stated, this matter is receiving my attention, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement with regard to it.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of issuing a new order with a view to secure that public control and public expenditure go together in this department of their public service?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The question of issuing a new order securing public control over the expenditure is engaging my attention.

  Wages.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the aggregate fall in the amount paid in weekly wages since the 1st May, 1903, in the cases reported to the Board of Trade and regularly published by that Department.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I am having printed with the Votes a statement showing for each of the last ten years and for the first ten months of the present year the net increase or decrease of weekly wages reported to the Board of Trade. As regards the particular period named by the hon. Member I find that in the thirty-two months from May 1903 to the end of 1905 there was a net decrease of £78,000. On the other hand, in the first ten months of the present year there has been a net increase of £43,000 and wages are still rising. During the last ten years there has been a net increase of £209,000 in weekly wages.
  The following is the statement referred to in above Question:—
  In reply to the hon. Member's Question the following statement shows the computed net increase or decrease per week in the wages of those affected by changes in rates of wages in each of the years 1896

  593
  to 1905, and for the first ton months of 1906.

  Year.

  Computed amount of conge of weekly wages so far as recorded.

  Net increase per week.

  Net decrease per week.

  £

  £

  1896

  26,519

  —

  1897

  31,507

  —

  1898

  80,713

  —

  1899

  90,314

  —

  1900

  208,590

  —

  1901

  —

  76,587

  1902

  —

  72,595

  1903

  —

  38,327

  1904

  —

  39,230

  1905

  —

  2,169

  1906 (First ten months)

  43,037

  —

  Total

  480,680

  228,908

  MR. BONAR LAWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's reply did not mean that wages were now being paid at a lower rate than in 1903 to the extent of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a year.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: £35,000 a week.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that daring these years of falling wages the profits assessed to income-tax were always rising.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir, that is so. There is a further fact. The hon. Gentleman opposite has selected a period of falling trade up to the beginning of the present year; whereas the previous years were years of comparative prosperity.
  MR. BONAR LAWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had not frequently stated that since that date there had been a distinct improvement all round in trade.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, that is so.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Then what about wages?
  MR. BOWLESasked whether this decrease in the aggregate amount of wages paid was accompanied by a large decrease in the number of hours worked.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, that is so.

  Unemployment.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has boon the average percentage of unemployment of members of trade unions making Returns since the 1st May, 1903; what was the average percentage for the five years previous to that date; and what has boon the average percentage since the 1st May, 1903, of unemployment among members of German trade unions as published by the German Labour Department.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The periods named by the hon. Member are so arbitrarily selected that merely to give the figures he asks would give a misleading impression of the course of employment. I am therefore having printed with the Votes the average percentage of unemployment returned by trade unions in each mouth since the beginning of the period to which the Question refers. From May, 1903, to the end of 1905 (a period of trade depression) the average percentage was 5·8. In the first ten months of 1906 it has fallen to 3·9. During the five years 1898–1902 (which was mostly a period of active trade) the percentage was 3·3. The German Returns do not go back before June, 1903, but the years 1901 and 1902 are known to have been years of great depression in Germany. Since June, 1903, the mean percentage published by the German Labour Department has been W. As stated in the Memorandum dealing with unemployment in the second Fiscal Volume published by the late Government this figure is not comparable with the Percentages returned by trade unions in the United Kingdom, as the basis of the official statistics differs in the two countries.
  The following is the statement referred to in above Question:—
  In reply to the hon. Member's Question the following statements show the average percentage of unemployed returned by trades unions in the United Kingdom in

  UNEMPLOYMENT IN UNITED KINGDOM.

  Percentage of trade union members unemployed at the end of each month from January, 1898 to October, 1906.

  Year.

  Jan.

  Feb.

  Mar.

  Apr.

  May.

  June.

  July.

  Aug.

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Mean for Year.

  1898

  5·0

  4·4

  3·1

  2·9

  2·7

  2·6

  2·6

  2·8

  2·6

  2·5

  2·3

  2·9

  3·0

  1899

  3·0

  2·6

  2·5

  2·2

  2·5

  2·3

  2·3

  2·3

  2·4

  2·3

  2·2

  2·5

  2·4

  1900

  2·7

  2·9

  2·3

  2·5

  2·4

  2·6

  2·7

  3·0

  3·6

  3·3

  3·2

  4·0

  2·9

  1901

  4·0

  3·9

  3·6

  3·8

  3·6

  3·5

  3·4

  3·9

  3·7

  3·7

  3·8

  4·6

  3·8

  1902

  4·4

  4·3

  3·7

  3·9

  4·0

  4·2

  4·0

  4·5

  5·0

  5·0

  4·8

  5·5

  4·4

  1903

  5·1

  4·8

  4·3

  4·1

  4·0

  4·5

  4·9

  5·5

  5·8

  5·8

  6·0

  6·7

  5·1

  1904

  6·6

  6·1

  6·0

  6·0

  6·3

  5·9

  6·1

  6·4

  6·8

  6·8

  7·0

  7·6

  6·5

  1905

  6·8

  6·2

  5·6

  5·6

  5·1

  5·2

  5·2

  5·4

  5·3

  5·0

  4·7

  4·9

  5·4

  1906

  4·7

  4·4

  3·8

  3·6

  3·6

  3·7

  3·6

  3·8

  3·8

  4·4

  —

  —

  3·9*

  *Mean for ten months.

  UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG MEMBERS OF GERMAN TRADE UNIONS.

  Membership of Unions Reporting.

  Members Unemployed.

  Number.

  Percentage.

  1903.

  June

  213,962

  6,758

  3·2

  September

  414,855

  9,713

  2·3

  December

  429,318

  11,030

  2·6

  1904.

  March

  431,421

  8,651

  2·0

  June

  490,879

  10,485

  2·1

  September

  575,494

  11,083

  1·8

  December

  616,582

  14,771

  2·4

  1905.

  March

  767,254

  12,131

  1·6

  June

  787,337

  12,937

  1·6

  September

  868,520

  11,805

  1·4

  December

  995,322

  17,861

  1·8

  1906.

  March

  1,118,578

  12,653

  1·1

  June

  1,053,958

  14,310

  1·3

  July

  —

  10,428

  0·8†

  August

  —

  9,940

  0·8

  September

  1,254,941

  13,058

  1·0

  NOTE.—The above figures are an abstract of such official information as is available with regard to the state of employment in Germany, and ate given in order to indicate as far as possible the fluctuations in employment from period to period. The bases of the Official Statistics published in Germany are, however, not the same as those for the United Kingdom, and therefore the figures quoted above cannot be properly used to compare the actual level of employment in the United Kingdom and Germany.
  † It is stated in the Reichs-Arbeitsblatt, from which these figures are extracted, that on the inquiry form for this month it was for the first time made clear to the persons furnishing returns that all members out of work were to be included as unemployed, whether in receipt of unemployed benefit or not. Formerly, a certain proportion of members who were out of work, but who were not entitled to unemployed benefit, were not included in the returns as unemployed. For this reason, therefore, the statistics relating to this and subsequent dates are not strictly comparable with those for previous periods, but to what extent the figures are affected by the difference it is not possible to state.
  each month since the beginning of 1898, and the percentage of unemployed members of trade unions in Germany from June, 1903 to September, 1906.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Fiscal Blue-book was published it has been stated in the Board of Trade, Journal that the German Government gave statistics of every kind in regard to unemployment—not only such as are included in our own Returns but also some that are not. And is it not the net result that the amount of unemployment is less than 1 per cent?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he will look at the Labour Gazette he will find it pointed out there that the German computation is on a totally different basis from our own.
  MR. BONAR LAW: But—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is now becoming a debate.

  Weights and Measures.
  MR. B E R T R A M: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the grounds upon which he has issued the now Regulation (1) under the Weights and Measures Acts in substitution for the model Regulation (13), issued by the Board of Trade in 1890 for adoption by local authorities; whether he is aware that the new regulation will, by its insistence upon an annual inspection of all weights, measures, and weighing instruments found to be in use for trade at the premises of every trader in the country, deprive the local authorities of all discretion in the matter; whether he has received from any of the county councils communications as to the additional burden which will be cast upon them by the now regulation; and whether he will consider the desirability of withdrawing Clauses 1 and 9 of the new regulations for the present.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): The regulations to which my hon. friend refers are still in draft, and have not yet
  598
  been issued. As was stated in the Answer to his Question of the 1st November,† Regulation (1), as proposed in the draft, differs from the existing model regulation chiefly in the direction of relaxation, i.e., of allowing visits to be made at longer intervals than a year, in certain circumstances. Representations have been received from certain county councils on this and other matters connected with the Regulations, and the whole subject is still under the consideration of the Departmental Committee.

  Second Division Clerks.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I bag to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the rule of seniority among clerks of the higher grade of the second division of the Civil Service; does it depend on the service and standing of the clerk in the higher grade, as in a distinct class, or on the total length of service in the second division, irrespective of the date of promotion into the higher grade.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. MCKENNA): No rule on the specific question has been promulgated, and in view of the fact that promotions depend on merit and not on seniority the Treasury thinks it unnecessary and undesirable to make any rule on the subject.

  The Lingfield Prosecutions.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shore ditch, I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount expended in costs and expenses in connection with the prosecutions instituted by the Government in connection with the late General Election in the following cases: Rex v. S. Barnes Rex v. Thomas A. Bladder, Rex. v. Eli Peters, Robert Richard Fowler re the Reigate Division of Surrey, Rex v. Baker and More.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. MCKENNA): The net amount of the costs and expenses
  † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1334.

  599
  incurred by the Director of Public Prosecution in these cases was:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Rex v. S. Barnes

  11

  0

  9

  Rex v.. Thos. A. Blackler

  15

  18

  9

  Rex v. Eli Peters

  2

  13

  5

  Rex v. Robert Richard Fowler

  18

  15

  9

  Rex v. Baker & More (Morl)

  39

  7

  2

  £87

  15

  10

  This net amount is arrived at after taking credit for the county allowances in the cases of:—

  County allowances.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Rex v. S. Barnes

  18

  12

  0

  Rex v.Blackler

  21

  10

  0

  Rex v.Baker & Morl

  87

  4

  3

  £127

  6

  3

  These allowances fall on local funds.

  Delamere Estate, Cheshire.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that twenty-one cottages belonging to the Crown on the Delamere estate, in Cheshire, are leased by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to a man who sublets them to labourers and others at rents which are more than double the rent he pays for them to the Crown; whether such subletting has been carried on with the knowledge and consent of the Commissioners; and whether immediate steps will be taken to terminate such a state of affairs.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: Perhaps I may answer this Question. The cottages in question are leased with a farm of 820 acres for a term which expires at Michaelmas, 1908. No specific amount of rent is, paid to the Crown for the cottages apart from the farm, but I understand that the lessee of the farm sublets ten of the cottages to her own labourers at rents of 2s. a week, while the remainder are sublet to other labourers, one at 3s. a week, and the others at 4s. a week. My noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture does not consider this a satisfactory arrangement, and the matter will be reconsidered on the expiration of the lease.

  Tilonga's Appeal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal brought before that tribunal in August last by Tilonga, a Native chief, who had been sentenced to 10 years hard labour and a fine of 500 cattle after a trial by court martial, legalized by an Indemnity Act passed by the Natal Legislature before that trial, whereby it was determined that military courts sitting after a proclamation of martial law are not constituted according to the Articles of War or by the Imperial Army Act, and that they are not subject to any superior control so long as their acts are confirmed as the arcs of this court martial were confirmed by the Governor of Natal, under whoso direction they act; and whether, having regard to the fact that as the Governor of a Colony representing the Crown possesses this power it is likewise nested in the Crown itself and liable to be exercised under similar conditions in these countries, he has any statement to make or will give an undertaking that he will consider the law on this subject with a view to its reform in the interests of liberty.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds S.): I do not wish to prejudice the question whether the conviction of this chief was justified on the evidence or whether his sentence was excessive, but I cannot undertake to propose any legislation on the subject.

  Scottish Prisons.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I bog to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether ground is being surveyed for the erection of a new prison in Scotland; where the: prison is to be located; how many prisoners it will hold; and what is the estimated cost.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): For the steps taken in accordance with general prisons policy I would refer the hon. Member to pages 296–301 of the Civil Service Estimates for the current year. Negotiations are now in progress, but I am not now able to give details.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not in the interest of public economy apply to the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the loan of a few Irish prisons which are entirely empty?

  Unemployment in West Clare.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, owing to the want of employment and consequent distress to the working men in West Clare, he will give instructions to the chairmen of the several district councils and Poor Law unions therein to get the plots of land in connection with the labourers cottages fenced in so as to give employment to the labourers, that they may be able to till the said plots next spring.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I understand that no Provisional Order under the Labourers Acts for any district in West Clare has been issued since August, 1903. The Question would therefore appear to relate to schemes which have not yet come before the Irish Local Government Board, and in regard to these the Board have no power to give instructions as suggested.

  Board of Works Employees at Kingstown.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the employees of the Board of Works at Kingstown have been notified that the customary holiday on New Year's Day is no longer to be allowed to them, and, if so, for what reason; and whether the Treasury will allow this holiday in future as heretofore.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Baronet will refer to the Answer which my hon. friend gave to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on the 5th April last,† he will find that St. Patrick's Day has been substituted for New Years Day as a holiday at Kingstown.

  Ardara Mail Service.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the incon-
  †See (4) Debates, civ,, 711.
  602
  venience and dislocation of business entailed by the fact that there is no midday delivery of letters in Ardara, county Donegal, where there is a large if not a larger number of letters on the average than in some of the neighboring towns in which there are raid-day deliveries; and whether, having regard to the advantages resulting to the trade of the town by the establishment of a mid-day delivery, he will see his way to the granting of this privilege to Ardara, and the placing of this town on terms of equal advantage with the other towns of this district in the means of postal communication.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): As the hon. Member is aware, I made inquiry a short time ago respecting the postal service at Ardara, The cost of the service is already so high that I should not be justified in extending the existing facilities at the public expense.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Cannot you do it out of the £5,000,000 profits made last year?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The profits were not made at Ardara.

  Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee during the present session.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I am afraid it is impossible. The pressure of legislative business becomes greater rather than less as we go on.

  Kent Coal Field.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the reported new finds of seams of good coal in Kent; and whether, having regard to the national importance of establishing a coalfield in the south-Cast of England, and to the unsatisfactory progress that has been made in proving and working the coal since its discovery there some years ago, he will cause the Board of Trade to inquire into the

  603
  matter and get reports from the Government geologists and inspectors of mines which might be laid before this House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see what steps the Government can take in this matter. I am informed that measures for proving the coal are being energetically carried on; and I cannot see that it is the duty of any Government Department to call for special reports.

  BUSINESS OK THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister what days he proposed to assign for the promised debates on the Army and wireless telegraphy, and what business he contemplated taking on Thursday and Friday.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was afraid he could not say yet when those debates would take place. On Thursday it was proposed to take the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill and to submit a Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for the rest of the session.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)asked whether the Prime Minister would not give the Report of the Procedure Committee priority over the debates on the Army and wireless telegraphy.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have certain obligations in regard to those two subjects, but I am very anxious to have the discussion on procedure as soon as possible.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Marine Insurance Bill [Lords], without Amendment; they agree to certain other of the said Amendments, with Amendments, and have made consequential Amendments to the Bill, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; they disagree to certain other of the said Amendments, but have made Amendments in lieu thereof, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and they disagree to certain other of the said Amendments, for which disagreement they assign their reasons.
NEW BILL.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.
  "To apply the provisions of the Life Assurance Companies Acts, 1870 to 1872, to companies carrying on the business of insuring employers against liability to pay compensation or damages to workmen in their employment," presented by Mr. Kearley; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 360.]

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  SIR HENRY KIMBER*SIR HENRY KIMBER (Wandsworth) moved:—" That this House declines to pass a Bill having for its sole object the prohibition and penalising of a large class of His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of admitted rights and franchises, (1) without consideration being given to the whole subject of electoral franchise, and (2) without any relief from the known gross anomalies involved in the present representation of the people in this House, which urgently calls for a redistribution of electoral power, and also (3) without any consideration of the previous constitutional question whether any relation between representation and taxation is to be permanently abandoned, or to what extent it is to be preserved." The hon. Member said he asked himself upon what principle the Government of the day had introduced such a measure? Was it particularly to relieve any class of His Majesty's subjects? It was not a Bill to enfranchise but a Bill which created disfranchisement and disabilities. As its title announced, it was a Bill to impose pains and penalties upon a Parliamentary elector registered in more than one constituency if he should vote in any constituency except that which he had selected for the purpose. It was therefore a Bill to impose a penalty—a penalty for what? A penalty for exercising a lawful right—a right which the Bill did not deny—viz., that of exercising a franchise which had been exercised without dispute for a very long period of time. He therefore again asked himself

  605
  why was it the Government of the day brought in a Bill to impose disabilities, take away rights, and impose pains and penalties? The penalty imposed was that for felony. The offence was called "personation." If a man exercised his own right to give his own vote in his own name in his own constituency he was pronounced in the Bill to be guilty of "personation." Personation of whom? He always thought personation was when a man presented himself somewhere and pretended to be someone else. Under the Bill a man having a vote for more than one place was called upon to set a mark against his name in the constituency in which he intended to vote, and if he failed to do so he was entirely disfranchised. By setting his mark against his name a man held himself up to his political opponents and the local wire-pullers; having ex-eluded himself from voting in the other constituencies he had to be provided against only in that particular one. The penalties imposed for this Bill-created crime—it could not be held to be a moral crime, as there was no fraud and no moral turpitude—were excessive. A man had to forfeit all his rights to the Parliamentary franchise for seven years, and might be condemned to two years imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine, and no such luxury as that accorded to first class suffragettes. That might or might not be considered by some persons who were actuated in their legislation by vindictive principles too severe, but he looked upon it as being unjustifiable. He started with the proposition that at all events it was not a Bill which would ameliorate the position of any class of His Majesty's subjects. He had sought in vain in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill and in the speeches of other Members of the Government for any reason for bringing in this Bill, either on the grounds of urgency or on the ground that it ameliorated the position of anyone, and he could find no reason at all. The Prime Minister said in almost the same terms as the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the Bill was to do away with the anomaly of strangers being able to vote down residents, and to prevent freeholders from towns being introduced wholesale into elections in county divisions. The second reason was
  606
  one which related to the future, and dealt with prevention, and he had nothing in the world to say against a Bill which provided for the future against the artificial introduction of freeholders from towns or anywhere else merely to swamp a county division or any other division. Anything in the way of the prevention of a wrong of that sort would be perfectly legitimate. But this Bill did nothing of the kind, because it was ex post facto legislation, which destroyed rights which had existed from time immemorial, on the mere ground that it was an anomaly. Freeholders residing in one county were not to be able to vote also in another county in which their property rested, and in which they paid taxes and supported people. This from a Government who said that locality had nothing to do with representation! But let them see, to use an American phrase, "Who is hurt" by the status quo? Was it the Government of the day who had a majority of some 300? No, but when they presently came to examine the figures and the history of the recent past they might perhaps discover a latent reason why in the interests of their Party it had seemed good to the Government to bring forward this measure to confiscate the rights and to disfranchise that large portion of His Majesty's subjects who were voters and electors in more places than one by virtue, not of any fraud, or of any illicit action, but by their having legitimately acquired and become possessed of properties or having set up industries in more than one place. These men had paid taxes to the State and employed labour of all kinds, and yet it was said they were not to be entitled to have a vote in all the counties or divisions in which they were rendering these services to the public good. [Mr. J. WARD: "They take the rents."] If they did take rents they also paid taxes and performed duties. Presently he should have to ask why the Government had arrived at the conclusion that taxation and representation were to be for ever divorced. It was said that manhood and residence should be the only qualification. In that case a general in the Army who had succeeded in saving his country from great perils

  607
  should have no more influence at the polls than the man who groomed his horse. This was a deprivation and not an enfranchising Bill. Why should not freeholders in the county have votes? What was the county? Why should it have representation at all, if the people who were in it and who paid the rates and taxes and were loyal subjects were to be deprived of their votes? Let them take the case of the Universities. It was true the Government did not destroy the University constituencies, but he supposed that would come next. The Rill would, however, have a grotesque effect upon the University seats, as the representation would be left to the heads of colleges and dons who would probably have no residential qualifications elsewhere, and who would have the matter in their hands. The wire-pullers and caucus-mongers would see the advantage of that, and the probability was that they might have as representatives of these great seats of learning not men who were worthy to represent them, but men who were selected for political and much lower reasons than had hitherto prevailed. Or he might instance the City of London. The Liveries of the City were to be deprived of their votes, and the representation would be left in the hands of a few caretakers and such members of the Liveries who chose to reside in the City in order to retain their votes. The Members of the Liveries of which he was one could afford to bear the cheap sneers which were heaped upon them, but he thought the Liveries of the City of London were composed of men who could compare favourably with any body of His Majesty's subjects.
  MR. J. WARD: They have some fine dinners.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he must ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent not to keep up a running commentary on the speech of the hon. Member who was in possession of the House. He would have an ample opportunity later on of saying what he wished.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he was very much obliged to Mr. Speaker for relieving him from that annoyance,
  608
  which had troubled him somewhat, though he had not grumbled at the action of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. He would not grudge him the opportunity of intervening if he wished. The hon. Member happened to be a constituent of his own, and no doubt had some reason to complain because he did not properly represent him. The hon. Member, however, now represented himself. But he bore the hon. Member no ill-will and hoped to continue on good terms with him, and to treat him as every Member of the House was entitled to be treated, as an equal while in it. There were many real wrongs which might have been remedied by this Bill, such as proposals to deal with the votes of the Members of the mercantile marine who by their absence had no opportunity of voting. That was a moot question, and he would not intrude it upon the House now. The same remarks applied to the Navy. But there was a much more serious wrong. We were said to govern ourselves, but under the existing machinery of representation it could not be told whether we governed ourselves or whether somebody else was governing us. In 1893 the late Sir William Harcourt spoke upon a Motion which he (Sir Henry Kimber) introduced in regard to distribution of electoral power, and agreed that serious anomalies in the representation of the people existed, to such an extent as involved the danger of the will of the nation being misrepresented and possibly controverted by the decisions of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman said that no one could deny that great inequalities existed, not only in the representation of Ireland but in regard to that of London, and before long, probably sooner than later, there must be another Redistribution Bill. The subject must be dealt with before long. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would not traverse any of his (the hon. Member's) statements, and appealed to him to withdraw his Motion, which out of deference to the right hon. Gentleman he did. He brought the matter forward several times in every succeeding year. Ultimately a measure, a very lame measure, was brought in and it came to nothing. We had now a Government with plenty of power and time before

  609
  them, and they used the opportunity not for enfranchising non-represented people but for confiscating rights which had existed for generations, while they declined to take in hand the removal of real and gross anomalies which year after year were increasing and which involved the serious question of whether the power was exercised according to the will of the people. In anything he had said or written upon this subject of redistribution he had always been careful to keep clear from anything like Party bias. It was to the benefit of the House itself that it should represent the real will of the country. There were eight great anomalies from which the people had suffered since 1893, and which were growing in intensity every year. Constituencies of over 40,000 electors, and others with less than 2,000 electors, were represented in this House each by one representative. Over 100 members of this House represented constituencies of over 15,000 electors, fifty Members represented constituencies of under 5,000. Fifty-five Members represented constituencies of over 20,000, fifty - five represented constituencies of 2,000. Five Members, of which he was one, represented as many electors as forty-five other Members. He might fairly contend that four-fifths of the electors of this country were practically unrepresented as regarded the power of voice, and some might say they were misrepresented. Scotland had seventy-two Members, and had an electorate and a population larger than Ireland, which was represented in this House by 103 Members, though he admitted that owing to distance Ireland was perhaps entitled to some special consideration in this matter; at the same time so glaring a disparity ought to be remedied. The average electorate per Member in England was 11,442, in Ireland 6,283. If the electorate of the United Kingdom was divided it showed that one-half was represented by 206 Members and the other half by 464. A majority of 370 represented 2,750,000 electors whilst the minority of 300 Members represented 4,300,000. These anomalies were infinitely greater than that which was proposed to be dealt with by this Bill. This was one of the most grave questions. It was one which
  610
  might cause the will of the nation to be misrepresented and cause the people to govern themselves in a way which they did not wish. That was exemplified by two illustrations. At the time of the passing of the 1885 Reform Bill the proportion of the highest constituency to the lower was only eight to one, and now the proportion was thirty to one, In the general election of 1895 481 contested elections gave to 1,775,000 Unionist voters 279 seats, and to 1,800,000 Liberal voters 202 seats. It was those very contested seats that changed the Government of the day. It was quite possible for the present Government to contend on these figures that they should have been returned to power on that occasion. In the general election of 1906 the Liberal and Labour Parties polled 3,044,000 votes and obtained 428 seats, and the Unionists 2,400,000 and only obtained 139 seats. Each supporter of the Government represented 7,113 citizens, each Unionist Member 17,303. So that their votes were in the proportion of five to four and the Members they returned were one to three. These figures he suggested were the reason for this Bill. The injustice of the present anomalies would be shown by two simple illustrations. In a county of four divisions three Liberals and one Unionist were returned, though the bulk of the votes in the whole county were Unionist; in the other case, the case of a borough, two Unionists were returned by a small majority and one by a Liberal and Labour split, though over the whole area the Unionist total was less than the total of Liberal and Labour votes as a whole. In that case the Liberals were entitled to two Members out of three. These anomalies were more gross than anything touched by this Bill. He would no doubt be pardoned for asking in boyish phrase, What was the game? The game was not shown by a single move. This Bill was one move only. It was part of a sequence of measures introduced by the present Government; the Education, the Land Tenure, the Town Tenants, and this, the Plural Voting Bills. The Education Bill was a Bill to despoil a great Church which had deserved for centuries past the praise and gratitude of a great nation. Whatever its faults—and he was free as a churchman to say there were many—

  611
  it was at least a satisfaction to know-it had done great things for the education of the country. The Education Bill was to despoil the Church. The Land Tenure Bill was a Bill to despoil landowners. The Town Tenants Bill was a Bill to despoil the owners of houses. The Plural Voting Bill was a Bill to despoil electors of their right to vote. All these Bills were disability Bills. They were all Bills which, like this one, took away privileges and rights which free men had got of entering into free contracts and transactions and and exercising their liberties in all things lawful. The very manhood of the country, using it in the sense of voting, or not, was affected. We were gradually drawing toils about our legs which would emasculate the powers we possessed for work and for progress. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman even at this last hour of the passage of the Bill through this House to consider whether he would not hold this Bill in hand until he had taken under his care also the other and larger and more pressing question, the redistribution of seats. If not, he asked the House to reject the Bill, because it was one of disfranchisement and deprivation of admitted rights, because it left increasing evils, which the Government admitted to exist, untouched and unremedied; because its methods were unfair and crude; because it created a crime, and imposed penalties for exercising civil rights; because it ignored the cardinal maxim that taxation should have representation; and because it left tens of thousands of citizens unrepresented in Parliament, and unable to participate in the Government of the country or their own affairs. Finally, he would submit that this Bill was not the Bill of a statesman, but the Bill of a Party, whom accident had placed in a position of temporary power, to disfranchise their opponents.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was sure the House would recognise in the unique experience of his hon. friend, who had sat for one of the largest constituencies of the country for more than twenty years, a right to claim respectful consideration from all sections for the arguments he put forward. He therefore regretted that during the greater part of the speech
  612
  of his hon. friend the only audience on the Treasury Bench was the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He did not think anyone would under-rate the knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman had of the Bill, or the skill with which he had conducted it through the House, but he should have thought that an old Member of the House, speaking with great experience, might have expected a larger audience on the Front Bench opposite. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill observed that he proposed to place a limit on an abuse and an anomaly. It was a convenient thing in all legislation, before attempting to cure, to diagnose clearly the grievance to which the cure was to be applied. In other words, before they tried to correct anomalies they should clearly understand what was the standard, rule, or principle from which it was alleged that the anomaly was a deviation. There were two competitive principles in regard to the issue before the House. In the first place, there was the principle that local interest should be represented even at the cost of an occasional duplication of votes. The second principle, he supposed, demanded the exact proportionment of the voting strength of the individual to the aggregate number of individuals who at any given moment were qualified to exercise the franchise. He knew of no other principles than these two that could be brought forward as the standard in reference to which the issue of plural voting might be considered. He agreed with the late Mr. Gladstone that historically a great deal might be said in favour of the old principle which secured representation to localities, even if it involved the anomaly of the duplication of votes. He did not blind his eyes to the fact that under the conditions of democratic evolution in this country to-day the cause of plural voting examined simpliciter, and with reference solely to its own merits appeared to be a lost one. In his own judgment the case which depended upon local representation, if it involved duplication of votes, was not one which was likely to be successfully decided on its own individual claims to survive, and he would say on his own behalf that, having neither the desire nor the aptitude to play the part of Don Quixote in a

  613
  losing case, he did not propose to contest it in his own constituency. In this respect, therefore, he proposed—and he would respectfully invite his hon. friends to do the same—to affect a virtue if he had it not. It must be conceded, therefore, that everybody who wished to realise a really democratic system of representation must concentrate in support of the other proposition, which involved three reforms—first, the numerical equalisation of constituencies; secondly, a periodical revision of an automatic character; and thirdly, the abolition of the plural vote. So far as he was concerned he should be quite prepared to support the Government in any measure which would adopt the second principle in its entirety. He had a reservation to make in favour of the continued representation of Universities. He agreed that it was an anomaly, but there was hardly a Bill introduced this session by the Government which did not contain an anomaly. Anomalies were the life and breath of the British Constitution. What he objected to very strongly in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the representation of the Universities was that although he disavowed the policy of bleeding the Universities white, that would be precisely the effect of the Bill in this matter. He preferred the attitude of open, honest hostility to the attempt the right hon. Gentleman had made insidiously to deprive; the Universities of voters year by year, until they were able to turn round and say University representation was no longer able numerically to justify its existence and must be put an end to. The argument of the hon. Member for Northampton did not deserve much consideration when he spoke of the standard of University degrees and indicated that Labour Members would not think it a very high standard. The comparison ought to be between the intellectual power of the average voter and the intellectual power, not of Members of this House, who ex hypothesi ought to possess exceptional powers, but of the individual elector in the constituencies. He had given some attention to a Paper which had recently been laid upon the Table of the House with reference to illiterate voters. He
  614
  found that in England and Wales, out of 4,880,000 there were 19,758 illiterates, or ·4 per cent. In Scotland out of 585,691 voters 2,041 were illiterate, or ·3 per cent. In the case of Ireland, out of 135,882 voters there were no less than 12,510 illiterates, or 9·2 per cent. By a side attack the Government were trying to destroy the representation of the constituencies in which there was a stronger guarantee for a high standard of culture and education on the plea of destroying an anomaly, and at the same time they were deliberately perpetuating another anomaly by which Ireland would continue to be unduly represented, although it contained by far the highest percentage of illiterate voters. In legislating upon this question they had to deal not with one anomaly but with two, namely, the existing disproportion in the size of the constituencies and the system of plural voting. It was highly desirable to inquire what was the extent of each grievance. He gathered from the last Parliamentary Paper issued on the subject that there were about 600,000 plural voters in this country, and probably there were not more than 500,000 who at any given time could conceivably exercise the right to vote. They might reasonably subtract one-sixth as belonging to the i class of agricultural labourers and artisans who had been placed accidentally on the register without their knowledge and without the slightest prospect of availing themselves of the right of plural voting. Making a farther deduction for absentees in a generally accepted average percentage they would get about 400,000 plural voters who would be likely to exercise the plural franchise. It was, of course not reasonable to suppose that all plural voters were on the Oppositition side of the House. Therefore, out of a population of 40,000,000 they had about 400,000 citizens who might be expected to avail themselves of the opportunities given to them by this gross anomaly which the Government thought it worth their while to remove in their first session of Parliament. He would not emphasise at any length the points which had been so ably made by his hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth, but there were four constituencies he desired to mention. One was Romford, with a population of

  615
  217,000; another Walthamstow, with 185,000 inhabitants; the third Wands-worth, with a population of 179,000; and the fourth Harrow, with 177,000. There were five English Parliamentary divisions, in which the total population was far greater than in fifteen Irish borough divisions, which returned sixteen members. The result was that five hon. Members of the House represented as much voting strength in their constituencies as sixteen hon. Members who represented fifteen Irish borough divisions. Those reflections suggested that there must be some reason why the Government had chosen one of these anomalies for correction and neglected the other. Probably the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would say that, although the Government fully recognised the second anomaly, it could only be dealt with just before a dissolution. But surely the anomaly of plural voting could have been far more conveniently dealt with at the same time. What explanation could be suggested for the selection which the Government had made and for the astonishing haste to secure this particular reform? Some hints in this direction had been given both inside and outside the House of Commons The Westminster Gazette, a paper distinguished both for the ability and the fairness of its controversial methods, in discussing the objections advanced upon this subject, said they never could expect to have an anomaly removed except by a Party which was likely to gain politically by its removal. He did not complain of the frankness of that statement. The hon. Member for Prestwich, in an illuminating flash of candour, had said the Conservative Party was the propertied class and this Bill would affect them most. The Opposition could not afford to allow these contemporaneous contributions to their researches to pass without notice. The hon. Member for Stoke had observed with great satisfaction and complete candour that it was the business of the Patronage Secretary to dish the Unionists. Then the hon. Member for the Eskdale Division, although strongly in favour of woman suffrage, deplored and resisted the suggested postponement of this question because the Bill would be useful at by-elections. The hon. Member for the
  616
  Eskdale Division was honest enough to say what most hon. Members opposite were only thinking. These statements enabled the Opposition to generalise the motives of the Government, because on the showing of their own friends they were attacking deliberately the smaller of two anomalies in order that they might make Party capital by disfranchising the plural voter. That was an exasperating policy to come from any Government, and it was particularly exasperating when it came from a Government which made on its own behalf high professions and a claim for public morality. The most suitable Party emblem of the present Government might be borrowed from the kindred sect of the Pharisees. He would recommend them to counter the Primrose League by a Phylactery League. They had introduced the one reform which was likely to benefit themselves, whilst they had left unredressed each greater anomaly which would prejudice their Party interests as a whole. They had heard ad nauseam the right hon. Gentleman state that he could not accept one Amendment or consider another on the ground that it would interfere with the principle of the Bill. The only possible retort to which was, should they not leave principle out of the question? This Bill was doomed as surely as the Education Bill, and he hoped it would receive the treatment it deserved in another place. It threw duties and liabilities upon the plural voter to which the single voter was not exposed, and not a single argument in justification of this course had been advanced in the course of the whole of this debate. He had no objection to the Government in pursuance of a general scheme of reform depriving the plural voter of what they conceived to be an undue and inordinate influence in the voting power of the State, but why should they, in the first place, impose upon the plural voter liabilities and conditions which they did not impose upon the single voter? In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately flung away the opportunity offered of availing himself of the residential principle if he had the judgment to concentrate upon a simple and logical principle. In the third place, the right hon. Gentleman had

  617
  exposed the Bill to an objection which, in his judgment, was the most serious grievance of all, namely, the keeping up of the standard of costs in those large constituencies in which the number of plural voters was very great, on the basis that the electorate was unchanged by the existence of the plural voters.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale)indicated dissent.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He was perfectly well aware what the right hon. gentleman meant. He knew that an Amendment was introduced on Report for the purpose of modifying to some extent this particular ground of criticism, but he still said that the Bill maintained the standard of expense in those constituencies where there were a large number of plural voters, because at any moment the apparent aggregate number of voters would depend upon an entirely fallacious basis. If the right hon. Gentleman dissented from that it was perfectly clear that the Bill did not carry out what he said was the object on its introduction, namely, to keep alive as possible voters persons who had qualifications in two constituencies. Unless these voters were kept alive what became of the facility of transference which the right hon. Gentleman said was one of the merits of the Bill? If they did keep these voters alive the result would be that every Member of the House in a constituency would be obliged to reckon a number of ineffective deadheads for the purpose of his campaign, or preliminary campaign, as potential voters, and a candidate must to some extent be put to expense in keeping himself abreast of the removals, and in communicating with the possible survivals. He ventured to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the co-existence of seventeen different franchises—the fruit of the fortuitous development of our franchise system—rendered it extremely difficult for anybody to attempt the disingenuous manipulation of that system as a whole. Those difficulties were insuperable by any Bill that could have been introduced, unless the right hon. Gentleman adopted the course which he thought
  618
  the majority of the House would agree was by far the most satisfactory, and that was to provide that all the elections of the country should be held on the same day. If the Government had wished to carry out their object with the minimum of friction and the maximum of practical result they could have prayed in aid inexorable considerations of time and space and said that all elections should be held simultaneously. He did not think that the Government were unwise from their own point of view in introducing this Bill in the first session of the present Parliament. If they looked back on the political history of the country they would find that it had always been the object of a Liberal Government, though it had not always been successfully carried out, to ensure when returned to power that by no possible means should it appeal to the same constituencies as returned it to power. It was the policy of the Eastern usurper who, having acquired power by immoral methods, proceeded to annihilate the male progeny of his rival. A policy of that kind applied to the case of plural voting would, he ventured to say, speaking on behalf of what he believed was the smallest numerical minority which had ever confronted a Government since the Reform Bill, bear an odious complexion in the eyes of the country who would rightly take the view that the Ministry should not have committed themselves with indecent haste to remove this anomaly in the first session of Parliament—a time when there were many grave social questions which called for the immediate attention of the Government. Hon. Members of the Opposition realised in the plainest possible manner that this Bill was not to be considered alone. It was an insidious incident in a general campaign on which hon. Gentlemen opposite for their own purposes were entering — a general campaign which travelled far beyond the inconsiderable issue of the franchise. They had reached the time when, from the point of view of a possible issue between the House and another place, it was thought desirable that measures of this kind should be hurriedly introduced. In a phrase which was very fashionable some years ago the ploughers of the sands were harnessing their foundered

  619
  horses, and the spirited policy of filling up the cup was well under way. This was one of the Bills which was to be made capital of for that purpose, while an attempt was ingeniously made to pack the jury before the appeal was made to them. He ventured to think the policy would fail. It would fail simply because in England the pettier forms of dishonesty had never succeeded in the long run. He trusted this Bill would meet the fate which some of them anticipated in another place. He and his friends looked forward without the slightest trepidation to the wind and fury now in process of artificial manufacture. It was astonishing to those on his side of the House that an experienced politician like the President of the Board of Trade should not perceive that the artificial indignation he had been expressing in the country was wholly superfluous if the country was really with him on this and other Bills. At the time of the Reform Bill the country knew what it wanted, and it did not require any politician blowing a Party bellows to make it articulate. If the country was not with the Government on this and other issues the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman and others were futile, ridiculous, and contemptible. Their speeches were merely the despairing utterances of battled malice. If the Government had made an honest attempt to make the House of Commons a more faithful representation of every section in the country they would, he believed, have commanded the support of every section of the House, but he did not believe that the attempt which they had made by this measure to load the electoral dice at the bidding of Party agents would survive the Houses of Parliament, and he was certain that it would never receive the deliberate approval of the electors of this country.
  Amendment proposed —
  "To leave out all the words after 'that' and insert the words, 'this House declines to pass a Bill having for its sole object the prohibition and penalising of a large class of. His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of admitted rights and franchises, (1) without consideration being given to the whole subject of electoral franchise, and (2) without any relief from the known gross anomalies involved in the present representation of the people in this House, which urgently
  620
  calls for a redistribution of electoral power' and also (3) without any consideration of the previous constitutional question whether any relation between representation and taxation is to be permanently abandoned, or to what extent it is to be preserved.'"—(Sir Henry Kimber.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid it was quite true that the simple principle of the machinery of this Bill had been fully and frequently debated in the House. It was also true that, not from his own wish, hon. Members had had to listen ad nauseam to his answers to their questions. Hon. Members would not be surprised, perhaps they would be relieved to hear, that he proposed to detain them for only a very short time in answering the mover and seconder of the Amendment. During the earlier stages of this measure the Opposition had constantly stated that for many reasons the Bill, in their opinion, was wholly inadmissible. But this Amendment seemed by implication to suggest that in certain circumstances and with some form of redistribution it would have been almost accept- able and tolerable.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: The principle of the Bill.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that without the encouragement of hon. Gentlemen opposite it would not have been civil to have said of the hon. Baronet's Amendment that it was a mere pretence and transparent sham. Out of mere courtesy to the hon. Baronet he must be allowed to assume that he seriously meant what be had so solemnly said. The assumption then was that with some form of redistribution this Bill would be acceptable.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he did not say that. He said the consideration of this proposition ought to be accompanied by the consideration of the other question.
  MR. HAECOURTsaid the hon. Baronet's friends had frequently stated that the machinery which he was anxious to bring into being would be difficult to work and puzzling to those whom it was likely most to affect, but it was generally admitted that the difficulty would only

  621
  be acute in the initial stage of the Bill. Assuming that hon. Members were right, was it not obvious how considerate he had been to those upon whom, owing to their superfluity of power, he was obliged, in justice, to inflict some slight and temporary inconvenience? He had seized the earliest opportunity in the first session of a new and probably prolonged Parliament in order to bring in a Bill to correct these anomalies. It was quite well-known that redistribution belonged to the latter end of their Parliamentary existence. He had therefore arranged with great forethought and much tenderness that these pluralists should have the largest possible interval for their study of the law and in order to acquire the knowledge by which, with the minimum of trouble, they might divest themselves of any inconvenience which might adhere to their superfluity of votes. He had no doubt himself that the plural voters would attach very special value to the interval which he proposed to provide between the passage of the Bill and the change in the electoral machinery coming into operation. The Motion moved by the hon. Baronet was really very similar to those which had been the ordinary concomitant of proposals for the enlargement and the increase of the franchise, but it had never, so far as he knew, been proposed to attach it in past times to a measure dealing mainly with electoral machinery. Whether such Motions in the past had always been honestly intended to be taken in their literal sense, he thought those who were acquainted with the history and opponents of reform might be permitted to doubt. Certainly in many cases they were used as a weapon, not to accelerate, but to retard, reform, and they had often been used as a justification for still more drastic hostility in another place by a body of men who could not be registered, who were never elected, who had no popular sanction for their decisions, and who had no concern whatever with the machinery of registration. He was certainly not prepared to admit that this Bill was undesirable now, because it could not be followed, until a later stage, by proposals for redistribution. If the hon. Baronet were willing to substitute the converse of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, if he were willing to move that under no circumstances should a Registration Bill be passed unless it was
  622
  accompanied by "one man, one vote," then he would find in him an enthusiastic supporter, though, he was afraid, the hon. Baronet would have to part company with most of those amongst whom he sat. He was surprised that, to-day, and knowing the opinions which had been expressed by hon. Members at other stages of the Bill, the Opposition should be willing to shelter themselves behind what he might be permitted to call without offence an evasive Amendment. When he saw the Amendment on the Paper he had asked himself what was the meaning of it, and he came to the conclusion that what the Leader of the Opposition averred to-day he anathematised yesterday, as in the case of the Trade Disputes Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might say that after all there were a good many plural voters on this side of the House and that he saw no reason any longer to oppose the Bill; that it was too late to change or reject the Bill; that it must be accepted and the responsibility for its working be thrown on the Government. And he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would also arrive at the conclusion that the less said in another place the better. He saw the right hon. Member for South Dublin opposite; he humbly offered to become his confessor, and asked him to repeat his performance of ten days ago in regard to the Land Tenure Bill. On the Third Reading of that Bill, the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth moved its rejection on the ground that it destroyed freedom of contract, and altered the whole position of parties to a bargain but at the conclusion of the debate the right hon. Member for South Dublin said that although he did not like the Bill, yet as the Government on the Report stage had adopted several Amendments, which had gone a long way to meet his objections, he was reluctant to vote against the Third Reading, and he did not do so. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that on the Report stage of this Bill he too had gone as far as possible to meet the objections to some of its details, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might yet re-consider his position, and not allow himself to be led away and led astray by the hon. Member for Wandsworth. He certainly had expected that the Opposition at this stage would have boldly declared that this Bill was to them Anathema Maranatha, and that they would not touch the unclean thing. But

  623
  surely the caution and the timidity of their procedure had slightly smeared them already with his pitch. He was amazed that the Opposition should have adopted such a line of attack as this, and above all, that they should have chosen the hon. Baronet as their champion, when he remembered what was their and his record in the late Parliament on the subject of registration. When he entered this House he used to look with awe on the hon. Baronet with his portly figure and troubled intelligence. He watched the hon. Gentleman marching along the corridors, and he said to himself, "There is the Napoleon of reform." With folded arms and bowed head he conceived of a scheme of redistribution, as if it had been a new Code Napoleon. He watched with anxiety, expectation, and sympathy that period of gestation, and when at last on the 10th July, the poor little mouse was born, they knew what the Tory Party really meant by "one vote one value." The Government adopted the mouse, and gloated at its early vitality. The Prime Minister said that they must pass the Resolutions in favour of a scheme of re-distribution, adding that they were extremely simple, as ten years previously, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had declared that his plan of old age pensions was extremely simple. But those resolutions were never debated in the House. And why? Because the right hon. Gentleman, despite his enormous majority, was told that he would not be permitted to carry them en bloc after one division. Accordingly on the 13th July the bantling ceased to breathe. It was quite true that they were told by the Prime Minister that the Government would proceed to deal with re-distribution by Bill on the precedent set by Mr. Disraeli in 1857; but the right hon. Gentleman did not present a Bill in the House, not oven a ten minutes Bill! The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had always, or nearly always, the courage of his convictions, but who could blame him for not having the courage of the opinions and the re-distribution plans of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth? Think what must have been the position of a philosophic wrangler, suddenly confronted with such a scheme as that which was submitted in July of last year—a scheme founded, as he presumed it was, on nice, accurate mathematical calculations,
  624
  and having, as they knew, no relation whatever to party advantage, and nothing whatever of a political complexion, yet arriving at a result which, when dissected by electoral experts, seemed to show that the higher mathematics irresistibly led to the conclusion that, in violation of the second article of the Act of Union, they must disfranchise twenty-two Irish seats, and that, at the same time, by an equally curious accident, it was essential to preserve intact nearly all the southern and eastern boroughs of England, which, by another extraordinary coincidence did, at that moment, return almost exclusively Tories to Parliament. Knowing the views of the late Government on re-distribution, he saw no reason to postpone this moderate and desirable Bill for any proposals which they might make or with which they would be likely to be satisfied. And, in view of their recorded opinions, there was another Amendment which might be suggested to the hon. Baronet. He thought he could promise the hon. Baronet almost unanimous support if he would move that under no circumstances should any measure of electoral reform be passed that was accompanied by such registration proposals as were put forward by the late Government last year. Of course as regarded future legislation he could not speak for a Cabinet to which he did not belong and he spoke only for himself, but if this Bill might prove to be a courier or forerunner of any greater measures, and if he had acted as a link boy in the fog of our electoral system, he should be content, because in his opinion our present system of representation was an accumulated patchwork, composed partly of a little conviction, partly of a little concession, and partly of a little cowardice. Some hon. Members seemed to believe that this Bill was introduced by him with the delibeerate purpose of inflicting an injury upon his political opponents. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, that had been suggested, and all he could say was that no such consideration affected his mind. For years he had outside the House been an advocate of this reform, and he had always thought that this particular form of representation, the plural one, was one of the most arbitrary and could not be justified. He had always believed that

  625
  it constituted a grave hardship upon all the other voters whose voices were overborne by the superfluous suffrage of those who had no more manhood than themselves. If, supposing right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were right, which he did not admit, then he had only to say that, although plural voters would lose what had been a valuable asset to them, they were only parting with an unfair advantage which they ought never to have possessed—an advantage which had vitally warped the policy of this country for many years past. He claimed that the present measure would enable hon. Members opposite when they returned to the Ministerial Benches, as return no doubt they would, to say that they would represent the true and honest opinions of their countrymen.
  MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said the right hon. Gentleman when he took part in their debates added immensely to the humour of their proceedings, but he had never listened to a speech which was less satisfactory as an answer to those which had preceded it. Two of his hon. friends had brought forward serious and grave arguments connected with the circumstances attending the introduction of the Bill, to which no answer had been given. Their criticisms of the machinery of the Bill were also well worthy of an answer, but the right hon. Gentleman in the few moments which were left to him in the midst of his numerous quips and cranks had devoted not one single word in reply to any one argument which had been advanced. The right hon. Gentleman who had talked so bravely about courage and cowarice had taken refuge in an attack upon the measure proposed by the Party opposed to him two years ago, which, although he was out of the House, he could not resist the opportunity of criticising notwithstanding the fact that those proposals were not before the country and he was himself responsible for proposals of a totally different kind. He thought a Minister who in his closing pathetic utterances told them that this was the one child he had been nursing for the last six years owed it not only to his friends but his political opponents to
  626
  give some better answer to the arguments which had been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to offer to become his father confessor. He had not one at present, and if he wanted one he should not trust himself to the right hon. Gentleman after the way in which he had shown him that he would relieve his conscience. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him to adopt a similar course to that which he had taken on the Land Tenure Bill, but it was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the difference between the two Bills. In the case of the Land Tenure Bill the Government introduced a long series of Amendments which, in his opinion, altered the Bill in its most objectionable clauses. Nothing of the sort had been done in regard to this Bill. The author of the Bill had told them he had had the subject in his mind and thought for years. It had had all the advantages of Government care and preparation. Yet after the proceedings in Committee the hon. Gentleman was obliged to corns down on Report with a series of Amendments which totalled rather more than the whole of the Bill. And what were those Amendments? Were they a concession in principle? The right hon. Gentleman would admit that they in no way altered the principle of the Bill. All they did was to meet criticisms advanced from the Opposition side of the House, and supported by the very few speakers who rose on the Government side during those debates—for it was a remarkable thing that whenever an hon. Gentleman opposide, not an occupant of the Front Bench, rose to support the Government, he almost invariably criticised the Bill adversely. These Amendments had in no way altered the objectionable features of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself would be the first to admit that they had made no alterations in principle in the measure, and that the Bill on its Third Reading was the Bill as it was read a second time, with only such Amendments in the machinery as had been rendered necessary by the criticism levelled against it. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wands worth involved the acceptance of certain principles, and that with the addition of

  627
  these the Opposition would be prepared to accept the Bill. There was nothing whatever in his hon. friend's speech to justify anything of the kind, and nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool or in any of the other speeches made on the Bill, to justify the belief that the Opposition would accept the present Bill to carry out this reform. He knew it had been said in the House and elsewhere that the Bill was regarded by many on the Opposition side as a Party attack. It was not suggested that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had acted in any way inconsistent with the discharge of his duty. The view he had mentioned, however, was held and held strongly, and he was not surprised at it, for in the course of these debates they had never heard why this particular electoral reform was viewed as so vital and pressing by the Government. There was one very peculiar aspect of the case, viz., that there was no precedent for the introduction of a measure of reform which would have the result solely of disfranchisement. So far as he knew this was the first time a measure had been brought in which sought to disfranchise a number of the electors without at the same time making any change in the franchise conferring further electoral power on others. In this respect the Bill was not only a precedent, but, he believed, a very bad precedent. He remembered the debates on the Reform Bill of 1884, and he appealed to those then in the House whether he was not right in saying that there was no subject on which Mr. Gladstone spoke with greater force and earnestness than the desirability of not disfranchising by Act of Parliament, however necessary it was to enfranchise fresh electors. Under the Reform Bill of 1832 some half million were enfranchised, and by the Bills of 1884 and 1885 some 2,000,000, but the franchise was taken from nobody; whereas under the present Bill the franchise was taken away from some and given to no new body at all. He submitted that that was a very bad precedent to set in reform legislation. The right hon. Gentleman had denied that there was any Party animus as the foundation of the Bill, and he was quite sure from that declaration that to attack a political Party was not his personal ob-
  628
  ject. However, there had been speeches from hon. Members on the Ministerial side which had plainly indicated that the effect would be to injure the Party opposed to them, and he did not think speakers on the Opposition side could be blamed if they took advantage of these stray utterances and gathered from them that there was some foundation for the charge which had been made. The hon. Member for Wandsworth had dealt with the great anomaly in our electoral system—the unequal distribution of political power. Apart from that there were many anomalies, some of a graver character than that with which the Government were anxious to deal. There was the distance of residence of an elector as affecting the voting qualification in town or county. There was the question of the enfranchisement of women, and a multitude of other matters connected with the exercise of the vote and with the registration law, any one of which the Government might well have included in a Bill of this kind. For some reason, however, which they had never heard, all these questions were put on one side as if unworthy of attention, although in the opinion of some of those most experienced in electoral matters they were of much greater importance than the one which was being dealt with. He would like to have heard the views of some of the hon. Members opposite who had had great experience in registration and electioneering, and their criticisms on the machinery of the Bill. They would, no doubt, be prepared to accept the principle that the plural voter was to be interfered with, but he did not believe many of them would be found to justify by speech and argument the particular way in which the Government proposed to carry out that policy. He did not think it possible to exaggerate the injustice of the Bill in that for the first time it imposed a serious duty on the man who possessed two votes without imposing any upon the man who had only one vote. The man who had one vote obtained it as a matter of course, but the man with two votes would have to go through an elaborate procedure or run the risk of being disfranchised altogether. They had asked repeatedly what justification there was for this

  629
  and had had no answer; they had asked repeatedly why the object could not have been obtained by holding all elections on one day, or by an enactment making it illegal for the man to vote more than once. The Government had for some reason chosen another method, and not a single word of justification had been offered. It was an extraordinary thing, too, that the Government had offered no indication of the effect the Bill would have. The question of the University vote had been dealt with, and the Member for the City of London showed the other day what the effect would be on the City of London. In addition there were county divisions in which there were 4,500 pluralist voters of whom 2,500 were retired artisans or mechanic? Surely the House ought to have had some information as to what the probable effect of the Bill would be upon such constituencies as those. If the effect was that which it sought to have, the prevention of a pluralist voter voting except in the constituency in which he selected, it would increase the injustice that now existed, and to select this particular anomaly to deal with was to make far greater than they were now those great anomalies of which the Opposition complained and which they said disturbed the present electoral system of the country. The Bill proposed to do two or three remarkable things in a remarkable way He could not understand why the Government thought it necessary in this Bill for the first time to insist that the clerks should mark in the lists the pluralist voters and to refuse to do what, he thought, they were bound to do, namely, place on the shoulders of the authorities the duty of informing the voters that they were pluralists. For the first time the Government were imposing on the voter a risk of fine and imprisonment for no other reason than that he had two or more qualifications and that he had failed to make a selection. The principle of selection was new and had never been justified. The scheme of the Bill left the powers of the revising barristers in the position in which they now were, and left the primary duty of the overseer of putting every elector in his division on the register as it was, while it imposed on the elector who had more
  630
  than one qualification the risk of being put on the register without his knowledge, and in the end finding that he either lost his vote altogether or ran very great risks. It was true that at the last moment the Government accepted two Amendments which would have a great effect on the operation of the Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division would materially affect the working of the Bill. Although he was glad that that Amendment had been accepted, he was surprised that the Government should have found it right and necessary to accept it when there were opposed to it the identical arguments which they had adduced the day before against the Amendments proposed by the Opposition. But that Amendment certainly mitigated some of the evils of the Bill. The other Amendment placing the powers of prosecuting in the hands of the Attorney-General also would have a good effect. The First Commissioner of Works had just said, with great public spirit, that the Government would take the responsibility for the successful working of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman was very good. He had, however, placed upon the shoulders of the Government a duty which they could not perform. They were not going to carry out this measure. He had always advocated that the Government should become responsible, and that these duties, in common fairness and justice to the electors, should be carried out by Government officials. In all probability the Bill would be found not only difficult to work but absolutely unworkable, and a great injustice would be done to those who only claimed to vote in the elections of the country. He would have been perfectly content to vote for the simple rejection of the Bill without any Amendment at all. On the other hand there was nothing in his hon. friend's Amendment which he was not prepared to support. He agreed with the views laid down, which roughly amounted to this: that if they were going to deal with this great question of electoral reform at all they should deal with it as a whole. He admitted the force of the Government's answer that they could not deal with redistribution at the beginning of their term of office. That was a complete

  631
  answer to the suggestion that they should do it now, but it was no answer to the argument that the Government had no right to deal with the question in this trumpery fashion, treating only a section of the question and doing it in a manner which would seriously increase what was the greatest difficulty at the present time. He would have been perfectly content to vote for the simple rejection of this Bill, which he believed to be unjust. He believed that in its present form there was no demand for it, and that its machinery would prove unworkable. By this Bill they would be for the first time exposing people who had the right to vote to a risk to which they had never before been exposed, and to which Parliament had no right to expose them. On all these grounds he supported the Amendment, because it appeared to offer the simplest method of recording their opinion that the Bill was unjust and unnecessary.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he had never been able to understand why the principle of the Bill was opposed by hon. Members opposite. It seemed to him that an unsophisticated foreigner, ignorant of our ways of Parliamentary life, would imagine that a measure which introduced no new principle, which exactly followed the lines of the British Constitution, and which merely tried to remove anomalies and exceptional hardships, would be justly regarded as an innocent reform and would be gladly welcomed by all Parties. There was no subject upon which there was greater misconception than that of plural voting. To hear hon. Members opposite one would think our system was really a vote for property, that a man got a vote for every 100 acres, or that he voted according to the amount of taxation he paid. There was no relation whatever between representation and taxation. He was bound to say he believed that those hon. Members who said it would be a great advantage to the Liberal Party to do away with the plural voting would be disappointed. They would gain a great deal more advantage if they were to get a measure of redistribution—he meant a fair measure of redistribution and not
  632
  one drawn on the lines of the measure laid before the House last year. The present voting system was unjust all round. Let them take the injustice to the rich man—a great territorial man, for instance, who probably represented his county in Parliament or who might be the Lord-Lieutenant, or who held the more responsible post of master of foxhounds, or was chairman of the county council—a man owning perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 acres of land which happened to be within the same division. Such a man would have only one vote. On the other hand, his neighbour might be a miserable little Radical, a Pro-Boer, a Home Ruler, and a Little Englander; and he with his twenty acres (ten on one side of the boundary and ten on the other) would receive two votes. Such a system was hardly fair. A man might own great factories in Norwich, or in fact own the whole city, but he would only receive one vote, whilst in another borough, that of Yarmouth, if a man happened to be a freeholder and an occupier he stood to receive two, or perhaps three, votes. The real idea of the Constitution was that a man received a vote because he was a man and for no other reason. Another injustice which had been spoken of was the difference between rural and urban voting. They were told that borough freeholders were generally Liberal and therefore the Government would lose by their abolition. Nevertheless, it was an injustice, and he for one would wish to see the injustice removed. The objection to plural voting had become stronger since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1885. It had been suggested that the elections should all take place in one day, because if that were done the difficulty would be met. This, however, was an error, because, although it would undoubtedly affect the voter who had to come from a long distance, it would not affect the man who could travel from London into the suburbs, for instance, in his motor car. He personally felt regret that the Bill did not embody the principle of residential suffrage. By having residential voting they would very much simplify the register. Every man would then have a vote, and instead of having a disfranchising measure they would have had a great enfranchising measure. He could not

  633
  say what would happen to the Bill in another place, but he hoped that if the Government found it necessary to introduce another measure on the subject next year it would be a strong Bill involving the principle of residential voting.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)congratulated the hon. Gentleman opposite on having made the best defence of the Bill so fur, but he had not said anything to show why the Bill should have been brought in at the present time. Members had been brought back to the House at great inconvenience at a time when they would like to be among their constituents oil the plea that it was for the sake of great public policy. Yet all they were doing was simply wasting time. Instead of bringing forward subjects of practical interest, such as the relations of this country and the colonies, South African policy, and Naval policy, the Government had relegated the House to the discussion of a Bill which was of no practical use or benefit. This Bill, in the words of an hon. Gentleman opposite, was not promoted to remove an anomaly or obtain an equality, but merely to injure political opponents. The Government was making use of its opportunities to strengthen its position, but there seemed in this measure, as in others, a vindictiveness towards opponents of which they had a right to complain. This attitude on the part of the Government was illustrated in the proceedings on the Land Tenure Bill, which, but for the criticism to which it was subjected, would have effected a revolution in agricultural matters to the detriment of both landlord and tenant; and on the Education Bill, which according to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had the avowed object of putting an end to clericalism. That showed the vindictive and the unfair use to which the Government were putting their majority. The object of a Reform Bill should be to enfranchise classes or individuals, but this was a disfranchising Bill. They were not only disfranchising property, but education and intelligence. No effort was made to remove the greater injustice which lay in the fact that a man in a small borough had twenty or thirty times the political power of
  634
  a man in a larger constituency. And upon whom did the disability imposed by this Bill fall? Mostly upon the freeholders of the country, who had been the backbone of the English constitution in times past. There was another point of some delicacy. They had at present Unionists on one side of politics and Radicals on the other, but how long was that going to last? The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil stated that at Huddersfield there were 5,000 men who showed by their votes that they cared for none of those things. The questions on which those men recorded their votes were Socialism, woman enfranchisement, and social reform, to the exclusion of everything else. They must face the fact that a new power had come into existence, and the object of that power was to overturn our existing social system, and to substitute one in which the individual was suppressed and the State was to do everything. When the struggle over that issue came—if it did come—would not Ministerialists who were supporting this Bill feel that they had deprived themselves, in the fight against those proposals, of the assistance of some of the best defenders of property and of individual exertion, and in doing so had to a large extent injured their own interests?
  MR. MONTAGUsaid that once again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had seen what he declared to be a new record in his Parliamentary experience, and had stated that he had never listened to a speech like that which had been delivered by the First Commissioner of Works. They were getting so-accustomed to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he had never before been so surprised or shocked that they were fast becoming to believe that it was not really the iniquity of the Government that was upsetting him, but the fact that his innocent nature rendered him liable to upheavals of that kind. The complaint made against this Bid was that it had been very much amended on Report. His recollection was that the Bill had been amended in order to meet exceptions put forward by the Opposition, who were so anxious to protect the interests of the absent-minded elector who might forget where, when, for whom, and for what purpose he had voted or even that

  635
  he had voted at all. He did not believe this absent-minded elector existed, except as a figment in the brains of the Members of the Opposition, which figment was responsible for the large number of Amendments put down upon the Report stage. This measure had been called all sort of names. The First Commissioner of Works had said that is was a Bill dealing solely with the machinery by means of which our elections were now carried out. The Opposition on the other had said it was a disfranchising Bill. That term had been used in a sense of which this measure did not permit, for it did not prevent a single man now qualified as an elector from continuing to be an elector. It was true that it deprived the plural voter of all votes except one, but that could not, strictly speaking, be called disfranchising, because it left the man a voter. But, granted for the sake of argument, it was a disfranchising measure so far as it deprived a man of some of his votes. Surely, on the other hand, it was an enfranchising measure, because it made the single voter more weighty and more influential in the elections which took place. Therefore the Members of the Opposition might take consolation from the fact that at any rate this measure enfranchised in equal proportion to the disfranchisement which it caused. They were told that the Bill was objectionable because it did not enfranchise women, did not embody the principle of one vote one value, and several other things. They might as well vote against a Bill dealing with primary education because it did not deal with secondary education. It must obviously be conceded by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they were to have one vote one value the adoption of the principle of one man one vote was a necessary prelude, and since they could not do everything at once they had better decide what they would do now, and afterwards consider what they would do in regard to other matters. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had asked— Why not have all the elections on one day? That might be a desirable reform, but the intention of this Bill was that a man should not vote more than once. If all elections were on the same day that would only prevent a certain number from voting twice. He knew a
  636
  gentleman who at last election voted in Cambridgeshire and Glamorganshire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had also asked—Why not prevent a man from voting twice in one year? That would take the value from a by-election as an indication of the opinion of the country, because the electorate would be different at the by-election from that at the general election, and it would be a serious alteration in the electoral constitution of the country. Hon. Members opposite had continually said that this Bill was aimed solely at the remnant of the Conservative Party in the country. Hon. Members opposite were always arrogating to themselves all the virtues that existed, and leaving to Liberals simply the possession of those vices which at the moment they did not desire to use themselves. It would be easy to answer the assertion that this Bill was aimed at the Conservative Party by asking what were the motives which actuated hon. Members in their violent opposition to it? Would they object to this Bill if they believed that every plural voter was a Liberal? Were Liberals precluded from believing that it was because hon. Members opposite supposed that plural voters were Conservative that they were so eager in their defence of plural voting? He suggested that in the few hours that remained for the discussion of the Bill they should confine themselves to its merits, instead of attributing political motives to those who defended it. The Liberal and Conservative ideas of franchise differed radically. Conservatives desired to see a man's interests represented. Liberals desired to see the man himself represented and this was the raison d'étre of the Bill. As to University representation, he attached enormous importance to the opinion of those unselfish and self-denying men who laboured so long and so lovingly in the great Universities of the country. He confessed that it was a matter of some satisfaction to him that they should be directly represented in this House. What value there was in University representation was preserved rather than injured by this Bill. So far from its disfranchising education, intelligence and knowledge, the Bill would probably tend to limit the voters in University elections to those who were interested in the management and work of the University.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he could not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the Amendment now before the House was evasive. More evasive were the arguments brought 'forward in reply to those of the mover and seconder of the Amendment. He fully recognised the force of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman generally introduced into his speeches, but it seemed to him that this evening he had effectually evaded the arguments stated by the Opposition. If any apology were needed for supporting the Amendment it might be found in the circumstances under which the Bill had been discussed. Jt was introduced under what was called the ton minutes rule, which allowed the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure to make a speech to which only one speech was made in reply. Ten or twelve days afterwards, on May 14th, one day, and, one day only was allowed for the Second Reading of the Bill. It was true, six days were allowed for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, but why was it necessary to allow so long a time for that stage? It was simply because hon. Members found that the machinery by which it was proposed to give effect to the measure was unworkable and complicated. It was necessary, therefore, to introduce all kinds of Amendments in order to make the measure workable. It showed a great deal of patriotism on the part of the Opposition that whilst they opposed the Bill on the Second Reading, believing it to be thoroughly bad they devoted hour after hour to introducing Amendments in Committee and on Report with the view of making it a workable measure There could be no doubt that the Bill altered the size of nearly every constituency in the country, and at the same time it changed the conditions under which the electoral franchise had hitherto been exercised. He did not think a Bill that did that could be regarded as an unimportant measure. If the prevention of plural voting wore the sole object which the framers of the Bill had in view, it seemed to him that the desired result might have been brought about; by less complicated machinery. While he admitted that there were some objections to all elections being held on the same day, he thought
  638
  if that had been adopted as a means of preventing plural voting the number of persons who would have exercised the plural vote would have been infinitesimally small and not worth considering. There were other ways in which plural voting might have been prevented. He should have thought that a declaration at the time the vote was given that the elector had not voted in any other constituency would have required simpler machinery than that involved in the Bill. The machinery set up would produce a large amount of friction. Some of the effects produced by the Bill if it became law would be very different from those intended by its framers. He could not help thinking that one effect of the measure would be that many electors would be unable to vote even once, and for that reason it had been called a disfranchising Bill. He was quite certain that was not the intention of those who brought in the Bill. It had been said on the Opposition side of the House that there was a subtle intention on the part of the framers of the Bill that it should have the effect of injuring the Conservative Party. He did not believe that the great majority of plural voters were Unionist, but even if they were he was personally unwilling to ascribe any such motive to the Government. It seemed to him that it would be quite unworthy of a strong Party and a strong Government to condescend to obtain an advantage over their opponents in that manner. He would not believe that they intended to do so. At the same time he pointed out that although he did not ascribe to them any such motive, the effect of the Bill in his opinion would be to disfranchise a large number of electors, and for that reason alone it ought to be opposed. He would also point out that the effect of the Bill would be to penalise the plural voter as such. It was no fault of his that he was a plural voter. Nearly every graduate of a University was a plural voter. He could not see why an elector who might have saved £200 or £300 and invested that sum in rural property away from his own home should be placed in a worse position than the man who had invested his money in Consols; but the one was a single voter and the other a plural voter, and the latter would be subject to all the inconveniences and penalties which attached to the plural voter under this Bill. The last speaker

  639
  had made the unfortunate admission that the Bill would add to the value of the votes of the existing electors. If so, that showed that this was a very important measure affecting the entire electoral system of the country; and for that reason it ought to have received more consideration than it had done. A great deal had been heard in the course of the discussions in regard to the anomalies of our electoral system. He was quite willing to admit that there were anomalies. It was an anomaly that an elector possessing a small freehold in a distant part of the country, far removed from the place of his residence, where he had no special interest, should have a vote for that district, and by moans of his vote be able, possibly to influence the election. That anomaly was said by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill to be a grievance, that it vitiated and thwarted the very conditions of Parliamentary representation. He was quite prepared to admit that this might be so, but he could not concede that this Bill removed the grievance. All that the Bill did was to give such an elector the choice of voting at his place of residence or in the constituency in which he had no special interest. He should have thought that it would have been very much simpler to have introduced some such scheme as had been proposed, to restrict the voting to the place of residence. He contended that the Bill with all its complicated machinery failed to effect the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. Another reason why he supported the Amendment was the uncompromising attitude of the Government in refusing to accept any limitation to the general principle of the Bill. Nothing could exceed the courtesy with which the Minister in charge of the Bill had risen to reply to all the arguments offered against it from the Opposition side of the House. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had met every suggestion for any Amendment of the principle of the Bill with an absolute non possumus. They had accepted Amendments, but only on a few details. The Government undoubtedly possessed a giant's strength, and it seemed to him that in this Bill, and in their other measures, they were determined to show that they would use their strength after the manner of a giant.
  640
  In his opinion two cases for exceptional treatment had been made out. One was that of an elector who resided in one place and carried on his business in a neighbouring city or borough. In that case certainly his interests were divided, and it was very difficult for such an elector to say whether he would vote in his place of residence or in the city where he carried on his business. The City of London was a case in point, and if the Bill became law, that constituency would be limited to caretakers and office-keepers. The other case was that of University representation. He might say that unless the University representation were conceded in addition to the ordinary representation—if the vote given to a University graduate were not regarded as an additional vote, conferred on him as a privilege on account of the general intelligence of the constituency, it would be of no use whatever. The arguments in favour of University representation had been fully brought before the House by the representatives of Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow and London, and he would not now add to t hem. But he would make one final remark. The theory seemed to have been adopted by hon. Members opposite that nothing could be said in favour of plural voting; but from a scientific and logical point of view it was certainly capable of being defended. He would have thought that in a democratic Assembly such as this, the authority of so distintinguished a Liberal as the late John Stuart Mill would have carried with it some weight. He would read a single passage only from Mill's work on Representative Government, with which nearly every hon. Member was no doubt conversant. Mill said—
  "A person may have a double vote by other means than that of tendering two votes at the same hustings; he may have a vote in each ot two different constituencies; and though this exceptional privilege at present belongs rather to superiority of means than of intelligence, I would not abolish it where it exists, since until a truer test of education is adopted it would be unwise to dispense with even so imperfect a one as is afforded by pecuniary circumstances. Means might be found of giving a further extension to the privilege, which would connect it in a more direct manner with superior education. In any future Reform Bill which lowers the pecuniary conditions of the suffrage, it might be a wise provision to allow all graduates of Universities, all persons who had passed creditably through the higher schools, all members of the liberal professions, and

  641
  perhaps some others, to be registered specifically in those characters, and to give their votes as such in any constituency in which they chose to register, retaining, in addition, their votes as simple citizens in the localities in which they reside."
  He had ventured to read that quotation because he thought the view of so eminent a politician might have some weight with hon. Members on both sides of the House. He thought it was very doubtful whether the mover of this Resolution would be able to carry with him all the Members on the Ministerial side of the House; but he found considerable difficulty in realising what reasons there might be for refusing, at any rate, to adopt the suggestion made that the consideration of a reform in our electoral system should be postponed until it was associated with a more comprehensive measure than the present. He could not help thinking that it was a most mistaken and unscientific way of dealing with electoral reforms, to tinker with the constitution by bringing forward such a Bill as this. the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the arguments brought forward were not worthy of that logical ability which he had shown in his previous speeches. The right hon. Gentleman said he was desirous of showing the greatest possible consideration to the plural voter, and for that reason he was anxious to give him a long time to accustom himself to the novel machinery of the Bill. If that was the case why did he refuse the Amendment to the effect that the operation of the Bill should be postponed until a more comprehensive measure had been introduced? There was no reason why this Bill should come into operation until 1907, and if its operation were postponed until they could consider the other anomalies of our electoral system he had no doubt whatever that there would be very much loss objection on the part of many hon. Members to accept some such proposal as that contained in the measure, provided of course that exceptions of the kind suggested were made. He was unable to appreciate the arguments in favour of the measure, and he ventured to think they had not been fully placed before the House. He was compelled to fall back upon another reason suggested by the late John Stuart Mill, who pointed out—
  "That those who are supreme over everything, those who cannot be resisted, are usually
  642
  far too well satisfied with their opinions to he willing to change them or to listen without impatience to anyone who tells them that they are wrong."
  On these grounds he supported the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Member had quoted a passage in John Stuart Mill's "Representative Government "which ought to be quoted with the reserve that it was written when Mill was an official at the India Office, and had not turned his attention to the franchise question, and that it was contradicted by what he said and wrote during the last fourteen years of his life. He had to thank the hon. Member for the support he gave to his proposal that this Bill should be altered into a residential Bill, because the one objection to that proposal from his point of view might be that there was no such thing as residence in a University in the franchise sense of the term, and that the University resident was resident in the corporeal structure of a college building but not in the University, which was an incorporeal thing. That was the objection the hon. Member might have had, and as he thought his Amendment would have destroyed the constituency of the hon. Member it was extremely kind of him to give it his support. The First Commissioner of Works had very naturally rolled up the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth with his Party. The hon. Baronet might have stirred up his Party to propose a redistribution scheme, but the moment they proposed it the hon. Baronet came out as its strongest opponent. He was not sure that his support might not have been got by the sacrifice of Canterbury.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERremarked that his scheme involved the sacrifice of no constituency, but the enlargement of those, including Canterbury, that needed enlargement.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the fate of Canterbury hung for a long time in the balance. The hon Baronet used words following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, and implied that from a redistribution point of view matters were rather worsened than bettered by this Bill. He had

  643
  ventured to say "No" when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin said so, not only upon the ground alluded to by the Member for the, Chesterton division of Cambridgeshire, that by cutting off the plural voters— by cutting off the people who had ten, twenty, or thirty votes—they increased potentially the power of the people who remained, but because this Bill would directly reduce in suburban and other constituencies the anomalies which existed at the present time. These suburban constituencies had increased and were increasing, and therefore, by taking off some thousands of voters they were decreasing and not increasing the anomalies now existing. When the hon. Baronet raised the question of redistribution, he was afraid some of them used to treat his views with disrespect, because they used to assure him that he would never get his large redistribution scheme, whatever declarations might have been made at a garden party at Blenheim. That prophecy had become true, and in the last considerable debate on Redistribution he would remember that they told him that they were convinced by their experience that the next Redistribution Bill would be upon a simpler franchise. When Parliament made up its mind to deal with this question, it would have to deal with it by a simple single franchise on a large scale and by agreement between the two Parties. He did not think that his hon. friend now believed he was going to get redistribution in any other way, although many hon. Members shared the hon. Baronet's views as to the desirability of redistribution. The hon. Baronet was under a delusion as to the nature of the franchise which he thought this Bill attacked. He had stated that 3,000,000 odd electors voted for the Conservative Party at the last election, and that only 3,000,000 odd voted for the Liberal and Labour Parties; that the Conservative Members each represented 17,000 voters and the Liberal and Labour Members 7,000 each; and he claimed that the Conservative Party were entitled to more Members. The hon. Baronet called these voters citizens, but how many had been counted over and over again? The hon. Baronet had added up the votes cast and had called them citizens. They were not citizens at all. When one person voted
  644
  at the Kensington Town Hall, once for London, and once for the county of Middlesex, was he two citizens? The argument of the hon. Baronet was one of the absurdities which the plural voting system of this country brought before them. The plural voting system which John Stuart Mill at one time advocated, but which he eventually deprecated, was entirely different from the system which now existed; and the special University representation of which they heard just now was entirely different from that which now existed and that which was supported by John Stuart Mill. The hon. Baronet had based his demand upon the fact that these plural voters were freeholders, and that therefore they should have a county vote. But the great majority of the plural voters were not freeholders, and had not the interest the hon. Baronet claimed for them, and the vast number of those who had an out-side-county interest did not possess a vote in regard to it. This Bill was intended to kill, and would diminish, an abuse, in which he included the University franchise—an abuse which was almost entirely confined to this country; which had been swept away in every country in which it had existed; and which exceeded in its present shape anything that over existed in any other country The plan of the Bill was a costly one. He disliked exceedingly the cost involved, but that cost was caused in part by the complexity of our franchises, and in part by his right hon. friends tenderness to the Party opposite. His particular objection to the scheme was that it was a costly scheme. It would admittedly increase expenditure until in the course of years the law had settled down and worked smoothly. He had never been able to understand the ground on which his right hon. friend had rejected the modified scheme which he (Sir Charles) proposed, and which received so much support from the Ministerial side of the House. He had not met anybody on that side of the House except his right hon. friend who was in favour of the particular scheme of the Bill. The scheme which he thought would be preferable to that of the Bill was one which would not throw a choice upon the voter, but would work automatically in the case of residence, except where a man had more

  645
  than one residence, or no residence, in any constituency in which he had a qualification. His scheme was that the residence should be taken as the automatic test by which a man should vote. Whore he had more than one residence, or no residence, in the constituency the machinery of this Bill would work. The Bill would enormously increase the cost of inquiries that would have to be made, and all the Amendments which had been put into the Bill with so much skill would only tend to increase cost and trouble. Before he sat down he would like to refer to the hard case of the county clerks, and in this connection he hoped, and he was sure, his right hon. friend would give personal attention to the Orders in Council that would be made under the Bill. The county clerks would have very difficult and very delicate duties thrust upon them, some of which they might not be able to discharge. It was a very curious thing that the House was not familiar with the extraordinary intricacies of the law of registration. The hon. Member who spoke so brilliantly in seconding the Motion alluded to the seventeen franchises we possessed, but he would defy the hon. Member to name the whole of the seventeen. One was an Irish franchise, unknown even to hon. Members representing Ireland. He believed the only man who knew of it was Mr. Maurice Healy, and that was the seventeenth of the franchises of this country. The difficulties of these franchises faced us at every turn, and we should never, get rid of them until Parliament made up its mind to have a simple single franchise which would lead to the large redistribution which this Amendment-sought. It seemed quite easy for the House on Report to enact, as it did enact, that notice should be taken, as though they were plural voters, of all the persons on the register in whose case Column 2 differed from Column 4. It was not in itself an important thing perhaps. It was to diminish the number of voters to be counted for the purposes of the maximum scale. Although in that case it did not matter very much, it would be of importance soon on account of the tendency in changes of our law to throw more and more the responsibility for the register upon the county clerk. They were throwing upon him duties which no one
  646
  could adequately perform, and which were likely to drive that poor man to distraction. He did not know if hon. Members thought there was any tendency to exaggerate these difficulties. He had spoken very much within the mark in every case. It was thought to simplify the franchise if difference could be detected between the second and fourth columns; but apart from the fact that a man called his place by one name and the overseers called it by another in every county constituency there were towns the suburbs of which were postally different from the ordinary description and the second column had to contain the postal address. The only reason that these details were of interest was because they illustrated the bog and morass into which they were plunged through not making up their minds and having a simple franchise.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that although the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had advocated principles with which the Opposition did not agree, he had in the main been much on their side, because his speech had been directed against the practicability of the Bill. The constituency which he (Mr. Bonar Law) represented contained many plural voters; but he did not think that was the reason for the strong feeling he had entertained towards the Bill from the beginning on the ground of its unfairness. the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, in its later stages, shown some sensitiveness under the accusation that it had been introduced for the sake of weakening political opponents. He had even gone the length of saying that the charge was discourteous. In any case they could only judge of the intentions of the Government by the effect of what they had done. He did not wish to be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else, but he found it difficult to say what he thought about this Bill in language as temperate as he would like to employ. The spirit in which he wished to deal with the right hon. Gentleman was illustrated by Lord Granville's anecdote of Count D'Orsay's visit to Saunders and Ottley, the booksellers. Count D'Orsay broke out into language full of brimstone, whereupon a gentleman, coming forward in a dignified manner from behind a desk, said he

  647
  could not stand such language and would return the Count's subscription. Count D'Orsay said, "I did not mean anything personal; if you are Saunders, confound Ottley; if you are Ottley, confound Saunders." That was exactly the spirit in which he wished to deal with the right hon. Gentleman. He said deliberately he could see no justification for this Bill if it was not intended to strengthen the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged and to weaken their opponents. He was bound to look at the measure from two points of view, one regarding the principle on which it was based, the other regarding the machinery by which it was to be carried out. From either point of view the charge he had made against the Bill was abundantly proved by its nature. He would take the case of a man who worked in one constituency and lived in another, and paid rates in both, and whose identification with each was so strongly marked that it would be impossible to say with which it was the closer. Would anybody, looking at his possession of the franchise in a broad-minded way and apart from Party interests, not say that, although this was an anomaly, it was one which was fair in itself, and which ought not to be removed until he had made an attempt to get the whole electoral system on to a basis fair according to the principle upon which he was proceeding? What was the principle on which this Bill was based? It implied that the vote of one man ought to have as far as possible approximately the same influence as the vote of any other. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, face to face with an anomaly far greater than that with which he dealt in the Bill. Without a real examination into the subject it was impossible to say that the comparatively small anomaly which he was removing did not itself temper the injustice of the greater anomaly which he was leaving altogether on one side. The Government left the big anomaly alone and dealt with the small one; and the fact that the result of dealing with the small one was certain to be favourable to their Party, while the result of dealing with the other was uncertain, was in itself proof that this' was a gerrymandering Bill and nothing else. If, as he believed, the principle of the Bill was altogether unfair, the machinery by which it was proposed to carry out
  648
  that principle was not only palpably but grotesquely and absurdly unfair. The principle that taxation and representation should go together used to be the principle of the Liberal Party so long as they looked for support from possessors of property. Now that they looked for support, in competition with Members below the gangway, from those who did not possess property, the principle was entirely abandoned. The Government had laid down in this Bill, for the first time in political history, the new principle that possession of property was to be to some extent a disqualification for the right of exercising the franchise. If the Bill became law, every man who had only one qualification would get his vote as a matter of course, without doing anything to secure it. Every man with two votes could only use one after having substantiated a claim for it. In the one case the vote would be a matter of right; in the other a matter of claim. That was obviously unfair. It had been proved over and over again to be even more unfair in practice than in theory. Everyone who had spoken on the subject had admitted that if the claiming of the franchise depended on an individual himself, a very large proportion of the voters of this country would never claim the franchise at all. Everyone, except those who sat on the Treasury Bench, had admitted that the Bill was clumsy and unworkable, and left the door open to every kind of fraud in connection with voting. The professed object of the Government was to prevent an elector voting more than once; their real object was to prevent a man having more than one vote from voting at all. How had the Bill been defended against Amendments? The usual answer of the right hon. Gentleman, when he had no argument wherewith to meet an Amendment, was, "To accept this would be contrary to the principle of selection." And what was the principle? The right hon. Gentleman said on one occasion that a man who did not take the trouble to claim a vote was not entitled to have it. If that was a good principle, why should it not be applied all round, to the man who had only one qualification as well as to the man who had several? But the possession of two votes was considered a disqualification

  649
  for the exercise of the franchise, and the possession of property was to be discouraged. The President of the Board of Trade, in speaking upon the Education Bill, said that clericalism was the enemy. The Government had shown by their actions, more important than their speeches, that in their eyes the possessor of property was their enemy.
  MR. J. WARDpointed out that the speeches made by opponents to the Bill absolutely and entirely contradicted each other. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth made against the Government with regard to their motives in bringing this subject forward a similar accusation to that just made by the hon. Member for Dulwich, and earlier in the debate by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool. Then there were speeches by Members of the Opposition which absolutely repudiated that accusation as being discourteous and unfair, and admitted that there might be something in the principle of abolishing plural voters, but asserted that the method proposed by the Bill was not the way in which it should be done. He had no doubt that whatever Bill was brought forward to abolish plural voting there would be very considerable difficulty in devising the machinery to carry out the principle. But on the Third Reading of the measure it was not the machinery which should interest them, but the underlying principles of the Bill itself. The question was, were they in favour of one citizen having sometimes two or three, or even a dozen times, as much power in electing representatives to Parliament as another? If they disagreed on that he could understand the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could understand the opposition to the principle of one voter one vote, which, he confessed in a clumsy sort of way, was attempted by this measure. He was of the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that there was a much simpler way of doing the business than that which the Bill proposed, but he did not think the First Commissioner of Works could have avoided the sort of criticism that was directed against him now, even if he had employed other methods. As a matter of fact, he and the Opposition differed in
  650
  principle upon this Bill. He had heard a formula trotted out a dozen times that afternoon, which stated that every vote should have the same value. What the meaning of it was he did not know. He believed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth, when he used that formula, meant that there should be a sort of automatic method of making constituencies as nearly equal as possible. But then it was quite clear that other Members meant nothing of the kind, and that what they meant was that in proportion to the wealth of an individual —in proportion to his material position and to the taxation that he paid to the State he should be given the power to elect representatives. He ventured to suggest that the working man, considering his opportunities and the amount of resource which he had at his disposal, paid as high a percentage of the rates and taxes of the country as any hon. Member in the House. But this measure ought to be discussed on higher principles than that. The question was whether one citizen should have a greater influence in the election of Members to Parliament than another, irrespective of their position in life or their material possessions. He did not agree with anything of the sort. They would find very poor men, who had to work at exhausting bodily labour, with quite as much intelligence as many of the people who boasted of their wealth. They could not make wealth or position a qualification in any shape or form. They had been told that they should not adopt this measure, because there were other and larger anomalies, such as University representation and the glaring difference in the number of electors in many constituencies. There was Wandsworth, probably the largest constituency in the county, where the minority had never been represented in the House of Commons for the last twenty years. The minority in Wandsworth were probably as numerous as many constituencies which were represented. Because the Members of the Opposition were able to point to three or four other anomalies that was no reason why the House should not, attack the anomaly of plural voting. It was a very peculiar argument to assert that they ought not to attack one anomaly without attacking them all. If they did not tackle anomalies one at a

  651
  time they would never abolish any of them. He thought the Government were doing the right thing in this measure. He desired that every adult should be declared eligible to have a voice in the affaire of the nation, and he would like to see all elections on one day. He also desired to see that all public-houses should be closed on the election day, in order that the verdict of the country might be more in accordance with the intelligent and sober opinion of the people; but, because the Government could not attach those things to this Bill that was no reason why the House should not adopt what was now proposed as the minimum demand. He hoped every Labour Member and every democrat in the House would support the Third Beading of this Bill.
  MR. THORNTONsaid his hon. friend's Motion was deserving of sympathy and support. He thought that as the Government limited its proposals to preventing plural voting and refused to deal at all with the question of one vote one value, Unionists were justified in calling a halt before they went further down the slippery slope of redistribution upon which both sides of the House had entered. He still maintained that the proposals in this Bill would probably have the effect of disfranchising a number of electors, and causing injustice to those who were concerned in guiding the constituencies, for the cost of elections would be enormously increased. That was contrary to the principles of those who had brought in the Bill, their desire always having been to cheapen elections. Taking these facts together he was justified in maintaining that the Liberal Party had not logically carried out their own principles in the way the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean believed they ought to have done. They had endeavoured to clear their flanks and drive away what they believed to be hostile bodies of troops, but in doing so they had not carried out the ideas which they as a Party had hitherto entertained, In his judgment there was a hill in front of them, and on the other side a valley filled up with rugged country through which they would have to pass. In the preface to "Rogers on Elections" he found the
  652
  following passage which put this part of his argument very clearly—
  "Until a Consolidation Act is passed defining the different franchises which exist, and laying down an uniform system of registration, both things within the scope of one, or perhaps two moderately short statutes, the difficulty to those to whom the subject is new. of obtaining a clear view of the varieties of franchises, and of the machinery provided for registration, will continue to be considerable."
  That was the opinion of an expert on this question. It had been said in the course of these debates that this was the first occasion on which a disfranchising measure had been placed before the British Parliament for many years. There was certainly a precedent in the reign of Henry VI. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed, but he thought this was rather pertinent, because our whole system had depended greatly upon the 40s. freeholder. According to Rogers, Henry IV. in order to popularise his dynasty greatly increased the number of voters who "probably belonged to the freeholders at large, independently of the value of their freeholds." But in 1430, in the reign of Henry VI., an Act was passed restricting the exercise of the franchise, and thereby many people must have been disfranchised. Rogers said—
  "That Statute, after reciting that elections have been made by very great, outrageous, and excessive numbers of people, of small substance, and of no value, whereof every of them pretended a voice equivalent with the most worthy knights and esquires, provided that the knights of the shires … shall be chosen by people having free land and tenements of 40s. value by the year."
  That was equivalent to £45 of our money. Various changes had led up to the broad franchise which we enjoyed at the present moment, and he thought it would be far better to have a consolidating measure which would have in it some element of permanency instead of the partial remedy now proposed. While he would not himself presume to lay down any policy, he thought it was desirable that they should have some guide as to how far they were to go in regard to the question of redistribution. As a Cambridge man he would like to say a word on University representation. He never could believe that the Conservative Party would desert University representation. [An HON. MEMBER: They will not do that.] Certain criticisms directed against the

  653
  unwillingness or inability of our great university representatives to go before and hold their own with popular audiences were untenable. The late Sir Richard Jebb was one of the most interesting and intellectual speakers he had ever hoard, and all those in the House who had come in contact With him were charmed with his utterances. It was the same with the late Mr. Leckie, who had shown himself exceptionally prominent, in debates during the last Parliament. He insisted that the tendency of this Bill was gradually to destroy the representation of Oxford, Cambridge, London and the Scottish Universities, who had always returned members of which they were all proud. Surely this was an occasion when the conception of a workable redistribution scheme, such as was outlined at Blenheim in August, 1901, should be formulated by the right hon. Member for the City. It was a subject of deep regret throughout the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham who took a leading part at Blenheim owing to ill-health was not present to express opinions on a subject regarding which my knowledge was that of an expert.
  MR. VERNEYsaid that the hon. Member for Clapham had spoken with sincere admiration for the representatives of the Universities who had been Members of that House. But he would remind the House that there was no class of people in the United Kingdom who were so largely represented in both Houses of Parliament as the graduates of the Universities without special representation. That was to say, the many brilliant members of Universities in the House had ample opportunities of reflecting the thought and opinion of the Universities of which they were graduates, and he did not think that form of representation was in the least likely to dwindle or disappear in the future. He could not understand how anyone who had read the Bill could have put down the Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth, which ran that the sole object of the Bill was—
  "the prohibition and penalizing of a large class of His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of admitted rights and franchises."
  That was not the sole or even the main object of the Bill, though it was a necessary incident of the Bill that penalties
  654
  should be imposed to enforce us provisions. The hon. Baronet asked who was hurt by the present condition of things? There was an obvious answer to that. Supposing there were fifty Members who had ten votes each, while all the remainder had only one vote, would not all the latter be hurt by the plural voting given to a privileged few? Precisely the same thing happened in the constituencies. He called this an enfranchising instead of a disfranchising Bill. There were some 6,000,000 voters in the United Kingdom, and he believed between 500,000 and 600,000 plural voters. Who was hurt in that case? The 5,500,000 single voters by the privilege given to the 500,000 plural voters. That was an unanswerable argument. Every plural voter tended to disfranchise the single voter, and thereby every single voter was hurt. He himself was not altogether in love with the Bill, because he did not pretend that it was a perfect measure. But it was one step in the direction of a great reform, and therefore he would give his vote in favour of it. If it were so framed as to render a greater reform impossible he would not vote for it. A great deal had been said about taxation and representation going together. If carried out to its logical conclusion that meant that a man should have the number of votes proportioned to the amount of taxation he paid. But they knew that that was not the case at present. If A paid £100 in taxation and B paid £500, should B have five times as many votes as A? At present the number of plural votes a man had depended upon the kind of property he owned and upon the exact position of his property. If the property was at the junction of three or four counties he might have four or five votes, although that property was only worth £500 a year; while a man with property of the value of £10,000 a year in another situation might have only one vote. On the other hand, a man with largo personal property in stocks and shares might have only one vote, while another with a small, amount of landed property might have several votes, although the former paid a great deal more taxation than the latter. He regretted that this measure did not go further than it did, but he would support it with a clear conscience and with his whole heart.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, in the course of his speech, instead of using arguments in favour of his measure, devoted the whole of his time to a criticism of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, and especially to the occupants of the front Opposition bench. The single argument the right hon. Gentleman had used in favour of the Bill was that it was an injustice for one man to have two votes and another man only one. If that was so, why did not the Liberal Party when in power bring forward long years ago a measure to remedy that alleged injustice? It was well known that Mr. Gladstone in 1892–5 and during a previous tenure of office had refused to have anything to do with such a measure. Surely it could not be a very great injustice to allow a man to have two votes, because it was the policy of the State to encourage people to invest their money in property. That had always been the policy of the Unionist Party in this country, and also in Ireland when they passed their land legislation for that country. They said that the more owners of property, and especially poor owners, there were the better for the State. In the fifteen largest constituencies in England there were 387,000 electors, while the fifteen smallest constituencies contained 48,000 in round figures. That meant that there were in the fifteen larger constituencies eight times as many electors as in the fifteen smaller, so that the voting power in the smaller constituencies—which ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 electors—was eight times the power of that in the larger constituencies. He mentioned that to show that these people were at present under an electoral injustice. A great many of them, however, had plural votes, and that tempered the injustice a little bit.
  MR. SHACKLETON: That applies to both of them.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Surely it does tend to temper the injustice. Continuing, the hon. Member gave the House three other instances—one from Ireland, one from Scotland, and one from Wales. In Ireland the constituency of
  656
  East Belfast had 15,000 odd voters, while five smaller ones, including Galway and Kilkenny, which each returned a Member, only possessed a total of voters amounting to 13,856. In the case in Wales, Cardiff district had 26,000 odd voters against Montgomery Boroughs with 3,300 voters. That was to say there was a difference of eight to one. The case in Scotland was that of the Partick Division of Lanark there were 18,000 electors odd, while Wigton Burghs had 2,700 voters, a case in which there was a difference seven to one. As an old University man he protested against the attack upon University representation. He thought it was unfair to lessen that representation, especially in view of the able men that the Universities sent to this House. It so happened that at present they had those men on the Opposition side of the House, but it had not always been so. Hon. Members representing University constituencies had sat on both sides of the House. It would be very much regretted if, under this Bill, the number of University voters dwindled down to so small a number that a case could be made out for taking the representation away altogether. Under the heading of education, science, and art, the House was voting this year no less than £16,327,000. That was a very large expenditure, and, surely, such education ought to have some representation in the House. It was necessary that they should have Members who were qualified to give an opinion on educational matters. The Opposition case had been that if the Government were going to do away with plural voting, why did they not bring in a Bill simply saying it was illegal for a man to vote twice, and not a complicated Bill which would be almost impossible to work? If the right hon. Gentleman had no fear of the plural voter, why did he not bring in a simple Bill? Instead of doing so, he had laid himself open to the charge of having brought in this complicated machinery with the express purpose of making it difficult for those people to exercise the franchise at all. The Bill was brought in for the purpose of damaging the Unionist Party. Surely there were sufficient right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial Benches without its having been necessary to bring in a Bill to reduce further the small Unionist numbers. They could

  657
  have waited, surely, for one or two years, and then brought in a proper Redistribution Bill, and so dealt with the whole question. The Opposition made their protest—he did not suppose it would have any effect on the Government —and he hoped that protest would warrant the Bill being thrown out by the House of Lords.
  MR. PAULsaid the Bill had been criticised, not so much on account of its substance as on account of its form, but he had noticed that when anyone objected to the principle of a Bill they nearly always discovered that its form was the very worst that could have been selected. The Government had been blamed because they had not made it a residential Bill. He thought the principle that a man should vote whore he breakfasted and slept was a sound one, and that this would in most cases be the practice which would be followed when the Bill became law. It would be difficult to lay down a residential qualification, because of the difficulty of saying where some men resided. He had met once, in Switzerland, an Irish landlord whose eight children had all been born in different foreign hotels. That man had a vote for his property in Ireland, but it would have puzzled anyone to say where his residence was. With regard to the arguments against the form of the Bill, he remembered Sir John Gorst, one of the ablest lawyers in the House, saying that any fool could get up all about the Corrupt Practices Act in one day, and he thought anybody of ordinary intelligence could get up this Bill in half a day. There was no form of study, except bad poetry, which he would not prefer to the revised statutes or even the repealed statutes, which often, however, were more amusing and interesting than the statutes at large, but he derived consolation from two sources. In the first place, he realised that this Bill was not meant for one's own amusement, but for one's general instruction. In the second place, being in favour of the principle which this Bill enunciated, he was not greatly concerned with the particular form in which it was clothed. If all Acts of Parliament were made perfectly clear and intelligible what would become of the legal profession; and if anything happened to the legal profession
  658
  what would become of this House? Where would they go for the humour, the delicacy, and the eloquence which made the debates, to say the least, endurable? The hon. Baronet the junior Member for the City of London made recently a melancholy speech on the future state of the plural voter. It was an important speech, because after all it was men like the hon. Baronet who maintained the financial reputation of the City—a thing of which every Englishman was proud, whether he knew anything about finance or not. It was a most pathetic speech; nothing was more touching than the description of the condition to which the plural voter would be reduced. But much as he might sympathise with the woes of the plural voter, he could not help remembering that the obligations laid upon him must be neglected before he could arrive at his unsupportable dilemma, and that the original duty cast upon him of giving notice to the overseers had also to be discharged by that exceedingly humble person the lodger. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for South Dublin, one of the greatest authorities in this House on local government, complain of this obligation as if it were a thing unheard of. The plural voter might have property in half-a-dozen counties and the lodger inhabit only one room, but what difference did that make from the point of view of justice? The objections to this Bill were as to substance as well as to form, and it had been said that though it might be very well to deprive a man of a vote in a part of the country where he had no local interest, if he lived in one constituency and carried on business in another, it was hard that he should not have two votes. The hon. and gallant Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool asked why if a man had one vote for his residence and another for his place of business, a working man should not have a vote for his house and another for the place in which he worked. Hon. Members opposite argued to the effect that a working man did not pay taxes. If hon. Members opposite told the country that at the next election, he could quite understand that in spite of their intellectual calibre their numbers here would be small. Taxation was indirect as well as direct, and every man and woman in this country who was not in the workhouse or

  659
  in gaol paid taxes. The only possible inference that could be drawn from the principle that taxation and representation should go together was that there should be universal suffrage, male as well as female, totally unconnected with the possession of either real or personal property except such as everyone required in order to live. A man who smoked his pipe paid taxes. It was right for a man with property in several counties to have a vote for the county council in each county, because there were as many county councils as counties, but there was only one Parliament. Let him take his own case. He had two votes, and had he chosen to buy a vote for the University of Oxford he would have had three. Why should he have three or even two when his hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle and the hon. Member for East Birmingham only had one? The thing was absurd. It was not a question of intelligence or capacity. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City had said that the fact of a man possessing property in a great many places was evidence that he had a great many sources of mental activity and had made good use of them. That was a dangerous argument, and he might suggest an analogy which was at least verbally relevant, that the more scattered his property the more scattered his brains.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: What I said was that if a man had two houses it must be taken as evidence that he had more ability and had got on in the world. I did not say anything about scattered property.
  MR. PAULsaid the hon. Baronet had expressed in better language than he the same thing. The man if he were to have two votes must have houses in two constituencies. In the course of this debate reference had been made to the question of University representation. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool had done him the honour of quoting something he had said about the inadequate character of the examinations for the degree of a bachelor of arts at Oxford. He did not deny that he might have said it, but it was not the main part of his argument, and no doubt things had improved since his time, as indeed he gathered they had from the speech of the
  660
  hon. and learned Gentleman. The main point in his argument was that the vote for the Oxford and Cambridge Universities was not obtained by the bachelor's degree which meant an examination, but by the master's degree which meant paying a sum of money. He had seen it stated since this question was discussed in Committee, and he believed it to be true, that the representation of those Universities had become much less clerical. The cause of that was a very sad one, it being the increasing poverty of clergymen. There were many clergymen in charge of large and poor parishes who had a better use for their money than that of purchasing the right to remain on the books and to vote for the parliamentary representation of their old University. There had been no contested election for the University of Oxford since the year 1878. He would very much like to put it—not to a constitutional authority like the hon. Baronet—but to some humble inquirer after constitutional truth who it was chose the Members to represent Oxford University. If the inquirer conducted his researches in a ruthless and impartial spirit they would lead him at last, unless he were stopped by the porter, into the recesses of the Carlton Club. In speaking in Committee on this subject of University representation he quoted the case of Peel's rejection at Oxford because he was in favour of emancipating Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in an interruption which was at once relevant and courteous, called his attention to the case of Macaulay who was rejected on some similar ground at Edinburgh University. He made some answer to the right hon. Gentleman on the spur of the moment, but, as usual, the best answer occurred to him a quarter of an hour too late. The answer he ought to to have given was that as soon as the electors of the City had an opportunity they elected him. He supposed it was expected of a University that it would be superior to the ordinary run of Party questions. No University, so far as he was aware, had ever been superior to Party. He believed that, with three exceptions, every Member for Oxford and Cambridge might very well have obtained a seat in any ordinary constituency. The three exceptions were Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Gabriel Stokes, and Sir Richard Jebb. If this Bill did nothing

  661
  else than put an end to what was called University representation, but was not representation of a University, he should support it, because it gave the final stroke; to a principle which was not in accordance with the democratic principles accepted by both parties for the last twenty years, and which, so for as it pretended to be special representation, was a mockery and a snare.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on being the first Member outside the Front Ministerial Bench to give the Bill hearty support. An hon. Member who proceded him was extremely angry with the Amendment because it said that the sole object was to disfranchise a certain number of people, whereas this would be only an incidental effect of the Bill. He did not care whether the sole object of the Bill was to disfranchise people, or whether the result of the Bill was to disfranchise people. It was because he believed the Bill would disfranchise people that he intended to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. The Firs: Commissioner of Works had all along advocated this Bill on the ground that there were certain anomalies in the electoral system that ought to be remedied, and said that the Bill dealt with one of the most flagrant. He, however, did not think it was an anomaly. The principle of franchise in this country ever since the time of Henry VI. had been based not upon men but upon property. That might be right or it might be wrong, but it was the principle. The principle of local representation had also held good in this country, and for a very good reason. If we were to have equal electoral areas the result would be that large towns would have undue power in governing the rural districts He considered the principle of local representation ought to be maintained. The interests of people living in the country and the interests of people living in towns were not always absolutely indentical, and it was desirable that the best men possible should be sent to this House to represent the various interests in the country. Local representation effected that result. If the principles of local representation and property qualifications were sound, and also the principle that taxation and representation should
  662
  go together, then there was no anomaly in plural voting, because it was evident that if they admitted these three principles there must be plural voting. The principle that taxation and representation should go together was never meant to imply that a man with large property should have more representation in proportion to the man with a small amount of property. All that it meant was that a man should not have a vote unless he paid according to his means some amount of rates and taxes. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent had asked why people with money should have more votes in proportion to their money. Nothing of the kind was ever advocated from the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Member must have confused a speech of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, who said it seemed an injustice that a man with 20,000 acres in one part of a county should not have as many votes as a man with fifty acres in one part of a county and fifty acres in another. He did not know that the hon. Gentleman ever proposed to make an alteration, because he was under the idea that a Bill should be brought in to give residential qualifications. The same sort of wrong idea seemed to have been in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, because he told the House the other night that it was absurd that a rich man should have more votes than a man because he was poor. All that had been argued, however, was that where a man paid taxes in a constituency he should have a vote in that constituency, and not more than one vote. He was not surprised that there was a little confusion in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, and that he was not aware of the old Radical doctrine that taxation and representation should go together, because he had only lately become a recruit to that Party. He (Sir F. Banbury) supported the Amendment because the Bill was a disfranchising Bill, and was without precedent, as it was not to be followed by redistribution or dissolution. He quite agreed that it would not be wise for the Party opposite to dissolve at the present time. But why should they bring in this Bill now? Why should they not wait until a short time before their dissolution, which must come sooner or later? The violent hurry for the Bill was dictated by the fear of the

  663
  country turning round at the by-elections. This was not a Bill for one man one vote, but a Bill for one man no vote, if that man possessed a certain amount of property. The hon. Member for Northampton had challenged his statement that, as a rule, when a man succeeded in holding property in two or more constituencies it was rather an argument that he was fit to exercise the franchise. He could not consider that all men were equal. He wished they were, but he thought unfortunately some men were better thinkers, clearer reasoners, and more far-sighted than others, and those men generally succeeded in raising themselves in this world, and were generally Conservative. The machinery of the Bill was so complicated that the ordinary person would not know quite what to do in order to ensure his vote. Most people would leave it to the agent, and the result would be that many would be disfranchised. As the Bill originally stood, if a man merely asked for a ballot paper he would be subject to two years hard labour. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman, owing to representations made on the Opposition side, had substituted a fine of £500. He thought that a fine of £500 for asking for a ballot paper, when the man who was asking had the right to be on the register somewhere, was in itself sufficient to justify the rejection of the Bill. The result of all the pains and penalties to be imposed would be that in many oases men who were qualified to give a vote and were anxious to record it would find themselves disfranchised. The effect of the Bill would be to disfranchise voters who did not hold the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid the speeches of the hon. Member for Dulwich and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London showed pretty clearly that the real opposition to this Bill was the hatred of democracy and of the lifting up of the masses. Had it never occurred to them that there were on the Ministerial side of the House men equally interested in property and anxious to safeguard it? The difference between the two sides was as to the lines on which this was to be best accomplished. He maintained that it could only be done by the social and political uplifting of the masses. The only way to preserve pro-
  664
  perty in future was by giving the masses a chance to acquire property. Our institutions were mainly modelled upon those of Athens two thousand years ago, and the attitude of Athens then ought to be the attitude of Great Britain to-day. It might probably be replied that that was ancient history. Let them take modern history. America had done what no other nation had attempted to do. It had established a Republic with the unlimited suffrage of the million. It had shown that a church could exist without bishops. A hundred and twenty years ago it made the sublime, but what seemed then the foolhardy announcement that all men were equal, and to-day it had a territory stretching from ocean to ocean, and the great Republic was stronger than ever. That could not be denied, and they could not stop the advance of democracy.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he opposed the Third Heading of the Bill on the ground that if passed in its present form it would bring nothing but discredit on the House. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had assured them that the Bill would in no way affect University representation, and he accepted the assurance in preference to that of the hon. Member for Northampton, who said the measure would injure it. Therefore he did not propose to deal with the great question of University representation, which might come before the House at some other time. He would only say that, in view of the work which the Universities were doing, he thought it was desirable that they should be represented in the House of Commons. No one who had taken part in these debates had really spoken seriously in favour of the Bill. Though the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure had impressed them at every turn with his ability, had he ever imbued them with the idea that he was attempting to carry through a serious reform in a serious way? The Bill in its pre sent form was absolutely unworkable. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had said that he was not in love with the Bill, though he was in love with the principle of it. No one had supported the Bill in toto as it stood. Why had they not? The Bill was introduced in the spring, and it was practically an open secret that it would

  665
  not he gone cm with. [Cries of "No."] Then that was a mistaken view. It was the view held on the back benches [Cries of "No."] After the vacation this Bill was taken, although there were other more pressing Bills, such as the Workmen's Compensation Bill, which required detailed and careful consideration. The question of principle involved could have been dealt with by a more simple Bill, but this measure had been proceeded with, and after all the Amendments made in Committee and on Report it was still unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had introduced the Bill thus early to enable the plural voter to acquire a knowledge of the law; but could it be suggested that that was a fair way of dealing with the question? Surely a Bill of this kind should be made comprehensible from the first to the ordinary layman, and oven to the ordinary lawyer. There was no sort of precedent for such a Bill, which enabled an elector to make an affidavit to the presiding officer in the polling booth that he was not aware that his name appeared in another register. That, he contended, would lead to the blocking of the polling booths by a large number of people at the busiest time of voting. He ventured to submit that the Bill in its present form was absolutely unworkable and ought not to pass the House of Commons. They had been told with cynical frankness that it would have the effect of disfranchising a large number of Conservative voters, and that it would be useful to the Liberal Party at by-elections. But were they quite sure of that?
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that he believed that the Bill would not greatly advantage the Liberal Party; but that was no reason why an injustice should not be remedied.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he doubted the correctness of the view which he had quoted. Would not the Bill offend men on the Ministerial side of the House, and a largo number of people who were not strong politicians, who might feel that it was not playing the game to pass a Bill which was admitted to be almost a gerrymandering Bill, giving a considerable political advantage to the Party which passed it? He repeated
  666
  that it would have been bettor to have dealt with a question of this kind fairly, on broad grounds, and not in this narrow way, though it might bring an advantage to the Liberal Party. He maintained that the Bill was introduced, not for the purpose of legitimately dealing with an acknowledged grievance by people who wished to sweep it away, but for the purpose heard of elswhere of filling up the cup against another assembly. From either a layman's or lawyer's point of view, the Hill was over-laden with cumbersome machinery which would render it unworkable; and he asked the House most strongly to hesitate before giving it a Third Reading.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was sorry to intervene when so many hon. Gentlemen on the other side desired to continue the debate, but although he did not want to occupy the House for a considerable period he must begin so as to leave a little time for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to defend the Bill, which had not yet been done. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman hoard the entertaining speech made by his subordinate in the earlier part of the debate. If he did he would agree that the speech had almost every merit except that of touching on the question now before the House. With some over-elaborate irrelevance the right hon. Gentleman travelled over most of the legislation of this session and over a large part of the legislation and intended legislation of preceding sessions. He touched on the speech made by him on the Third Reading of the Trade Disputes Hill. He referred to the speech which his right hon. friend made on the Third Reading of the Land Tenure Bill. He gave a very elaborate, if not very accurate history of the redistribution scheme of last session; and finally he paid him the compliment of referring to a polling-card which was circulated in his election in 1895. He was always pleased when the other side came round to that polling-card. As a politician who had been before the public for something over thirty years, he felt that, when the worst that could be quoted against him was not something he had said but something else for which the responsibility could be fastened upon him, he had done pretty well. No higher tribute could be paid to his

  667
  consistency and moderation as a politician than this recurrence to an ancient voting-card which was not his composition. He did not complain on this occasion, but he did not see its obvious and immediate connection with the Plural Voting Bill. Nor could he recall in what connection the right hon. Gentleman brought in that episode.
  MR. HARCOURT: In reference to the words "very simple."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Was he drawing a parallel between the present Bill and my polling-card?
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he was quoting the words used about the redistribution proposals of July last year, that they were very simple, and he recalled that these words had also been applied either by the right hon. Gentleman or his friends to the proposal for old-age pensions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was reminded more of a game called Russian scandal than of anything else he had over heard. They were discussing a franchise Bill. On that it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to give a history of the redistribution proposals of last year. On that it occurred to him to quote a speech in which it appeared he said that the principle of the proposed Redistribution Bill was very simple, as, indeed, it was. Having used the word "simple" it occurred to him that that commonplace adjective had been previously used in some other connection—that of the voting card of 1895; and so by a happy and natural collocation of literary ideas they were carried from the Third Reading of a one-man-one-vote Bill back to an obscure episode in an election contest which happened ten years ago. He could understand how it was that the light hon. Gentleman, tied down as he had been through the whole of the long Report stage to the dry detail of the Bill, which he had managed with great knowledge of the subject and great tact and dexterity, should have given himself a free rein when he came to the wide and open campaign of the Third Reading of the Bill. Although he did
  668
  not grudge him these excursions either into the immediate or the remote past, he thought he might have come back towards the end of the speech, at all events, to something distantly connected with the measure before the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not do so, and the unfortunate thing was that he had got to speak before and not after the official defence of the Bill. He was not privileged to follow the Prime Minister, who was going to make that belated defence; but he had to deal as best he could, not with the defence that had been made, for none had been made, but with the defence that might be, or would be, made by the Leader of the Party responsible for the Bill. He was not going to discuss the details of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite described the Bill, when it suited the particular connection in which he was speaking, as a machinery Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire had spoken of the bearing the Bill had on universal civilisation, and he gathered from what he hoard of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he anticipated from the Bill every blessing that could come to mankind. We were to have small holdings in England, we were to rival the glories of America in literature and art, and Athens in Empire. He did not think all these blessings were likely to result from a Bill which, as its author said, was only a machinery Bill. He could not believe that the mere manipulation of our electoral system was going to make a now heaven or a new earth, and he was the more impressed with that when he remembered that this machinery Bill was one of which the machinery was extremely defective. The right hon. Gentleman had found a great many defenders of what he called the principle of the Bill, but he was not aware that he had found a single defender of its machinery. One of his most ardent supporters, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, had never concealed the fact that he thought the Bill quite unworkable; and he did not believe that anybody thought it workable, from which he was tempted to think that nobody thought it would get the chance of working. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said the Government were perfectly

  669
  ready to take on their own shoulders all responsibility for the Bill and that he was prepared to lay it would work. How the Government could guarantee that the Bill would work surpassed his understanding. They could not treat a Reform Bill as they would treat a bicycle or a motor-car, and give a guarantee with it. They could not claim damages from the right hon. Gentleman if the thing failed; and if the Bill would throw our whole electoral system into confusion, in imposing an unmerited hardship on the voters immediately concerned, and in increasing the cost and expense of the electoral machinery, he could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could have the courage to say that the Bill was one for which he and his friends took the whole responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman had laid himself open to the charge that he had not considered the machinery adequately. He had told the House that two or three years before he came into Parliament he regarded this as one of the greatest problems requiring solution. If a machinery Bill was to be the result of all this cogitation it might have been expected that it would be better adapted to the object it was to carry out than this Bill, which, with so much capacity and good humour, the right hon. Gentleman had recommended to the House. Leaving details, he came to the broader principles more especially germane to the present stage. Upon that subject they had really had nothing from the right hon. Gentleman himself, and they had to turn to speeches of his supporters to find out what it was the right hon. Gentleman desired to effect by this great machinery Bill, which was also a great Reform Bill. The hon. Gentleman who represented one of the divisions of Norfolk made a speech
  670
  earlier in the evening, in which he had the courage to tell the House that the principle of the British Constitution was that a man should have a vote, and only one.
  SIR. BRAMPTON GURDON: That men should have votes, not property.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman thought he was misrepresenting him; he took down the words "the British Constitution was that a man should have one vote, and no more." He did not know where the hon. Gentleman got that view of the British Constitution. It certainly was not from history; it certainly was not from a study of the actual franchise which had been in force in this country since those primeval times when our free institutions first began to take shape; neither did he get it from the teachings of our great constitutional authorities. He could not imagine any doctrine that would have more horrified every great constitutional statesman from Edmund Burke to Mr. Gladstone It was not the principle of the constitution, and never had been recommended by any great statesman who had had the conduct of national affairs for the last 150 years. To find such a doctrine one must search not the writings of constitutional authorities, not their speeches on constitutional subjects, one must search the abstract and theoretical essays, numerous enough in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in foreign countries, and which had their analogue in articles of British production. These, it must be admitted, laid down certain individualistic theories as to the position of individuals in regard to the State. He did not know whether the hon. Member would take them in their rigid entirety and press them to their

  671
  logical conclusion. If he did he would certainly arrive at the conclusion that our present system required a great deal of reform. But what reform? He had no particular love for pedants and doctrinaires, who for the most part were very respectable gentlemen, but whose particular quality it was to take a very narrow view upon imperfect premises, and then to extract from it everything that the laws of logic enabled them to deduce. But what was to be said of doctrinaires who could not set this logical machine to work, who, having obtained their views from imperfect premises, could not deduce their logical conclusions? Was there any hon. Gentleman opposite who would seriously advocate carrying their view to its logical conclusion? It was simple enough; everybody knew that of course it would carry with it female suffrage—obviously it would. ["Why?"] Because he had always been taught to believe that even a woman was human. If they were to plunge into this bog of abstract rights and assert that all men had the absolute right, that could hardly be admitted with at the same time a denial of the privilege to the female sex. Everything they did in the way of franchise for the male they must do, on the principle of the British Constitution, as known not to Mr. Gladstone and other great constitutional authorities, but to the hon. Member for Norfolk, for the female. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not deny it, but they refused to carry it into effect. That was not the only conclusion they must draw. They must, as an approach to a proper system, make equal electoral districts. But, after all, these were merely makeshifts; they did not give equal power to each adult individual in the community. They could not do that, they could not even approach to it unless they adopted
  672
  some system of minority representation of an elaborate kind, He did not know that that was part of the general scheme which hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed to enforce. He listened with impatience to the theory that every man had an equal right to a vote, and the power which a vote gave, when the people who advanced that theory had not the smallest intention of carrying their own schemes into effect. He had never accepted that view of the British Constitution; he did not think it had any historical justification. He believed that our Constitution was and must remain democratic, and perhaps it might become increasingly democratic. But he did not base that belief on the abstract rights of individuals; he based it on the particular needs of the country at this particular time. He believed that the democratic ideal was perfectly unsuited to many peoples, to many stages of civilisation, to whole nations, and to whole races. He thought it was suited to Great Britain in 1906, and we lived under democratic government. The House of Commons was a democratic House. He did not quite know why right hon. Gentlemen opposite had occupied a large portion of the autumn sitting, which ought to have been devoted to a scheme of social reform, to carrying out a purely political measure which did not appear to be of the first and most pressing importance. He reminded hon. Members below the gangway, who specially and peculiarly represented those democratic views at all events of reform, that what was happening now had always happened. The Radical or Liberal Party came into power on the strength of the wonderful things they were going to do in the way of social reform to raise the condition of the masses of the country. Directly

  673
  they obtained office they began to deal, not with social problems at all, but with some political dodge. This Bill would not benefit a single individual in the country; it did not further social reform by an inch. He should have thought the Government might have given them the ordinary leisure of the autumn, or at all events asked them to occupy their time with one or two of those great measures of social reform which they had promised. But the habit was inveterate; they could not help it. It had always been so. It was for that reason that almost all the great measures of social reform had been Tory or Unionist measures. It was not in the least because on that side they were more philanthropic than hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was sure that the Liberal Party were a most well-meaning set of gentlemen, but they had got this ingrained and inveterate practice that when Parliamentary power and time were given into their hands, they set to work to dish their opponents. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was very indignant because it was suggested that this measure was not designed to improve our electoral system but was levelled against political opponents, and he said it was an untrue statement. He accepted the right hon. Gentleman's disclaimer so far as he was concerned, but he would point out that the disclaimer did not come very well from a gentleman who spent a good deal of his speech, which might have been devoted to the Bill, in explaining that the late Government's scheme of redistribution was designed in order to inflict political injury on hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were always ready to give full credit to good intentions, but those who asked to be given credit for good intentions should show themselves capable of attribut-
  674
  ing good intentions to those from whom they differed. But, in truth, whatever might be the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and he was sure they were excellent, could this Bill have any effect in furthering any good cause in the country, in helping on any social reform, or in aiding to carry out any object which any man of independent judgment outside Party strife was likely to regard as a great object? It would inflict, no doubt, great hardships on the owners of double or treble qualifications. It would make a modification in our electoral system, it would, or it was thought it would, inflict an injury on those who were for the present a small minority in that House. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the observation of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who, talking not, indeed, of this Bill, but of a Redistribution Bill, stated that that Bill never could be carried out unless by the agreement of both Parties and in connection with some wide scheme of general reform. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if that were true, he really thought it possible that Parliament should pass into law a measure which avowedly dealt with but the smallest fraction of a great subject, which avowedly dealt with that fraction in a manner unpractical and costly, which was taken in isolation from every other scheme by which the balance as between Parties could be redressed— was it possible that such a measure could be passed into law with the general assent of the community? He did not think so. The outside public, perhaps, did not take much interest in the matter one way or another, but this they knew, that if they were to deal piecemeal with this question of electoral franchises, it was not decorous

  675
  nor politic, nor prudent for a great majority to attempt to seize the opportunity and put its heel on the minority. From the point of view of the minority, he regarded the policy as ungenerous. But he did not appeal to the generosity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He appealed to their sense of expediency. From their own point of view, a Bill of this kind, which, on the face of it, whatever might be the intentions of the responsible author, was a gerrymandering Bill, could never be satisfactorily dealt with in isolation. A settlement could only be arrived at when both parties come to some agreement, not merely on the question of one man one vote, but on the question of the redistribution of seats, of the representation of Ireland, upon the question, it might be, of woman franchise—on all those questions which, until they had the courage to deal with them, Parliament and the country would refuse to meddle with in isolation.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)said on one thing they must all be agreed. They were glad to find the right hon. Gentleman in such remarkably good spirits. He almost recalled to them himself during the debates of the last Parliament, when he commanded an overwhelming majority, and comported himself with a spirit which that position in such a man as he was naturally produced. Why on this occasion was he in such a rollicking humour? Obviously because at last he had found a Bill which he could not only oppose and delay, criticise and denounce in every clause and in every line in Committee and on Report, but which he could oppose when it reached Third Reading. The right
  676
  hon. Gentleman had said truly that if they searched history they would find that when the Liberal Party came into power they addressed themselves to questions of electoral law, which might not have any direct and immediate bearing upon the general tendency of legislation in the country; and that when the Conservatives came in—again he agreed to a large extent with the right hon. Gentleman—excellent measures improving the social condition of the people were passed. And why was this? Because while Liberals were in office they were thwarted and hindered by the Opposition in the passing of these social measures, and they applied themselves to the improving of the machinery of legislation in order that they might be better able in the future to overcome that opposition, and to give the opinions, desires, and sentiments of the people a better and further opportunity of expression. That was the explanation of the strange phenomenon which the right hon. Gentleman had discovered. This was a simple Bill, and the difficulties in it consisted not in the principle, but in the made of applying it. The principle was that no man should have more than one vote. Why was that opposed? It was difficult to discover the foundation of the opposition. The mover and seconder concerned themselves principally with the old accusation, that while the Government were concerned with one man one vote they neglected the principle of one vote one value. That was why the First Commissioner had dwelt so largely on the redistribution efforts of the right hon. Gentleman last year, which ought to debar him, to a great extent at any rate, from bringing any charge of gerrymandering or Party motive when any Government attempted to alter the conditions and the details of

  677
  the system of representation in this country. There must be something more than that to say in opposition to the Bill. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks, who was chosen to represent the opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, made two remarkable statements. He said that a man did not give a vote because he was a man; and he went on to say that property was the essence of every vote given in this country. For this realistic language and his candour they were obliged to him. In his view electors were more animated voting instruments in defence of property. He could well understand that it would be the duty of a representative so elected to frame his policy and that of his friends in the interests of property. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not fall into the error of his hon. colleague He rather tried to slur over, and all through the debate he had neglected to revive, the crudities of the hon. Member for Seven-oaks. The careful way in which the right hon. Gentleman had skirted round this particular subject of "property," and contrived to cast an almost romantic glow upon that very prosaic instrument, must have commanded universal admiration. He would, no doubt, shrink from admitting that property was the ground of the franchise, and he would not admit that property pluralism was necessary for the solidity of the constitution. He had said that the electoral system had its roots in history, and that every statesman of distinction had worked upon this historical basis whenever it had been his lot to modify the electoral system. He had said that our electoral system was based on the representation of localities. Looking to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales he should not have thought that this was the keystone of the right hon. Gentleman's
  678
  policy. But when they came to look closely into this question of the representations of localities, they did not get any nearer to each other, and whilst he agreed that localities were very inefficiently represented in our electoral system the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt perfectly satisfied with it. Here was a case in point. The right hon. Gentleman had said over and over again that it was a great grievance for a business man, conducting his business in one constituency and residing in another, to be deprived of one of his votes and to be called upon to choose which he would use. But if localities and responsibilities were of the very essence of the whole affair, why should business men be given a larger voting power than their workmen and clerks who also earned on their occupation in one constituency and resided in another? If plural voting was almost essential to the constitution, and if the rigid representation of locality was essential, why had the Party opposite, at any time during the past twenty years, when they could do it, not given the power of plural voting to the workman and the clerk, so that they might have been consolidated in the locality in which their separate interests were to be found? That could not be done because they had no property qualification in their workshops or places of business; and therefore their claims lay dormant, so that even underneath these high-flying doctrines of public interest and the necessity of recognising the claims of localities they came clown plump upon their old friend property, which was really the foundation of the whole opposition to this Bill. As to the historic argument, his answer to the right hon. Gentleman was that what might have been very good and suitable many years ago might be in no way suitable to the tendencies and circum-

  679
  stances of the present day, and to argue that re-arrangement in any matter should not be attempted because it was old was the finest old Tory doctrine, from which he should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite had completely emancipated themselves. They were now anxious to convince themselves that they were abreast of the movement of the modern tendency in politics and were animated by an almost feverish desire to appear to be, at all events, in the front line; and they were good enough to say sometimes that it was the Liberal Party who followed the old methods, used the old arguments, and adhered to the old principles. He could not help thinking that there was a good deal of make-believe in the fears of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the results of a measure such as this. After all, one man one vote was a plain common-sense doctrine. It had been acted on by the Party opposite in their own county councils; and last year, when they introduced a new constitution for the Transvaal, they included the same principle, and in the Transvaal, he would have thought, quite as much as anywhere
  else, the power of property would be considered. What was the opposite course? One man as many votes as he could manage to scramble together. He put it to those most afraid of this Bill whether the constitution of the State was likely to be endangered by the abolition of a system of that kind. There was much more danger to the State in adhering to and hugging old outworn privileges than in freeing ourselves from them. The Government took this one point in the electoral system because it stood by itself, and could be dealt with by itself without raising other questions, without confusing the proceedings of Parliament, and without any necessity of taking it at the end of the Parliament, as they would have to take redistribution. They took it now in order that once for all they might induce Parliament to accomplish a reform which they had advocated for the last score of years, and he believed the general opinion of the country would say it was a useful, safe, and patriotic course to take.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 333; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 456.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Berridge, H. T. D.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Alden, Percy

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Billson, Alfred

  Byles, William Pollard

  Armitage, R.

  Birrell Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cairns, Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Roland, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Carr-Comm. H. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brace, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Barlow, John Emmot (Somers't)

  Brigg, John

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brodie, H. G.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Beale, W. P.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cleland, J. W.

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Clough, William

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Ches.)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Bull, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James (Aberd'n)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Bellairs Carylon

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np'rt

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haydin, John Patrick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morrell, Philip

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morse, L. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cory, Clifford John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Murphy, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Murray, James

  Cowan, W. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Cox, Harold

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hodge, John

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholls, George

  Crombie, John William

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crossley, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't, N.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Dickwn-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Malley, William

  Dillon, John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Partington, Oswald

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Sir W. P. (Colchester)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Perks, Robert William

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Philipps, J. Wynford (P'mbroke)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lambert, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollard, Dr.

  Essex, R. W.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Ac'ringt'n)

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Levy, Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Raphael Herbert H.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lupton, Arnold

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macnarmara, Dr Thomas J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ginnell, L.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Arthur, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Robinson, S.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robson, Sir Williaw Snowdon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kean, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Runciman, Walter

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hall, Frederick

  Markham, Arthur Bail

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Halpin, J.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Massie, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meagher, Michael

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shackleton, David James

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  682

  683

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wiles, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ure, Alexander

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'th'n)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Winfrey, R.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Summerbell, T.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Thomkinson, James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Toulmin, George

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Castlereagh, Vicsount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell. (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Wor.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fare'm)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Liddell, Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gh'm)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Eves'm)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart -

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ardrossan, Saltcoats and District Tramways Order Bill, (No. 220.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Ardrossan, Saltcoats and District Tramways.
Dunbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill, (No. 221.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Dunbartonshire Tramways.
Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill, (No. 222.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Dunfermline and District Tramways. Were presented to the Earl Beauchamp (for the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell) (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of Catholic Congregation of St. Edmund, Amberley; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions for amendment of; of Railway Companies, Shipowners and Colliery Owners in South Wales; Cardiff Shipowners Association; Cardiff Incorporated Chamber of Commerce; Scottish Ironmasters Association; Lanark Malleable Iron and Steel Manufacturers; Colliery Proprietors in Monmouthshire; Shipowners, etc., in Newport (Monmouthshire); and Merchants and Brokers in Newport (Monmouthshire). Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Further correspondence relating to Native disturbances in Natal (in continuation of [Cd. 3027.], July 1906.)

  TADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3734. Switzerland.
  No. 3735. Uruguay (Trade and Finances for 1905).
  No. 3736. Persia (Trade of Azerbaija for 1905–6).

  WORCESTER ELECTION COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at the Worcester Election, 1906. Report and Minutes of Evidence.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 18. (1906).
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Belgium respecting commercial travellers' samples; signed at Brussels, 10th November 1906.

  Report of the Board of Education for the year 1905–6.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (INCLUDING TELEPHONES).
  Account showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March 1906, and the balance of the expenditure over receipts, and additional statement. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 223)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Further considered on Report (according to Order).
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved to amend Clause 4 so that a local education authority should afford extended facilities where, as the result of a ballot, it appeared the parents of the majority of the children attending the school desired those facilities, and either that there was public school accommodation in schools not affected by a permission given under this section for any child whose parent declared his objection

  443
  to the facilities, or "that suitable provision would be made in the school or elsewhere giving to the children of those parents who declared their objection to the facilities religious instruction of the character permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."
  The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the first Amendment stands in my name, and I desire to say a few words as to the reasons which have led me to move it. It is designed to remedy what we regard as a hard case arising under the Bill as it now stands, a hard ease of which, I venture to think, noble Lords opposite will scarcely be found prepared altogether to deny the existence. What that hard case is will best appear to your Lordships if you will be good enough to look at the first sub-section of Clause 4 as it stands in the Bill. You will see that under that sub-section a local education authority is to afford extended facilities under Clause 4 on the following conditions. First, that it appears from the result of the ballot that a sufficient majority of the parents of the children desire that those facilities should be afforded; and, secondly, that there is accommodation in other schools for any child whose parent declares his desire for a different; form of religious instruction.
  This is what may happen under the clause as now worded. An application may be made for these extended facilities; the public inquiry is held; the ballot takes place; the sufficient majority is disclosed; but if at the. last moment it proves to be the case that any child whose parent declares his desire for a different form of religious instruction is without accommodation in another school, the extended facilities may not be afforded; so that literally it is in the power of the parent of a single child to, I might almost say, defraud the school of the facilities to which it would naturally and obviously be entitled. I cannot believe that it was the intention of your Lordships' House that the clause should be left in that shape; and so far, at any rate, as I was concerned, I voted for it in the anticipation that I should support Amendments which were put down by my noble friend Lord Cadogan, which would have had the effect of providing for these exacting
  444
  infants' religious instruction of the kind desired, if not in an alternative school, then in the school itself or in some other place. But as your Lordships remember, Lord Cadogan's Amendment was not pressed to a division, and the clause, therefore, remains in its present extremely inconvenient shape.
  I should perhaps point out that the Amendment which I have moved stops far short of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Cadogan. Your Lordships may recollect that Lord Cadogan contemplated that opportunities for religious instruction should be afforded for a minority comprising children of more than one religious denomination—a result which might, as was pointed out at the time, have led to a certain amount of confusion, and he also contemplated that, where the dissentient minority was a substantial one, there the staff of the school receiving the extended facilities might be recruited with special reference to the needs of the minority. Those stipulations disappear from the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.
  I would now call your Lordships' attention to the precise purport of my Amendment. We desire to cure what we believe to be the defect in the clause by providing that if all the other conditions necessary for obtaining extended facilities are fulfilled, those facilities shall be given if the local education authority is satisfied upon either of two points. The first is that there is alternative accommodation for the child or children in another school, and the second is that suitable provision can be made in the school or elsewhere—and I call the particular attention of the House to this—for giving Cowper-Temple teaching to the child or children of those parents who declare their objection to the facilities which the school seeks to obtain. That is, in our view, a very necessary safety valve; and I must say that it seems to me that if you do not provide it you may find trait the necessity of proving the existence of alternative accommodation will in a very large number of cases place an absolutely insuperable obstacle in the way of a school really entitled to extended facilities.

  445
  I dwelt just now upon the fact that the religious instruction which we desire to provide for the minority is to be Cowper-Temple teaching, and I will tell the House briefly why we say that. In the first place, if the matter were not so limited, you might find a demand for several different kinds of religious instruction for the children of whom the minority is composed. That might have inconvenient results, but, apart from that, we think it reasonable to say to the parents of the minority, "You must be content if you get for your children that kind of religious instruction which you would be entitled to get if the school failed altogether to obtain extended facilities." We get over in that way the difficulty which was apprehended in regard to the teaching of a multiplicity of religious. We allow only for Cowper-Temple teaching, and we allow for that teaching only, remember, if the local education authority is satisfied that the circumstances admit of what is described in the Amendment as suitable provision for giving that kind of teaching. That is to say, the local education authority is perfectly free to say, "We have looked into the circumstances of this school, and, owing to the peculiarity of those circumstances, we re-grot to find that suitable provision cannot be made." Then the whole thing falls through, and the extended facilities cannot be obtained. We believe that this proposal, thus limited and carefully guarded, is a wholly innocuous one, and that it will be, if adopted, the means of remedying an unintentional defect, I think I may say, in the Bill as it now stands, and of relieving the children of the minority of the undoubted hardship which would be occasioned to them were some step not taken to prevent this injustice being done.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 18, after the words 'and' to insert the word 'either'; in line 21 to leave 'out from the word 'his' to the end of line 23, and 'to insert the words' objection to the facilities; or (c) that suitable provision will be made in the school or elsewhere giving to the children of those parents who delare their objection to the facilities, religious instruction of the character permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870." — (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, some of us on this side of the House thought that the faculty of astonishment had been exhausted by some of the Amendments placed on the Paper at previous stages of this Bill from different parts of the House, but I am bound to say that the fact that this particular Amendment should have been moved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition at this stage revives that emotion in its most acute form. All I can say is that I trust that before this particular olive branch is transmitted to another place your Lordships will subject it to a very severe examination in order to see what the effect of the noble Marquess' Amendment really would be. As regards the first part of the Amendment, it is quite true that the words as they stand in paragraph (b) of Clause -1 would not have effected his purpose, or, I think, anybody's purpose, hut the noble Marquess will remember that they are not our words. They were inserted by noble Lords opposite in place of our much more harmless words.
  I pass from that to consider what the substance of the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess is. The claim of the noble Marquess and of the most rev. Primate, who we are sorry is still absent from our debates, all through has been that they have not altered the substance of the Bill, and that all they have done is to enforce our declared intention to make the facilities offered under the Bill real and genuine, and the noble Marquess spoke of the misrepresentation to which he and his friends had been subjected outside this House on that point. They were quite unwilling to admit that the substance of the Bill was in any way altered. But when you proceed to apply the Clause 4 plan to an entirely different class of schools it is really playing with words to say that you are doing nothing to alter the structure of the Bill.
  What are the effects which the noble Marquess' Amendment would have upon our clause? If Cowper-Temple teaching is to be given in the school it operates in one way against what I should have thought would be the wishes o a great many who would conduct these Clause 4

  447
  schools—it would prevent their being homogeneous schools, and it would destroy their special atmosphere and special character. On the other hand, the minority, instead of finding accommodation in some other school, may be obliged to be subjected to the whole religious atmosphere of the school, which, other things being equal, they might desire to avoid; or if you are going to find this accommodation for Cowper-Temple teaching outside the school, you subject the minority to some considerable inconvenience. In every case you oblige the minority to exercise the conscience clause under circumstances of considerable difficulty.
  But, my Lords, after all, the point is not so much what will happen in urban schools. I want noble Lords to consider what will be the effect of this clause upon rural schools in single school areas. There is nothing whatever that I can see in the noble Marquess' clause to prevent its provisions applying to a vast majority of the village schools of England. All that has to be done in such a village school is to find two-thirds of those who vote willing to declare for a Clause 4 school. Undoubtedly in the case of village schools in many parts of England those conditions could largely be complied with, and the minority might receive Cowper-Temple teaching in a class-room, or some friendly farmer might lend a room, or some other accommodation might be found in the village. The effect would be that this single area school, the type of school for which Clause 3 was devised and where by common consent of noble Lords opposite there has existed a Nonconformist grievance—this school would be carried on as a Clause 4 school, with its definite Church instruction five days a week.
  I really wonder whether the noble Marquess, in devising his clause, contemplated that that state of things was likely to arise. It seems to me that from that point of view this Amendment is a more objectionable one than that of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, which noble Lords opposite would not accept. That Amendment provided for five days facilities, but it did leave the appointment of the
  448
  teacher on the Clause 3 terms, and it did not do what the noble Marquess' Amendment certainly will do, provide for the turning of a great number of these single area parish schools into Clause 4 schools with all the advantages and privileges and the difficulty about the minority which necessarily belong to those schools. The noble Marquess says it all rests with the local authority, but the local authority, I take it, under the noble Marquess' Amendment, would be expected to give this leave if suitable provision in the shape of class-rooms or some such accommodation were given. In any case, there is no reason for giving a local option in this particular kind of matter; that is to say, for leaving a local authority with strong Church views to turn a great majority of these village schools into Clause 4 schools, whereas a local authority of a different kind might decline to give that leave. I cannot help once more asking the noble Marquess whether he has really considered all these points; and if he would agree to withdraw the clause at this stage and give some consideration to what I have said as to the effect of this Amendment upon rural areas, I verily believe he would not bring it up again on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  LORD BELPERsaid that he had objected to Lord Cadogan's Amendments giving facilities to all denominations, because it was putting a duty on the local authority which could not be fulfilled, and making them responsible for the teaching of all sorts of religion demanded by the minority. It seemed to him perfectly novel to make the local education authority responsible for different sorts of religious teaching, and he felt that it would be quite impossible in practice to work such a provision satisfactorily. But he had not the same objection to the proposal that Cowper-Temple teaching should be provided in a Clause 4 school. The local authority was already responsible for providing such teaching in every council school. It seemed to him that the greater part of the noble Earl's argument went to the two-thirds Amendment which had been already carried. Nearly the whole of the noble Earl's argument rested on the point that there would be an enormous number of schools where there

  449
  might be a two-thirds majority wishing for the special facilities, and that if it were provided that those facilities should be given in all cases where provision could be made for the minority to have undenominational teaching it would increase the number of Clause 4 schools. It seemed to him that the noble Earl had argued against the minority being provided with any religious education at all. He thought it was very hard to argue that, because two-thirds of a school were to have a special denominational teaching, therefore the rest of the school were to have no religious teaching at all, because that practically would be the effect. They had arrived at an impasse with regard to the arguments that had been used. He did not wish to give any vote which would have the effect of extending Clause 4 schools beyond the purpose for which they were intended, but, so far as he understood the Amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, its only object was to afford reasonable facilities for the religious teaching which the local education authority had to give those children who were left in the school and who could not accept the religious teaching of the majority of the school.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid that the Lord President had not attempted to meet the grievance in those cases where one or two children might be a bar to Clause 4 facilities being given to a school. It would generally be impossible to find an alternative school for the minority. He had always recognisad the Nonconformists' grievance, and in Spitalfields, where it was discovered that there were some 100 Jews, the Church itself invited the Jewish Rabbi to come in and deal with that minority. He wished that the clergy had always, where the, grievance; was felt, met it by inviting the Nonconformist minister to give religious instruction to the Nonconformist children. What the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition now j proposed was that what was done voluntarily in Spitalfields should be carried out generally, and that the minority should have the teaching their parents desired.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that noble Lords did not realise the effect
  450
  of the Amendment. They talked as if they were entitled to have a Clause 4 school in every single-school district, and as if they doing a kindness in providing for the minority. The noble Marquess proposed that in a single-school district the children of dissentient parents should be sent somewhere outside the school, during the time set apart for religious instruction, and this was described as an opportunity to give them religious teaching. The Clause 4 schools had been asking for an "atmosphere." How, then, did hey propose to meet the case of children to whom this special atmosphere was objectionable They were to be made to breathe it for nine- tenths of the day, and to be sent elsewhere for one-tenth of the day to get a little fresh air. The proposition was preposterous.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the Bill as it stood did not fulfil the desires of any one, and the President of the Council did not propose an alternative. What could the noble Earl suggest? One child could prevent a Roman Catholic school from being started any- where. They were all agreed that that was not satisfactory. It seemed to him that the Amendment was a just one.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid that if the Government rejected this Amendment they refused the right to two-thirds of the. parents to have the religious teaching that they desired for their children. The Amendment was only doing that which made Clause 4 operative in regard to a class of schools which it was the desire to create, and it was a subject of common notoriety that those who cared for Church teaching had been willing that the Nonconformists should have every facility in the Church schools. The Government objected to anything which gave a right to the parents to have the religion taught that they wished, and he maintained that they should have some little regard for the "atmosphere" surrounding the minority in undenominational schools.
  The Marquess of RIPON and the Marquess of SALISBURY both rising to address the House, the Lord Privy Seal gave way.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was very glad that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House was about to address their Lordships, because he might remedy a deficiency in the otherwise very skilful speech of the noble Earl the Lord President. Several speakers had pointed out that, notwithstanding that the noble Earl had criticised the Amendment, he had, though the Minister in charge of the Bill, abstained altogether from defending the provisions of the measure itself. The Bill as it stood when it reached their Lordships' House was in this respect absolutely unworkable. He did not, however, desire to go back into those old controversies. Nobody pretended that the ballot, as the noble Earl had proposed it to their Lordships, with paragraph (6), could have been worked, because the provision involved a revelation of who had voted in the ballot. That provision had disappeared in Committee.
  But that was not the only respect in which the Government's proposal was unworkable. His noble friend the Leader of the Opposition had put to the noble Earl the difficulty. It was not a rural difficulty or an urban difficulty; it belonged to both. They might have a school, say, of 500 children, which fulfilled in every respect the conditions necessary to make it a Clause 4 school. There was, however, one child the parent of which demanded alternative accommodation, and, if there was no alternative accommodation outside the school, thereupon, said the Government, the remaining 499 children were to be denied all the advantages of a Clause 4 school. The case could be put even more strongly. A school such as he had described might have become a Clause 4 school; there might have been unanimity among the children, and the school might have continued a Clause 4 school for four, five, or even ten years. The whole school would have been organised on a Clause 4 basis, and everything would have proceeded on that foundation. It might be a Roman Catholic school. The Roman Catholic population of the district would gradually collect around it, but after it had continued, say, for ten years, a Nonconformist parent might suddenly come to live in the district. He would be
  452
  compelled under the Act of Parliament to send his child to that school. He would demand the alternative accommodation, and the whole of the system which had been continued to the satisfaction of all concerned for, perhaps, ten years would have to be cast aside and the school reduced to the level of a Cowper-Temple school.
  He maintained, with absolute confidence, that a provision capable of working in any such way was ipso facto condemned, and could not be defended before Parliament. When his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition put the case generally it did not earn one syllable of notice from the noble Earl; he had, therefore, put the ease in detail. He held that the Bill was wholly unworkable. If the Bill remained in the form in which the Government desired it, let them conceive the pressure which would be exercised. In a district in which there was no alternative accommodation, in which the population desired to be on the Clause 4 basis, there might be a recalcitrant minority. He asked the House to conceive the pressure that would be put on the local authority to build a school to accommodate those children. Were their Lordships prepared to pass a provision which would involve such pressure on the local authority? He also asked their Lordships to realise the pressure that would be put on Nonconformist parents. Let them imagine the case of a school in which there was a small minority of Nonconformist children. A majority of two-thirds desired the Clause 4 system, but there was, however, a minority, and there was no alternative accommodation outside the school. Their Lordships would realise the sort of pressure that would be brought to bear on those parents. People would go to them and say, "Surely you are not going to make a row and upset us all. Surely you are going to accept the Clause 4 system, and are not going to demand alternative accommodation. You will put up with the teaching rather than cause your neighbours extreme inconvenience." That was the kind of pressure that would be exercised on the Nonconformist minority, and those noble Lords who believed in the tyrannous oppression of the squire and

  453
  the parson would no doubt add a number of details of how the squire and the parson under those circumstances would behave, although, for his part, he was not prepared to endorse such charges.
  Under the system of his noble friend there would be no such pressure. The thing would be perfectly easy. What would be said to the Nonconformist minority would be this, "Of course, you are entitled to choose instruction which will suit you. We will provide Cowper-Temple religion for you, and you will in that way suffer no grievance if we place this school on a Clause 4 basis." Surely that was a far better system than that proposed by His Majesty's Government, which would involve unfair pressure on the Nonconformist minority. One speaker on the other side had referred to the grievance of the Nonconformist minority's being compelled to remain in the denominational atmosphere. He thought their Lordships knew full well that noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House were prepared to do everything in their power to minimise as far as possible any grievance which the, minority might put forward. If the Government had some way of protecting the interests of the minority better than the Amendment moved by Lord Lansdowne he invited them to state it. So long as the rights of the majority were recognised, by all means let the minority have every relief that it was possible for Parliament to afford. The noble Earl had said that under Lord Lansdowne's Amendment there was no advantage, or very little ad- vantage, in the elasticity given by the word "suitable," because some local education authorities would avail themselves of that word in order to exercise the powers under this provision largely, and others would, on the other hand, exercise them narrowly, and so they would j have differences of administration. And this from a Government which professed to believe in trusting the local education authority The Government had all through pressed the necessity of fully trusting the local education authority. Noble Lords on the Opposition side were prepared to trust the local education authority, while maintaining the rights of the majority in this matter of religious education, to do what they could to
  454
  secure to the minority all they could legitimately ask. He hoped the House would accept be Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDexpressed his surprise that this Amendment should be moved. The whole plea in the earlier part of the debates was that it was absolutely necessary for the schools under consideration that they should have a distinctly denominational atmosphere. That being the nature of those schools, surely every fair-minded man must see that it would be a great hardship on the minority of children in those schools if they were set up in such a way that they had no choice of attending any other school. His own belief was that the great mass of moderate Churchmen outside politics would have nothing to do with these schools, but would prefer the plain, open atmosphere outside. It was said that the arrangement to accommodate the minority inside the school would be a self to the rates, but the Amendment turned the whole arrangements of the Bill upside down. The representatives of the people could not look at such an Amendment. He was sorry the most rev. Primate was absent, because he could hardly imagine his well-balanced mind agreeing to this Amendment. It would be a positive misfortune if it were carried Even the Bishop of Oxford could hardly support it. His right rev. brother pleaded eloquently the other night, and gave a doleful picture of Church children in ordinary facilities schools having on three days a week to be taught by a Baptist schoolmistress. If that was such a hardship, what were they to say of all these schools in which there was to be this denominational atmosphere or influence all the time? He regarded the noble Marquess' Amendment as one of the most wrecking Amendments which had been put before the House. If it were any use, he would plead with the noble Marquess not to press the Amendment to a division. There must be many noble Lords opposite who were desirous to arrive at an accommodation with another place; and they must feel great misgivings about this Amendment, and he hoped they would vote against it.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, this

  455
  Amendment is no doubt a very important one. It strikes, as it seems to me, at the very heart of the Bill. I have always imagined up to this time that it was agreed on all sides that there was a marked distinction between the cases of districts in which there was a choice of schools and the cases of single school districts. This is the first hint we have had from noble Lords opposite that they desire to extend the facilities granted under Clause 4 to single school districts. When His Majesty's Government placed Clause 4 in the Bill they did so with the distinct intention that it should be confined to districts in which there was a choice of schools; and in accordance with the fundamental principles upon which this Bill has been founded, in accordance with every declaration that His Majesty's Government have made upon this subject, it is wholly impossible for them to accede to so vital and extreme a change in the Bill as is involved in the Amendment of my noble friend opposite. I confess that I have been greatly surprised at the appearance of this Amendment, because I have always thought that it was agreed on all hands that the cases of single school districts was altogether different and altogether apart from the cases of districts where there were more than one school.
  I have long come to the conclusion that it was a great error in the Act of 1870, to which I was a party, that it did not make that distinction, and that it dealt with single school districts in the same way as other districts were dealt with. I believe I took the liberty of stating that opinion some years ago in this House. I held it then, and I hold it now, and I do entreat your Lordships to hesitate before you deviate from what up to this time I believe has generally been understood to be an agreed matter. I am not in the smallest degree accusing noble Lords opposite of any breach of faith; but I always thought that the difference between these two classes of schools was admitted, and that they were to be treated differently. Clause 4 is suitable to those districts where there is a choice of schools; it is not suitable to those districts where that choice does not exist. The passing of this Amend-
  456
  ment will have a grave effect upon the deliberation which the Bill will receive in another place, and I exhort your Lordships not to accept it.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKpointed out that the noble Marquess had sat down, following the example of the Lord President, without saying one single word to meet the principal point of the attack. They were assured by those who looked carefully to the wording of the clause that the effect of proviso (b) was such that it deprived Clause 4, or went very far towards doing so, of all effective value whatever. In the absence of even the shadow of a suggestion from either the Lord President or the Leader of the House of any alternative method of meeting this great grievance, which, if left unsettled, would knock the bottom out of the special facilities, there was no other course but to go to a division on the Amendment.
  THE DUKE or DEVONSHIRE: I do not understand that any Member of the Government who has yet spoken has stated exactly how the Government desire to deal with this clause. It is agreed, I believe, on all hands that the form in which it stands, as amended in Committee, is not satisfactory either to the Government themselves or to those who sit on this side of the House, and I presume that it would be the proposal of the Government to revert to the original form of the clause. I understand that the objection taken on this side of the House to the wording of the clause as it originally stood was that the existence in a school of a single child of a different denomination, with the absence of alternative accommodation for that child elsewhere, would prevent the local authority from granting the special facilities to that school. I do not think it was the intention of the Government that the existence of a very small minority who might possibly be put to some slight inconvenience, not because there was no possible accommodation, but because it would be inconvenient for them to obtain that accommodation, should be a bar to the granting of extended facilities. Perhaps

  457
  the Government will state at all events what their intention is with regard to this matter.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I can only speak again, of course, with the indulgence of the House, but I should like to say that it certainly is not our intention that where in practice all the conditions are fulfilled the existence of one extremely inconvenient child should be used to alter the whole character of the school. But, of course, what we say is that as a matter of fact it is very hard to believe that in districts where there are a number of schools—and it must be remembered that we do not intend these schools to be applied in any other districts—such a state of things would arise. As a matter of practice it would be found that the normal average of children would be provided for in the cases which we contemplate. It is perfectly true that in the case contemplated by the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury they would certainly not be provided for.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I contemplated all the cases.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Well, in a very large number of the cases contemplated by the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl thinks that I regarded this question as confined to rural schools he is very much mistaken. There are a number of cases in urban districts where the difficulty would equally arise.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have had no data as to that from noble Lords opposite. I can only say that it is not our opinion that difficulties will arise. We believe that in the vast majority of cases, if not in all, accommodation for the minority will be forthcoming elsewhere. I admit that in one sense the reduction of the number to two-thirds may have added to that difficulty, but that cannot be put down to our fault. We can only defend the Bill as it was introduced and as we voted in the course of the discussion. I am perfectly willing, in reply to the noble Duke, to
  458
  consider whether it is possible to meet the point raised in any other way. But it is altogether impossible that in any circumstances we could agree to the clause as proposed to be amended by the noble Marquess opposite.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Do you propose to revert to the clause as it originally stood?
  THE EARL OF OREWE: Yes. and to consider whether any words could be added to meet the noble Duke's point.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid the Amendment was intended to meet what was one of the most serious blots on the Bill. Paragraph (b) rendered Clause -A a fictitious boon from every point of view. The question was grappled with in Committee, but very often their Lordships found themselves in a certain amount of fog and perplexity and somehow the sub-section rode through the storm triumphant. It was, therefore, necessary at this stage of the Bill to deal with the matter. In the great town of Preston, for instance, it would be impossible, as the clause now stood, to have a Clause 4 school, and there were many other towns similarly situated. The Amendment aimed at carrying out the avowed intentions of the promoters of the Bill that the special facilities should be Teal and effective.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I, too, can only address the House again by your Lordships' indulgence. I merely wish to call attention to two or three matters of fact. In the first place, the noble Earl the Lord President and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House had not attempted to deny that the grievance which this Amendment is intended to deal with is a grievance which has existence. In the next place, neither the noble Earl nor the noble Marquess have been able to suggest any mode of dealing with that grievance. That being so, our plan holds the field, and in my view it would be well that we should divide upon the Amendment. But I wish to add that if, between now and the last stage of the Bill, the Lord

  459
  President is able to bring up words that will deal with the point effectually and deal with it in his view more appropriately than my words, I for one should be ready to consider them with an open mind. At present, however, I do not care to let go this Amendment until I know what is to take its place.
  On Question, "That the word 'either' be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 131.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Burghclere, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Colebrooke, L.

  Loch, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Lyveden. L.

  Courtney of Pen with, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davey, L.

  Monson, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Pirrice, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Reay, L.

  Craven, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Selby, V.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Headley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Nelson, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Northesk, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Plymouth, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Rothes, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Bath, M.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Stamford, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery).

  Salisbury, M.

  Verulam, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Braye, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Burton, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Bridport, V.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Colchester, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Falkland, V.

  De Mauley, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Goschen, Y.

  Digby, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Ebury, L.

  Devon, E.

  Hill, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuchand Queensberry.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Estcourt, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Eldon, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Essex, E.

  Kuntsford, V.

  Forester, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Gage, L. (K. Gage.)

  Gainsborough, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Guilford, E.

  Harris, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Kelvin, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Liverpool, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Ilchester, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Llangattock, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Morley, E.

  Addington, L.

  Michelham, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Moncrieff, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  Muncaster, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  North, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Stratheden, and Campbell, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Teynham, I.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth. L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Sinclair, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is to insert, after the word "school," the words "for facilities for religious instruction of a like special character." That is to meet a curious little point that was suggested, namely, that it would be possible, after facilities had been asked for the majority, or even before, for the parents of a small minority, if that minority reached twenty, to come forward and ask for the facilities, knowing that they could not get them, but with a view of preventing anybody else getting them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 33, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'for facilities for religious instruction of a like special character.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is also of a formal character. Under the present words extended facilities cannot be given if any rent is paid. It is thought that in some circumstances trustees might find it difficult to forego rent in order to get the extra facilities, and these words enable them to do so.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 41, after the wore 'school' to insert the words, 'and the owners of the school house shall have power to forego the payment of any rent payable under any arrangement or order while extended facilities are so afforded.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is to leave out Clause 5. I think it is generally agreed that in view of the more or less kindred Amendments which have been placed on the Paper the House will desire to leave out Clause 5. But it will be better, I think, to postpone
  462
  any discussion on that point until we reach the new clauses. I therefore formally move that the clause be omitted.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 5."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsubmitted that there was one part of Clause 5 which ought not to be omitted. Their Lordships would remember that in Committee a very useful Amendment was introduced by Lord Ashbourne giving an appeal to the owners against the action of the local education authority under Clause 4. The Amendments which their Lordships bad just passed had largely extended the possible action of the local education authority. It would rest with the local education authority to say whether or not there was alternative accommodation in other schools in the area. It would rest with them to say whether suitable provision in the school or elsewhere could be provided. So far as he could see there was no appeal in the Bill from the decision of the local education authority. A per-verse or hostile local education authority might decide these points wrongly, and, if so, the right to facilities was gone. He did not see that that point was covered by anything in the proposed new clause of the noble Earl, even as amended by the noble Duke. It was confined to cases where there was a failure to agree between the owners and the local education authority, but there was no appeal against a decision of the local education authority that there was no right to facilities because the conditions of Clause 4 were not complied with. He thought the provision inserted on the Motion of Lord Ashbourne was a very valuable one in this direction. These points admitted of great diversity of opinion, and there should be some means of redressing a, mistake on the part of the local education authority. He hardly thought it

  463
  was intended to leave this matter entirely in the discretion of the local education authority. The effect of the clause as it stood was that the local authority had almost complete discretion to decide whether or not a school should be admitted to Clause 4 facilities at all. He held that any error or miscarriage of justice on their part ought to be capable of redress. It was not a matter for the Commission, but one for the Board of Education to settle. He hoped the noble Earl the Lord President: would consent to repeal only sub-sections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 and allow sub-sections (1) and (2), which dealt fully with this question of appeal from the local education authority, to remain in the Bill.
  LORD ASHBOUENEthought the course proposed by the Lord President, to omit Clause 5 and take the discussion on the Amendments to Clause 9, would be the most convenient. He trusted that the noble and learned Viscount who had just spoken would consent to that view. He thought his noble and learned friend had failed to notice an Amendment which had been inserted at the end of the first paragraph of the first sub- section to Clause 4, which enabled the Board of Education to decide any case in dispute. This would, he thought, cover the point.
  THE EARL OF CKEWE: The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down is quite right in thinking that the noble and learned Viscount's point is covered by the Amendment to Clause 4. In these circumstances I think it would be better to delete Clause 5, at any rate provisionally, and proceed. It will, of course, be open to the noble and learned Viscount to raise the point again if he thinks it is not covered by the words referred to.
  LORD DAVEY LORD DAVEY moved to leave out Clause 6 (provision of new schools with facilities for special religious instruction). It was not, he said, his intention to trouble the House with any discussion of the abstract merits of the proposal contained in the clause. Their Lordships would remember that the clause
  464
  was inserted towards the end of a sitting in Committee at the instance of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and after a long discussion on another clause, and that the particular terms of this clause and the mode in which the proposal contained in it was intended to be carried into effect did not receive much, or, he thought, any discussion from their Lordships. He ventured to submit that the terms of the clause as it stood, whatever might be the abstract merits of it, were such that it was not one which could find a place in this Bill, its provisions being contrary both, to the letter and to the spirit of the Bill.
  His first objection to the clause was that it substituted the Board of Education for the local education authority in the exercise of some of the most important functions of that authority The Board of Education was to determine whether a school was required, and if the Board of Education determined that the proposed school was required it was to direct the local education authority to take it over. That appeared to him to he putting aside altogether the local education authority, and substituting for it the Board of Education. It enabled the Board of Education to impose on the local education authority the charge and the maintenance of a school which the local education authority thought was unnecessary or did not furnish the best means of providing school accommodation.
  Nothing had surprised him more in these debates that the distrust which some of their Lordships and some right rev. Prelates had shown of the local education authority established by the Act of 1902. In this case the 'local education authority was entirely set aside, and had to act under the direction of the Board of Education. He maintained that it was the right and duty of the local education authority under the Act of 1902 and previous Acts to say whether additional school accommodation was required, and, if so, how it should be provided, whether by enlarging existing schools or by building new schools, or, if new schools were required, on what sites they should be erected, and whether those schools

  465
  should be large or small. On the other hand, it was the right and duty of the local authority to protect the public moneys under their charge and administration from any unnecessary burden.
  He maintained that so long as the local authority exercised its judgment in good faith in matters within its jurisdiction, no interference ought to be permitted from an outside body. That was the principle which he had always understood had hitherto actuated Ministers for Education in dealing with these matters. This clause, however, enabled a Minister of the Crown to impose a new charge and the maintenance of a new school upon a local authority. That was a reversal of what had up to the present time been the policy of Parliament in respect to local authorities, and the policy which was intended to be carried out in this Bill. He ventured to submit that it was unfair to the Minister. He would not for one moment suggest that a Minister of the Crown would be actuated, in dealing with these matters, by any other than public motives, but their lordships must be well aware that the Minister would be open to unfounded attacks for favouring one class of opinion in a particular locality. He thought Ministers ought to be protected from any suspicion of partiality of that kind.
  His next point was that the proposal was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Bill. The first clause of the Bill provided that a school should not be recognised as a public elementary school unless it was a school provided by the local education authority. How could anybody suggest, according to any fair use of language, that a school provided under the circumstances contained in Clause 6 would be a school provided by the local authority? He admitted that the Board of Education had to take into consideration a number of things, and he observed that Viscount St. Aldwyn proposed to include in the general terms of the clause certain matters in particular. He did not envy the task of the Minister for Education who had to find his way to a decision under this clause and to weigh the wishes of the parents, the necessity for a school, the economy of the rates, and the possible injury to secular edu-
  466
  cation. He agreed that the duties thrown on the Board of Education by the Bill, as amended by their Lordships, were likely to drive the Minister at the head of that Department into a lunatic asylum.
  The second and third important clauses of the Bill related only to existing schools. That was a matter of primary importance. They were in the nature of clauses of a temporary character, for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of voluntary schools to the local education authorities, and for the purpose of introducing and encouraging a new system which was intended to be carried out by this clause. There could be no doubt, he thought, that that was the meaning of those clauses, and the effect of Clause 6, if it remained in its present form, would be that what was intended as a temporary provision for the purpose of bridging over the transfer from one state of things to another would be converted into a permanent provision. To illustrate what he had said, he asked their Lordships to compare the present Clause 6, as inserted by their Lordships in Committee, with the Clause 6 for which it was substituted. That clause was of a totally different character. The old Clause 6 enabled the local education authority, where there was an elementary school, although not a public elementary school, already being carried on, if they thought fit, to negotiate, and, if they could acquire it on easier terms by doing so, to grant special facilities. It was entirely a question of negotiation and bargaining between the owners of the elementary schools to be taken over and the local authority, and the intervention of any third party was excluded by the terms of the clause, which carefully provided that there should be in that case no appeal to the Board of Education. That was a clause of a widely different character, and it was not open to the objections which he had ventured to lay before their Lordships He did not say that it would entirely meet his views, but it was a clause not open to those objections.
  It had been said that this was an undenominational Bill. He assumed that that was so. Their Lordships had already read it a second time; and was

  467
  it fair, right, or consonant with Parliamentary traditions that a Bill should be so altered as to make it a different Bill, based on a different principle, and containing provisions inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Bill as introduced? It was said out of doors by distinguished persons that compromise was in the air No one could wish more earnestly than he that that was so, but he regretted to say that he saw very little indication of it in their Lordships' House that evening. He ventured to ask, even to entreat, their Lordships to exhibit their willingness for conciliation and compromise by reconsidering their decision and omitting Clause 6, which he was quite sure would be a greater obstacle to anything like compromise or agreement than the right rev. Prelate who moved the clause probably imagined.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDacknowledged the immense debt of gratitude which all owed to the public spirited work of the local education authorities, but pointed out that the question dealt with in this clause was of a particular nature, which might not have a dispassionate hearing from the local education authority. It was clearly desirable to have uniformity of practice and such independence as would be secured only by carrying the question before the Board of Education. The noble and learned Lord had spoken of the Board of Education as though it were likely to act in entire disregard of the wishes of the local education authority. Before deciding, the Board of Education would hear the views of all parties; and the provision in question gave the best security that the clause would be worked rightly and equitably. The noble and learned Lord had also said that because these schools would be proffered by those who desired Clause 4 facilities, therefore, they could not be said in any reasonable sense to be provided by the local education authority. Surely the noble and learned Lord was missing the meaning of the word "provided." When they spoke of a provided school they meant a school administered in certain ways and under certain conditions by the local education authority. If a school was taken over and
  468
  administered by the local education authority, it became, in the sense of this Bill, a provided school. The third argument of the noble and learned Lord was addressed to this point, that in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 provisions were made for the transition from the present to a future stage, and that they were to regard those clauses as intended to meet a transient need and not to be of permanent operation. He recognised there the re-emergence of a point which, when it first came prominently into view, had a very great effect on their Lordships. He well remembered the feeling which was expressed when it came out clearly that at the end of five years extended-facilities schools were to be at the mercy of, it might be, hostile local education authorities. He thought their Lordships were for the most part greatly surprised to learn how much there was that was transitory in the provisions they had been studying. The argument of the noble and learned Lord was, he understood, that existing schools only should enjoy the privileges provided by Clauses 2, 3, and 4. It was a perfectly clear issue that was raised by this clause. Did they, or did they not, intend finally to put an end to the generosity which proffered the provision of new schools under the conditions of Clauses 3 and 4? If noble Lords did mean to say that henceforward no one should be allowed to provide new schools for the enjoyment of these privileges, then let that be clearly stated and let Clause 6 go. But he believed that, if they were to do that, they would put an end to one of the most helpful and valuable forms of generosity in the country; they would put an end to one of the best ways in which the general cause of education had been served; and they would alienate a volume of interest without which the work of education would go on greatly impoverished. The clause was in accordance with the general principles of the Bill, and to delete it would strike a very serious blow at influences which had done good work on behalf of elementary education.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am anxious that the discussion on this particular

  469
  point, which is rather, I think, of an academic nature as matters stand, should not be prolonged more than is possible. I am entirety in accord with my noble and learned friend behind me. I regard this clause as it stands as one of the very worst clauses in the Bill. At the same time I should not have consented to its abolition without some provision for inserting our Clause 6, because I considered that that clause did meet a deserving case. Where a school of a denominational character which had been started and was a going concern desired to be taken over, it seemed to us fair that it should be so taken over. If I do not attempt to develop the exceedingly clear and complete arguments of my noble and learned friend, it is not from any want of agreement with him; but I am not sure that there would be any great advantage in arguing this matter at length. My only object in rising, therefore, was to appeal to my noble and learned friend not to press his Amendment to a division. If time had served I should have been happy to vote with him; but, in the circumstances, I hope he will content himself with saying "Content" to the Amendment when it is put.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he could not resist the appeal of his noble friend, and would, he admitted with some regret, withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved Amendments to Clause 6 with the purpose of providing that the Board of Education in considering whether a new school was required should have specific regard not only "to the wishes of the parents as to the religious education of their children" but also to "the interest of secular instruction," and to "the economy of the rates." If the clause had simply said that they should have regard to all the circumstances of the case, he did not know that it would have been necessary to specify anything more. But certainly they ought to have regard to something else besides the wishes of the parents as to the religious education of the children. He therefore proposed to insert the words in this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 13, after the word 'including' to insert the words 'the interest of secular instruction'; and in line 14 after the word 'children' to insert the words 'and the economy of the rates"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is quite clear that from our point of view the Amendment of the noble Viscount improves the clause as it stands, and I cannot help saying that the fact that those words were not originally inserted docs show the kind of bias with which this clause was introduced. At the same time I am obliged to mention that the burden which is placed on the Board of Education in trying to decide between these incompatible things is an exceedingly difficult and almost impossible one for them to bear. Different boards of education will take different views as to the proper precedence of these particular interests, and that fact, I am afraid, makes the intended safeguard rather illusory. But the words are an improvement from our point of view, and therefore we agree to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYpointed out that it had been the duty of the Board of Education ever since 1902 to decide whether a school should be taken over or a new school built, and he could not see why the present President of the Board of Education should not do the work which he found it possible to do under the Act of 1902. It was essential that there should be an appeal to the Board of Education from an antagonistic local education authority. In some parts of the country so strong was the bias that the ratepayers were not permitted to take advantage of the generosity and munificence alluded to by the Bishop of Oxford.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, on behalf of the Bishop of Winchester, moved to insert a new clause providing that the local education authority should, if required, give up at least one full school day annually for the purpose of the inspection of special religious instruction, but that the expenses of the inspection should not be paid by the local authority.

  471
  He was thankful to say that the Government had accepted the principle of this Amendment. He did not consider the facilities which had been granted to them really adequate and solid unless the instruction given was inspected. They also felt very strongly that the other instruction given in the school under the Cowper-Temple Clause should also be inspected, but it was not for them to lay down rules as to what the local education authorities should do. Therefore in his Amendment the local education authority "might" afford such opportunities for all religious instruction. He only inserted the word "shall" in connection with instruction given under the facilities to be afforded by the Bill. Their object was to make those facilities real.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause '(1) The local education authority may afford such opportunities as they think fit for the inspection of any religious instruction given in any public elementary school provided by them, by a person not being one of His Majesty's inspectors, and shall, if required by or on behalf of persons who are responsible for the provision of religious instruction of some special character in pursuance of any facilities afforded under this Act for the purpose (other than facilities afforded on account of there being only one public elementary school in a rural area), give up at least one full and unbroken school day annually for the purpose of the inspection of the special religious instruction, and allow the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose free of charge. (2) During the hours given up to any inspection for which an opportunity is afforded under this section, the school shall be closed for any purpose other than that of the inspection. (3) No part of the expenses of conducting any inspection of religious instruction of a special character for which an opportunity is afforded under this section shall be paid by the local education authority. (4) At least fourteen days before an inspection is held in pursuance of this section notice of the time set apart for the inspection shall be read out publicly in the school."—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have been in communication with the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, and we are very glad to accept his Amendment in substance subject to one or two alterations. The first is in line 7, after the word "afforded," to leave out "under" and to insert "in accordance with Sections 3 and 4." That is really a drafting Amendment. The other
  472
  Amendment we propose is one of more substance. It is—
  "In line 8, after the word 'purpose,' to insert 'and if the authority are satisfied that there are at least thirty children ordinarily receiving that religious instruction.'"
  I think it is pretty clear that if there were a very small number of children it would be quite possible for the inspection to take place during the ordinary religious hour, which could no doubt be done by arrangement. The other alteration we propose is in lines 8, 9, and 10 of the Amendment, and is to leave out the words "other than facilities afforded on account of there being only one public elementary school in a rural area." That is due to the fact that the Amendment of the right rev. Primate the Bishop of Hereford has gone out of the Bill. Those words are therefore not required. If the right rev. Prelate will accept those alterations we shall be very glad to agree to his Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I gladly accept the alterations.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved an Amendment to Clause 7 omitting the words "in the case of schools in which no facilities for religious instruction of a special character are afforded under this Act." The noble Marquess said: The object of the Amendment is this. Under this clause children are obliged to be present in the school during the time allotted for religious instruction, but it is also enacted that if the parent desires to withdraw his child from that religious instruction the child may receive secular instruction in lieu thereof during the allotted time. Then the clause goes on to say that a parent shall not be liable to any penalty for taking his child away from school during the allotted time—that is to say, either from the religious instruction or from the secular instruction given in lieu thereof—if the parent can show that the child is receiving some form of religious instruction elsewhere. In the clause as it now stands this exception is limited to Cowper - Temple schools. The words which I propose to leave out have that

  473
  effect. I cannot see what reason there is for so restricting the exception. It seems to me to be equally desirable whether you are dealing with a parent who wishes to take his child away for this purpose from a Cowper-Temple school, or from a Clause 4 school, or from a Clause 3 school. It is quite clear that in a Clause 4 school you may have an undenominational minority, the members of which may wish that their children should receive religious instruction elsewhere; the same, I think, may be said of Clause 3 schools, and the argument in regard to those schools applies the more strongly because we have now decided that ordinary facilities are to be afforded only on two days a week instead of five. This exception in favour of Cowper-Temple schools ought not to be made, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 33, to leave out from the word 'instruction' to the word 'a' in line 35.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I entirely agree to the noble Marquess's Amendment.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CEEWE THE EARL OF CEEWE moved an Amendment in the second sub-section of Clause 8 providing that a teacher "seeking employment or" employed in a public elementary school "otherwise than as a teacher of religious subjects only" should not be required as part of his duties to give any religious instruction. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to cover what we have always stated to be our object, that a teacher should not have definite inquiries put to him as to his religious opinions when seeking employment. The insertion of the words "otherwise than as a teacher of religious subjects only" meets a point which was raised by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. David's. The words are intended to cover the rare case, as we think, where all the teachers in a council school refuse to give the religious in-
  474
  struction and a person has to be called in from outside to give it. In that case there is no objection to any tests or to any inquiries being made as to his religious knowledge.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, line 7, after the word 'teacher' to insert the words "seeking employment or.' and after the word 'school' to insert the words 'otherwise than as a teacher of religious subjects only:'".—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE THE EARL OF CREWE moved to omit subsections (1) and (2) as embodied in the printed Clause 9, in order to substitute a new provision. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is simply a redrafting in a better form of the sub-sections as inserted in the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 3, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word 'subject' in line 29, and insert: (1) Where the school-house of an existing voluntary school is held under charitable trusts, and no arrangement has been made with respect to the school house by agreement under this Act, the local education authority may, at any time after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and seven, apply to the Commission appointed under this Act to determine with respect to the trusts of the school-house the question whether the use of the school-house for the purposes of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act is the best mode of giving effect to those trusts, and, if the Commission determine that question in the affirmative, the Commission may then make an order requiring the owners of the school house to give, and the local education authority to take, such use of the school-house as is required for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school provided by the authority.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no substantial difference?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: No.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: Why are the words "or the owners of the school house" omitted?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The right rev. Prelate asks me why we have left these words out. I think it is for me to ask why the right rev. Prelate and his friends put them in. They were not in

  475
  the original Bill, and they open up the whole question of the bilateral case or the unilateral case. As I shall have to explain when we come to the Amendment of the noble Duke, we do not admit the principle, because we are unable to do so, of free access to the Commission by all schools held under charitable trusts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYheld that the omission of the words in question made a very substantial difference; but he thought the point was covered by the noble Duke's Amendment to be moved subsequently, and in that case their Lordships need not deal with it now.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That is so.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDsaid that the next Amendment which stood in his name had been withdrawn at an earlier stage at the wish of the Lord President, who had undertaken to give it his consideration. The object of the Amendment was to secure the facilities offered to those who transferred voluntary schools under the Bill. When the Bill was first introduced there were two or three holes through which the facilities might slip away. All those holes had been stopped up except in the case of schools about to be transferred, in which case it was quite possible that the Commissioners might refuse facilities where they were asked by the owners of the schools. He based his request to the Government to accept this Amendment upon the pledge of His Majesty's Ministers themselves, who had given the country to understand that wherever any voluntary school was handed over and facilities were asked for they must be granted. Mr. Birrell made this statement on 9th April, and again on 10th May, in the House of Commons he said—
  "If the trustees of any school make this particular stipulation before transfer, that there should be these facilities given on two days in the week, the obligation to permit that teaching becomes statutory."
  He therefore appealed to the noble Earl to put into the Bill the intention of His Majesty's Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 41, after the word 'considered' to insert the words 'but such conditions shall include, if desired by the owners, a provision requiring the affording of facilities in accordance with this Act.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The Amendment of the right rev. Prelate is not quite so simple a matter as he seems to think. The words of my right hon. friend which he just quoted had reference, I take it, to the bargain which was to take place between the local authority and the trustees before the transfer. I cannot recall any occasion on which my right hon. friend said that it would be an absolute obligation on the Commission to afford these facilities. The Commission give the use of the school subject to such conditions, if any, as to payment or other matters, as the Commission think just, having regard to various stated matters, and also to such other circumstances as may, in their opinion, properly be considered, and it is very difficult to understand that it should ever happen that where there was a real case for facilities the Commission would not make them part of their scheme. But it is rather another matter to interfere with the discretion of the Commission when it comes to consider what the terms of a trust are. In a very great majority of cases the terms of the trust would no doubt be best carried out, in the opinion of the Commission, by the granting of these facilities, and that, I think, would not only apply to schools where the trusts stipulated that children should be brought up in the principles of the Church of England, but also to a certain number of schools where the trusts are not so explicit, but where, as a matter of fact, there has been a long user in the principles of the Church of England. Under these circumstances I think one must naturally conclude that the Commission would be practically certain to allow the facilities, but it surely would be rather a strong proposal to allow owners who might be strong Churchmen for the time being absolutely to break the trust. The trust might be of an explicitly undenominational character, and yet those who were acting as owners for this purpose might ask for facilities, and it does seem to me a strange and unusual power to give to the owners

  477
  to enable them to force the Commissioners to give facilities even in cases where the trusts forbid that being done. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was a little surprised to hear the decision of the noble Earl. He understood that the undertaking given in Another place was quite explicit.
  THE EARL OF CREWEdissented.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he had understood that it was clearly stated in another place that, where the owners of a school under a trust made an arrangement, they might insist that facilities should be part of that arrangement, and similarly that if, upon a disagreement, the matter came before the Commission, at that stage they might again insist upon it. The words of the President of the Board of Education, which had been quoted by the Tight rev. Prelate, appeared to be quits complete. He did not suppose the right rev. Prelate would wish to press this Amendment on the Government if they preferred their own words. But he thought the noble Earl ought to promise to look into the matter in view of the engagement that was entered into in another place.
  LORD DAVEYcould not help thinking that the noble Marquess and the right rev. Prelate must have misunderstood what was said in the other House, because it was quite impossible that Mr. Birrell could have made the statement that in all cases of charitable trusts facilities for some special religious instruction should be given.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only when asked for by the owners.
  LORD DAVEYsaid that in many cases charitable trusts were not confined to any particular religious instruction. The trust might be for education generally. He had in mind a school, of which he was at one time a trustee, where the trust stipulated that the school was to be carried on as an elementary school for the benefit of the parish. A trust of that character might come before the
  478
  Commission to have determined whether using it as a public elementary school under this Act would be the best mode of carrying out that trust, and it would be manifestly unfair that in such a case sanction should be given for the education to be carried on according to the tenets of any particular religion.
  LORD BARNARD LORD BARNARD, in the interest of strict adherence to charitable trusts, agreed with the Lord President of the Council and with the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. He suggested to the right rev. Prelate that it would really not be consistent with the views which they had adopted to insist that the authorities should be bound to grant facilities for religious instruction solely at the request of the persons who happened for the time being to be in charge of the school.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELDsaid that in cases where there was a specific undenominational provision in the trust deed he would be the last person to wish that it should be violated. But if the noble Earl the Lord President would give the matter his consideration he would withdraw his Amendment. He thought it might be possible to insert such words as "where not inconsistent with the trust deed."
  LORD DAVEYthought this was specially covered by the clause as it stood.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will certainly consider the matter in view of what the right rev. Prelate says.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I now beg to move to leave out sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 0 and to substitute the new provision standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 1, to leave out sub-sections (3), (4), and (5), and to insert—' (2) In determining any such question or in making any such order the Commission shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court, but they shall not treat a proposal to carry on an elementary

  479
  school as a proper mode of giving effect to the trusts of the schoolhouse unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years.'" —(The Earl of Crewe.)
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved the omission of the words at the end of the sub-section requiring a sufficient guarantee for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years. He held that if full effect were given to these words it would be impossible in any case to get a sufficient guarantee. The noble Earl had not given any reason why the House should reverse the decision at which it arrived in Committee, to which he hoped their Lordships would adhere. His noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn had an Amendment on the Paper to omit from the proposed new sub-section (2) the words "for a period of at least five years." That Amendment, if agreed to, would leave the Commission free to require a sufficient guarantee for the effective continuance of the school for ten years or more. The truth was, this condition was almost impossible to fulfil, and it would be defeating the object of the clause itself if it were insisted upon.
  Amendment moved to the proposed amendment—
  "To delete from the proposed new subsection (2) all words after 'inherent in that Court.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought it would be convenient if the noble Earl the Lord President, when moving an Amendment which contained a reversal of a decision arrived at in Committee, would point out to the House that this would be the effect of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid my extreme anxiety to save time has led me astray. I quite admit the noble. Earl's point. I see that the noble Viscount on the Front Bench proposes to. leave it essential that a guarantee of some kind should be offered, but he does not like the guarantee to last five years. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, however, desires to delete this part of the section altogether. As far a as that Amendment is concerned, we think that it is not reasonable to leave
  480
  the local education authority without some guidance as to what new schools they may have to build, and if a mere proposition to carry on a school is to be treated as a sufficient reason for allowing it to stand out of the Bill, local education authorities will be placed in a position of very considerable uncertainty and difficulty, in which it is not reasonable for this House to place them. As regards the Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite, if he would agree to accept a term of three years instead of five years, we should be prepared to meet him on that. I am afraid, however, we could not go further than that.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he had placed his Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words "for a period of at least five years," because he noticed that the noble Earl the Lord President had proposed to restore the words which were deleted by their Lordships in Committee. He admitted that this difficulty might not be entirely met by merely striking out the words which he proposed to delete. He was afraid he could not say that a guarantee for three years would not be too long.
  LORD BARNARDasked how the owners of the schoolhouse could be expected to give a guarantee for the effective continuance of the school. He thought the local education authority were to carry on the school.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The point is this. We think that a mere statement on the part of the trustees that they were prepared to carry on the school as a certified efficient school would not be sufficient, as it would place the local authority in a position of uncertainty as to whether they would not have ultimately to build a new school. There should be some substantial guarantee for the continuance of the school.
  LORD ASHBOURNEdid not think the noble Earl bore in mind the earlier part of the clause, under which the Commission were told that in determining any such question, and in making any such order, they should act in accordance with the principles followed by

  481
  the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court. That was clear and sufficient. If the Commission were left free to act on their own trained discretion they would do so with wisdom. He saw no other course open to their Lordships than to delete the words requiring a sufficient guarantee.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsuggested that the point would perhaps be met by omitting the words, at the end of the proposed new sub-section—
  "Unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years,"
  and substituting for them the words—
  "Unless they are satisfied that the school will be continued as a certified efficient school."
  This would bring the matter under the consideration of the Commission. They did not want the education of a village to be precarious and possibly to break down in a few months. If they placed the responsibility on the Commission of being satisfied they would have substantial security.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was quite willing to accept that suggestion.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I need not say I greatly prefer the words suggested by my noble friend Lord Stanley to the operation which is proposed to be performed by the noble Viscount on the cross benches (Lord Llandaff), and therefore I should make no objection to their insertion.
  On Question, the Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I now move the insertion of the new sub-section standing in my name. Its object is to meet the case of mixed trusts. The point is this, that where the trustees of a mixed trust desire to have a general scheme made covering the whole ground of their trust they may, by agreement,
  482
  ask the Commission to undertake the second part of their trust as well as the educational part. We think that will be a convenience in certain cases.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new sub-section, '(3) If the owners of a schoolhouse in respect of which an application is made by the local education authority under this section, desire that a scheme should be made by the Commission with reference to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the schoolhouse in the future, so far as effect is not given to those trusts by the order (if any) made by the Commission under this section, the Commission may make a scheme accordingly, and in making such a scheme shall act in accordance with the principles which they are required to follow in making an order under this section."'—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that, now that sub-sections (3).(4), and (5) had been struck out, there was no provision in the Bill for renewing the schemes upon their expiry.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Earl will look at page 8 of the Amendments he will see general provisions as to schemes and orders of the Commission. It is provided that a scheme made by the Commission may be altered by a scheme made by the Board of Education in the same manner, and so on.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: We shall come to that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I now move the insertion of clauses relating to appeals to the Commission as respects extended facilities. I think it would be more convenient that I should postpone what I have to say until the noble Duke has moved the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 2, to insert the following clauses, '(1)Where the local education authority fail to accept an arrangement offered to them by the owners of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school as regards the use of the school-house, and the school is one in respect of which extended facilities are desired, the owners of the schoolhouse may appeal to the Commission appointed under this Act, and that Commission may, if they are satisfied that the conditions as

  483
  to the fulfilment of which a local education authority must be satisfied before they can grant extended facilities in a school under this Act are fulfilled in the case of the school, and that the schoolhouse is structurally suitable, and, if they otherwise think fit after considering the circumstances of the case, and the wishes of the parents of children attending the school, as to the continuance of the school with extended facilities, by order require the local education authority to continue the school as a public elementary school provided by them, on such terms and conditions as respects the use of the schoolhouse as may be provided by the order, and to afford the extended facilities desired, but if under any special circumstances of the case the Commission think it expedient, they may, after consulting the Board of Education, instead of making such an order, make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school. (2) The certificate of the Board of Education as to the result of a ballot taken with respect to the wishes of parents, or as to whether a schoolhouse is structurally suitable or not, or whether any condition as to public school accommodation is satisfied, shall be treated as conclusive by the Commission.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, in moving the Amendment standing in his name to the proposed new clauses. said: My Lords, on examining further than I had been able to do last Thursday the new clauses of which notice had been given by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council I came to the conclusion that it would be more convenient to put my proposed new sub-section to Clause 9 in the form of an Amendment to the new sections which the noble Earl has just moved. The noble Earl explained very clearly the other day that the essential difference between his proposal and mine was that my suggestion related to all schools, while his only applied to schools for which extended facilities were claimed. I have, therefore, to state very briefly why in my opinion this very considerable extension of his proposed clause, is necessary.
  The number of schools which will be affected by the Amendment of which I have given notice is probably the largest of any which will come to be transferred under the provisions of this Rill. They are the schools which are either privately owned or are in the hands of trustees as educational trusts. The Government desire that these schools should, whenever they are suitable and necessary, be transferred. I think in former discussions that has been admitted, but I
  484
  will quote one passage from Mr. Birrell's observations in another place which puts the point very clearly. Mr. Birrell said that—
  "He could assure the Committee that the desire of the Government was, and always had been, that as many as possible of the properly-equipped voluntary schools of the country should be transferred to the local authorities, and it had never entered into their heads as part of their scheme that the local authorities should decline to take over such schools as were properly equipped and fitted to form part of the national system."
  That sentence makes the desire of the Government perfectly clear. The reason for my Amendment is that they have not made any provision in the Bill whereby practical effect would be given to that desire on their part. We have no security whatever that these schools which they desire to form part of our educational system in future will be taken over by the authorities.
  The noble Earl opposite, in the observations he made the other day, said he trusted that economical considerations would in the great majority of cases induce the authorities to take over these schools. He said they would prefer to hire efficient schools than be put to the expense of building new ones. No doubt that will be so in a large number of cases. But it will not be universally the case, and it is quite possible that economical considerations may not point in this direction. I have heard of a case in which it was suggested that it would be a more economical arrangement to build new schools than to take over a number of existing schools, which would require a considerably larger staff; and even if economical considerations pointed in one direction, there might be other considerations, possibly of an educational character, or partly of a purely sectarian character, which would induce a local authority to exercise its option in the direction of refusing to take over existing schools and filling their places with schools provided by themselves.
  If the local authorities should de cline in any case to take over these schools great injustice and hardship might be the consequence. The injustice would be of two kinds. Injustice may be inflicted upon the parents who have been accustomed to the use

  485
  of these schools for the purpose of giving their children not only secular education education but the kind of religious instruction which they desire; and it will be no doubt a hardship to them that, without being consulted on the subject themselves, they should be deprived of the religious facilities which their children have hitherto enjoyed. Then there is the injustice which will be inflicted upon the owners or trustees of these schools. They have been invited and encouraged, at great cost to themselves, to build these schools for the purpose of providing the district in which they live with that kind of religious instruction which they believe should be provided for their neighbours and for the inhabitants of those districts.
  This injustice, it seems to me, will amount to an actual breach of faith. No more definite pledge was ever given by Parliament than that given by the late Mr. Forster in his celebrated declaration that the Act of 1870 was intended not to supplant, but to supplement, the existing supply of voluntary schools. That pledge of Mr. Forster's was embodied, if not positively, at all events negatively, in the Act of 1870, and the policy thus laid down by Mr. Forster has been the universally accepted policy of the Education Department under every Government from 1870 to the present time. No school board, no local authority, has ever been permitted to build or supply a school for the purpose of supplanting an existing voluntary school, and, therefore, when private persons or the Churches have been permitted to build new schools it has been on the distinct understanding that the faith of Parliament was pledged that, so long as those schools continued efficient, they would not be interfered with by the board or council schools.
  It is not only that private individuals and churches have been permitted to build these schools. Actual pressure has in some cases been applied to the building of such schools. It is easier to explain a point of this sort by instancing a concrete case. I am very well acquainted with the town of Eastbourne. Now, Eastbourne, has never had a School Board. It had never, up to a very short time since, had any but voluntary schools;
  486
  some have lately been transferred, I believe, to the council. But a short time ago, in consequence of the growth of the town, increased accommodation was required for the education of the children, and a very strong request was addressed by the Board of Education to the trustees and owners of the voluntary schools stating that additional accommodation was required, and that, if that accommodation was not provided by them, it would be necessary for the Board to make an order for a School Board. The town did not want a School Board; a great effort was made, and the necessary schools were built and the required accommodation supplied. I ask your Lordships whether it would not be a case of intolerable injustice and hardship of, after pressure of that kind had been applied by the Education Department on certain classes in that town, they were to find now that the schools which they had exerted themselves to provide might be abandoned and so cease to exist.
  The other day the noble Lord opposite, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said that it was not the business of the local education authorities to provide sectarian teaching at the expense of the rates. I submit that we are not concerned at present with what is the business of the local authority. We are concerned with the business of Parliament, and I say it is the business of Parliament to secure that injustice is not inflicted upon any class of the inhabitants of this country. It is the business of Parliament to see that the pledges which have been given by Parliament are observed, and that the faith of Parliament is not broken in its transactions with the people. I should like to appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, The noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Halsbury are the greatest authorities in this House on questions of equity. I should like to ask them whether, in their opinion, it is consistent with the principles of equity that schools which have been built under such circumstances as I have described should at the will of the local authority, even if that will is exercised in the most complete good faith, be discontinued and hereafter cease to exist? If, as I hold, such a proceeding as this is contrary to

  487
  every principle of equity, then I ask the Government what provision is there contained in this Bill to make such a failure of justice impossible or unlikely?
  I have no desire to press to an extreme length the principle which I am endeavouring to advocate. I have no wish that unsuitable schools should be retained. I have no desire that within certain limits schools which are redundant should continue to exist. I agree with the noble Earl opposite in his proposal that the Board of Education is the proper authority to determine whether a school is structurally suitable or not. But the question of redundancy is not so simple as that. It is a question which it is not possible to decide off-hand by merely counting the number of children and the number of school places available in a district. It is a question which must be decided upon more general grounds. It cannot be decided only on grounds of economy or even of educational efficiency. The wishes of the parents in regard to the religious instruction of their children, the rights of owners, and the pledges which have been given by Parliament are elements in the consideration of this question which cannot be disregarded, and which cannot justly be left to the sole arbitrament of the local authority, however desirous that authority may be to do its duty.
  Again, I ask your Lordships to consider the probable course of proceeding when this Bill becomes law. I am content to take the case cited by the noble Lord opposite the other day. He said he was aware of a town in which there was such an amount of surplus school accommodation that six schools might very properly and efficiently take the place of eleven existing schools. I think it is extremely likely that in such a case as that some of those schools may be redundant. I think it is quite possible that a reasonable local authority, dealing with reasonable owners and trustees of schools, may come to some arrangement by which a certain number of those schools would be dispensed with. It is quite probable that some of them may be redundant, not from the point of view only of educational efficiency, but also from the point of view of the desires of the parents as to the religious instruction
  488
  of their children. But if they should fail, as it is possible they may fail, then I say the question which of these schools and how many of these schools can properly be refused by the local authority is a question which it is not fair or just to their owners to leave to the uncontrolled decision of the local authority of that town.
  I do not believe that any very great difference exists between the Government and myself upon this point. I believe the Government are not indisposed to confer the power which I propose to confer upon the Commission—the power of deciding on all these points. I think, from the language used by the noble Earl the other day, that his objection to the proposal consists principally in the large extension which it will involve of their administrative functions, and the difficulty that may be experienced in persuading them to undertake them. But the noble Earl seems still to cling, for some reason which I cannot understand, to the principle of the bilateral arrangement, although he admits that one side of the bilateral arrangement is impossible. He admits that it would be too strong a measure to impose on every private owner of a school the surrender of the schoolhouse. He admits that it would be impossible to impose that obligation upon the trustees of schools held under open trusts. But, although he admits that impossibility, he still seems to have a hankering, which I cannot altogether understand, for something in the nature of a bilateral arrangement.
  The bilateral arrangement which has been proposed seems to me to be recommended neither by justice nor by common sense. On what possible ground can it be contended that the owners of a voluntary school in a certain town or district should not be able to obtain justice from the Commission because the Commission is unable to give to a local authority in a different part of the county, perhaps at the other end of the county, the use of a school which the owner is unwilling to surrender, and which they desire to obtain the use of? On these grounds I trust that the Government will be prepared to give a favourable consideration to the extension which I

  489
  propose in the clause, which, in my opinion, I must admit is a very great improvement upon that in the original Bill which it replaces.
  Amendment moved—
  "To amend the proposed new clause, as follows:—In line 4, to leave out the word 'extended'; in line 5, after the word 'facilities' to insert thy words 'in accordance with Sections 3 or 4 of this Act'; in line 7, to leave out the word 'may' and to insert the word 'shall,' and to leave out the words if they are satisfied that the conditions as to the fulfilment of which a local education authority must be satisfied before they can grant extended facilities in a school under this Act are fulfilled in the case of the school, and that the schoolhouse is structurally suitable, and, if they otherwise think fit after considering the circumstances of the case, and the wishes of the parents of children attending the school, as to the continuance of the school with extended facilities 'and to insert the words' unless they are of opinion that the schoolhouse is not structurally suitable, or that the school is not required to meet the wishes of the parents as regards the religious instruction of their children, or that, after taking these matters into consideration, there an; still sufficient grounds for refusal; in line 18, to leave out the words 'extended,' and to leave out from the word desired to the end of subsection (1) and to insert the words 'in accordance with this Act'; and in line 20, after the word 'condition' to insert the words 'prescribed in Section 4 of this Act.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think perhaps it would be most convenient if before we adjourn for dinner, I say a few words on the noble Duke's Amendment. As the noble Duke has said, Ms Amendment extends to all schools; that is to say, the local education authority if the Commission think fit, may be compelled to take over any school whether in the hands of trustees or belonging to a private owner, but there are a very considerable number of schools which, however much they may desire to obtain them, it is impossible for them to acquire, Commission or no Commission. It probably would not be too much to say that out of the 14,000 voluntary schools, all of which could claim to be taken over, there are at least 5,000—I dare say considerably more—which, however much the authority might desire to acquire them, could snap their fingers at that authority and stand out. I confess that on the face of it that does not seem an entirely fair bargain between the local
  490
  education authorities and the schools as a whole.
  The noble Duke said it would be no consolation to a school which an authority refused to take over, or which did not want to be taken over and yet was taken over, to know that the other side of the bilateral compact was being played off in some other remote town. But the reverse case might happen in a single town. There might be a single town in which a particular authority wanted a given school and were by no means able to get it, and by no means wanted another one which they were obliged to take, and, so long as that is possible under the noble Duke's arrangement, it does not seem to me an entirely fair proposition as between the two parties.
  The noble Duke alluded to our bilateral offer made in another place. The objections to that we always admitted were obvious. It demanded a very general consent owing, undoubtedly, to its novel character, both as regards private owners and as regards trusts, and if that consent was not forthcoming it was useless for us to press it or even to urge noble Lords to look at it again. But it is important to remember that during the whole time that offer was available it was never intended to apply to numerically redundant schools We never made it a condition that every school, however redundant, should be able to force itself on the authority, so to speak, without mercy. The noble Duke offers to meet that point by saying that the Commission might regard numerical redundancy as one of the reasons for not taking over a school. But before I deal with that point I should like to say one word upon the general position in the light of the noble Duke's quotation from Mr. Forster that board schools were only intended to be supplementary to voluntary schools.
  I think the answer to that is that Mr. Forster's pledge cannot be held to chain us for all eternity unless the conditions remain the same. I should not admit that a Parliamentary pledge of that kind under any circumstances could be regarded as absolutely eternal in operation, but no doubt if the conditions were the same it would be a strong measure

  491
  to depart from; but our case for the whole transaction is that the conditions have so seriously altered, especially by the Act of 1902, that in our opinion Mr. Forster's pledge as a pledge no longer applies. We have no desire whatever to destroy voluntary schools, and we have tried to show it by the facilities which we have offered. But we cannot admit that any voluntary school as such has a claim against the local authority or against Parliament and the country to be carried on if on other grounds it is undesirable that it should be carried on.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think I may be allowed to explain. I did not rely in the least on Mr. Forster's pledge. I spoke of the pledge which was given and which, in my opinion, was embodied in the Act of 1870 and in subsequent Acts, and of the universal practice of the Education Department since that date, which has given to private individuals and to churches a pledge as to the manner in which their schools would be treated if they were induced to build them.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Until the schools came on the rates. That pledge was observed up to 1902. The bargain was faithfully adhered to, but was swept away by the Act of 1902. The noble Duke obviously and clearly by his Amendment places a variety of important new duties on the Commission. They would have to decide whether or not the schoolhouse was structurally suitable, whether the school was required to meet the wishes of the parents as regards the religious instruction of their children, and, after taking these matters into consideration, whether there were still sufficient grounds of refusal. It is necessary for the House seriously to consider what the effect of the insertion of these words would be upon the work of the Commission. The Commission was appointed as a judicial body. It was appointed with reference to its known experience, skill, and fairness, sitting as a judicial body, but it was not appointed with any reference to its opinions on any of these subjects, and yet when you come to consider the necessary working of these words of the noble Duke's I think noble Lords must see that the opinions of
  492
  the Commission will be, by common consent, one of the most important, matters in considering how their duties are to be performed.
  The matters at issue as to what weight ought to be given to the desire of the parents for religious instruction in a particular case, how far that consideration ought to override a question of economy and the interests of the ratepayers— all these matters are points which perfectly honourable and fair-minded people are bound to decide upon in an entirely different manner according to the view they hold of the relative importance of the different things. That is the point I have often attempted to make with regard to the question of discontinuing schools. If you had a President of the Board of Education who considered that the interests of elementary education were absolutely paramount he would override in ninety-nine cases out of 100 the interests of the ratepayers. If you had a President of the Board of Education who considered local economy the first interest and did not care very much whether any child was taught religion at all — he would be very different from the present one, I ought to add—he would discontinue a great number of schools which the other Minister would undoubtedly continue. You have to apply that consideration to these gentlemen, and unfortunately it does not appear to me to be a matter on which anybody can be impartial. Suppose it to be necessary under the noble Duke's arrangement to add additional members to the Commission, and that we were to ask my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley to sit as a member. Nobody, I am sure, would object. Everybody knows the knowledge and the fairness which the noble Lord would bring to bear. Suppose, on the other hand, Lord Hugh Cecil were placed on the Commission. Everybody knows equally that he would act with conspicuous ability and with equal fairness.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Suppose you find an impartial person.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not see how anybody can be impartial on this point. Surely these are not questions

  493
  which it is possible to consider in a judicial spirit, and I cannot conceive the existence of people who would not take a somewhat strong view on one side or the other. Of course, I am not able to say what the attitude of the Commission may be if the Amendment of the noble Duke is carried, whether they will consider it possible to continue their labours, whether they will ask to be relieved, or whether they will ask to have their number added to, or what course they may desire to take. But I should be sorry for the House to arrive at a conclusion on this Amendment without very carefully weighing the considerations, and without noble Lords asking themselves whether these are matters on which it is possible for any people however reasonably minded, to arrive at anything like a judicial decision.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he would not go over the same ground as he had traversed the other day, but would deal with the special points raised in the noble Duke's speech. He had stated that this obligation to take over the voluntary schools which desired to be taken over whether the local education authority wished it or not was an obligation of honour, and that the Act of 1870 which embodied the principle that board schools were intended to supplement and not supplant voluntary schools was sufficient justification for every voluntary school being maintained by the local authority. The Lord President of the Council had already pointed out that first of all there could be no Parliamentary perpetuity of the conditions of State aid; and, secondly, that those conditions had been very materially altered by the Act of 1902. Therefore, to appeal to a policy earlier that; that date was wholly irrelevant. Long before the Act of 1902 the settlement of 1870 was torn up by the friends of voluntary schools. The noble Duke himself appeared to be somewhat forgetful of the very strong line he took as early as the year 1876, when the first violation took place of the concordat by which Mr. Gladstone undertook to give increased grants to voluntary schools, on the express condition that the to be done on the condition that the State should provide one half and the
  494
  other half was to be provided by private effort. The first evasion of that principle took place in 1876 by what was known as the 17s. 6d. limit. Provision was then made that so long as the Parliamentary grant did not exceed 17s. 6d. a head of the scholars so long should voluntary schools be relieved of the obligation of providing half the cost. That so roused the resentment of the noble Duke, who was then Lord Hartington, that he actually moved the recommittal of the Bill, and in the debate which subsequently took place he acknowledged that the Act of 1870 was a compromise, and said he looked for the extension of the school board system, and the substitution of a public school board system for the voluntary system. He further stated in that memorable debate that those schools which now were maintained entirely out of public funds had forfeited the right to the title of voluntary schools, and henceforth should be known only as denominational schools. Those extracts were simply samples of the speech, and they showed that at that time there remained no obligation of honour upon Parliament to maintain a system which the beneficiaries had themselves torn up. The noble Duke perhaps might repudiate his past, and say as Mr. Gladstone did on the occasion of his Bill to disestablish the Welsh Church, that thirty years had elapsed since he took an opposite view, and that he had come of age in the interval, but, at any rate, he should not hold them to be guilty of bad faith. On the top of what happened in 1870 there had been the aid grant, exemption from rates, and the Act of 1902, and they were now told that they were honourably bound to admit those schools not only on the rates and taxes, but also to relieve them of the last obligation of maintenance and repair which was imposed upon them by the Act of 1902. And yet, when the conditions had been so changed they were told that it was an obligation of honour to give whatever concessions were demanded without imposing any of the old conditions. Since 1876 there had been other evasions of the Act of 1870, culminating in the Act of 1902. He would remind the noble Duke that the obligation he proposed to impose on the rate a years of maintaining these schools was

  495
  one which it was not competent for their Lordships to impose. With reference to the case of Eastbourne, that town had shown a certain indolent reluctance to bear burdens, which had been developed, perhaps, by the too kind and generous consideration shown by wealthy people, who took the burdens of their neighbours on themselves. He could not help thinking that the possession of such a benefactor as the noble Duke had a little undermined the self-respect and public spirit of Eastbourne. That town, anxious to escape the burden of a school board, made every effort it could to go on with inefficient and insufficient and high fee paying accommodation. At last the Board of Education came down upon them, and an officer who was sent down to Eastbourne on behalf of the Board found a large deficiency of from 1,500 to 1,800 places. The town proceeded to meet that deficiency not by putting their hands into their pockets, but by forming a limited liability company, which built the schools and let them to the managers at about 4 or 5 per cent. interest. Perhaps the noble Duke himself was a shareholder, and he might remember the exact amount of interest he was promised. That was not a public spirited way of meeting the demand for a school board. He thought the Board of Education under all Governments had shown themselves unduly tender in considering the claims of denominationalism as against the claims of public education. The noble Duke admitted that his proposal might and probably would put a heavy burden upon the rates. He admitted also that it might diminish educational efficiency, but he claimed that the friends of denominationalism had a right to all the advantages, whatever change in the law was made. The noble Duke had also spoken of the bilateral arrangement. Whether bilateral or unilateral, any obligation to take over schools which were not needed was a wrong done to the public and an injury to education. He was very thankful that the Conservative Party in the House of Commons did not jump at that proposal, which was not in the original Bill, but was offered as a compromise. He hoped that their Lordships would retain the right of the people to represent the people and pursue the
  496
  policy which was most advantageous to education, efficiency, and economy.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Lord who had just sat down had shown great knowledge of history and the position of this question, and everyone had listened to him with attention and respect. Personally he admired very much the adroitness of his debating power, but he did not think the noble Lord had fully realised the main point on which the Duke of Devonshire made out his case in support of this Amendment. His references to the Act of 1870 were by way of illustration, and were, I think, intended only to illustrate the growth of the question. His references to what had been said in the House of Commons were naturally sought to bring into prominence what he considered was the real justice of the case. Surely the matter was one which might be looked at fairly without being unduly obscured by any suggestion of future dangers. The position now was that voluntary schools could be counted by thousands, and that they had done a vast deal for education in this country. The whole history of elementary education showed its great indebtedness to the voluntary schools which were being dealt with under this Bill. The Bill proposed practically to obliterate the voluntary schools or to put them under State control with certain qualifications. The substance of the position they were now placed in was that the Lord President of the Council had put on the Paper pages of Amendments which required careful consideration in order to know their exact bearing. Those Amendments had been closely and earnestly considered. The noble Duke had manifestly considered them with an anxious desire to appreciate their bearing and to meet them in as fair and moderate a way as he could. By his Amendment the noble Duke had obviouely endeavoured to engraft upon the Amendments of the Lord President of the Council what he thought was needed in order to obtain justice. One of the great objections to this Bill was that it tended to destroy or greatly imperil all voluntary schools. It was only reasonable to bear in mind that they were practically destroying those schools that were not taken over. Therefore it was a

  497
  tremendous problem. If this was a Bill declaring that the State would at once take over all voluntary schools which had done so much in the past for the cause of education he could understand it, and that would obviate a great deal of argument. The Bill, however, stated that the local authority might, if they so desired, take over the voluntary schools, and there was to be no appeal from the action of the local education authority. The Amendment of the noble Duke said in reference to that matter, "This is not fair or reasonable. There are some local authorities with strong views and some with extreme views. We have to guard the whole position by giving an appeal." That appeal was given under the noble Duke's Amendment. Was it not reasonable that there should be an appeal against an erring local education authority? He made no charge against those authorities; in fact, he admitted that the great majority of them might be desirous of acting reasonably and justly, but there were some who might take views that any ordinary person would say were not reasonable or just. Some local authorities might have fads of their own and believe that the teaching of the board schools was the soundest and the best. Others might hold the opinion that centralisation and co-ordination would be better achieved by the abolition of the voluntary schools. Each board was entitled to have its own views, and all that the Amendment of the noble Duke laid down was that it was only reasonable and fair that there should be an appeal to some other independent body to consider what had been done by the local education authority, on the application of those who felt themselves aggrieved by their action. The noble Duke also dealt with Clauses 3 and 4. and gave an appeal in reference to them. It was all very well to talk of an offer made in the House of Commons, but that offer was open to the obvious criticisms which were made upon it. At the present moment there was no appeal from the arbitrary, harsh, and unjust action of the
  498
  local education authorities for in regard to any schools under Clause 3. He thought it was only reasonable that there should be such an appeal, and the noble Duke, dealing with the matter in a most reasonable temperate and conciliatory manner, had suggested that there should be such an appeal. Then there was the desire of the noble Duke to give an appeal to schools taken under Clause 4. Therefore this Amendment went on the same ground which was sought to be covered by the Amendment of the Lord President of the Council, but it went over that ground in a more complete, satisfactory, and just way. With every respect to the Lord President he contended that he had given no answer to the substance of the claim made by the noble Duke; nor had Lord Stanley, who always spoke on this subject with an embarrassing amount of information, indicated from the beginning to the end of his remarks anything to show that it was unreasonable that there should be an appeal of some kind against the refusals, under Clause 3, nor had he dealt with the manner in which the noble Duke sought to give an appeal from the action of the local authorities under Clause 4. The Lord President had indicated that the conditions laid down by the noble Duke in his Amendment were such that it was not reasonable to cast upon the Commission, but surely the noble Earl for the moment had forgotten his own Amendment. There was not a single condition in the noble Duke's Amendment that did not appear in the Amendment of the noble Earl. If the Commission were expected to find out for themselves the topics indicated in the noble Earl's Amendment how did it become embarrassing and impossible when the very same conditions in slightly altered language were found in the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I would like to call the noble Lord's attention to sub-section (2) of my Amendment, because he will see there that all the points of

  499
  an administrative nature are dealt with by allowing the certificate of the Board of Education to be taken by the Commissioners as conclusive upon that point without further examination.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked where the noble Duke questioned that certificate and did not adopt it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: He only adopts it for schools under Clause 4.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Duke adopted the certificate under Clause 4 where of course it was germane, It would be unreasonable to apply a certificate that was to kill every element of discussion on the part of the appellate tribunal, but the noble Duke applied the certificate appeals under Clause 4. The noble Earl opposite seemed to think it was impossible to find any really impartial person to administer these matters. He had been going through the world for more years than the noble Earl, and he had met in every walk of life men whose impartiality and fairness he would willingly trust. The noble Earl mentioned Lord Stanley of Alderley. Having heard Lord Stanley in this House he desired to say that he would look upon the noble Lord as a man perfectly capable of bringing an impartial mind to bear upon any matters submitted to him for a judicial decision. His experience of life did not permit him to adopt so pessimistic a view of mankind. If they gave a man a duty and the responsibility of having to perform it there were few men who would not be able to rise to the dignity of the occasion. Those who had listened to the noble Duke's speech and had read the Amendment would agree that it was framed in the most moderate and conciliatory spirit. The question involved, while an important one, was readily understood, and he trusted their Lordships would find little difficulty in supporting the views expressed by the noble Duke.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid the noble Earl had called attention to the second sub-section of his Amendment which appeared to him to introduce a difficulty which did not occur in a similar clause which previously existed in the Bill. The question of structural suitability came previously before the Commission, and the Commission when adjudicating as it were between the local authority and the owners or others interested in the school would have had before them, not only the certificate of the local education authority that the school was structurally unfit, but also the undertaking on the part of the owners to put the school at once in a state of structural suitability to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. As it stood now the matter of structural suitability would appear to have already been adjudicated upon by the Board of Education without any communication whatever with the owners, and without any opportunity being given to them to show their capability of putting the buildings into such a condition of structural suitability as was required by the Board of Education. It seemed to him that a difficulty which did not arise as the Bill stood originally had now arisen, because the Board o Education might give a certificate on the existing state of the schools, and when that certificate came before the Commission it would be in their power to say that they were totally unable to take into consideration the willingness of the owners to put the buildings in a proper state of structural suitability, and they might refuse to consider the matter at all. It seemed to him that that would be creating a grave injustice which he could hardly imagine this subsection intended to perpetrate, and he should like to be assured that such a failure of justice would not occur.
  On Question, "That the word 'extended' stand part of the Amendment," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 34; Not-contents, 103.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Chichester, E.

  Selby, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Carrington, E.

  Russell, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Boston, L.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Haversham, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Headley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Welby, L.

  Eversley, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  NOT CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Onslow, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Radnor, E.

  Barnard. L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Rothes, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Belper, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Stamford, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Burton. L.

  Rutland, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Bath, M.

  Bridport, V.

  Colchester, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  De Mauley, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Cobham, V.

  Digby, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Ebury, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Cross, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Carlisle, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Forester, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Hothfield, L.

  Devon, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  St Aldwyn, V.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  North, L.

  Guilford, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Northbourne, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Huntingdon, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Redesdale, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  St. David's. L. Bp.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Salisbury. L. Bp.

  Robertson, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Sanderson, L.

  Lytton, K.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Stanmon, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Addington, L.

  Morley, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Morton, K.

  Ampthill, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  On Question, "That the words 'in accordance with section 3 or 4 of this Act' be inserted after the word 'facilities,'"resolved in the affirmative.
  On Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Amendment," resolved in the negative.
  On Question, "That the remainder of the Amendments to the Amendment be agreed to," resolved in the affirmative.
  On Question, "That the new clause as amended stand part of the Bill," resolved an the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will next move the new clause providing general provisions as to schemes and the orders of the Commission. I will move first sub-section (a) which places the Board of Education in the same position they would be in whilst exercising their powers under the Charitable Trusts Acts 1853– 1894. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause—'(1) A scheme or order made by the Commission shall have effect as if enacted by this Act, provided that-(a) a scheme made by the Commission may be altered by a scheme made by the Board of Education in the same manner

  503
  and subject to the same provisions as a scheme made by the Board in pursuance of their powers under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894; and."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will now move sub-section (b) which deals with the period of five years, a point which created a considerable stir when it first came to the notice of noble Lords opposite. I am bound to say that, on the merits I thought there was much to be said for the view that it was hardly reasonable to allow these schools without any appeal to be discontinued possibly at the end of five years. I do not think noble Lords opposite argued this point very closely at the time, because they were so much occupied in charging us with other things that they said less on the merits than might have been expected. I think I pointed out before that the arrangement to which we agreed as to the prior right of entry makes it exceedingly probable that there will be no difficulty in the vast majority of cases in continuing these schools. I beg to move sub-section (b).
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert after the words last added— '(6) An order made by the Commission may be varied or cancelled by agreement between the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse at any time, and by the Board of Education at any time after the expiration of five years from the date of the commencement of the original order, on any application made for the purpose by the authority or the owners, but no such application shall be entertained by the Board unless a pried of at least one year has elapsed since the date of the decision of the Board on the last application under this provision. The Board of Education, in considering any application for the varying or cancelling of an order shall be subject to the same provisions as those to which the Commission are subject under this Act in making the original order. When an application for the varying or cancelling of an order is made by a local education authority, that authority shall, if required by the Board of Education for the purpose of their decision on the application, hold a ballot in accordance with this Act as to the wishes of the parents with respect to extended facilities.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will now move the second sub-section which, has been inserted in response to demands by noble Lords opposite for an appeal to be given to the Commission under certain circumstances. There is a precedent for these words in more than one Act of Parliament, and he; Commission, as I understand, are anxious that they should not be expected to give leave to appeal except on really substantial points of law. It is provided that the appeal should not go beyond the Court of Appeal, which of course is in the interests of saving time and expense.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert after the word last added — '(2) The Commission may. if they think fit, in any case where their decision appears to them to involve a substantial question of law of general importance, give leave, on the application of the local education authority or the owners of the schoolhouse, to appeal from that decision in manner provided by Rules of Court to the Court of Appeal, whose decision shall be final, but, subject to this provision, no Court shall have power to review or interfere in any way with the schemes, orders, decisions, or other proceedings of the Commission, or of the Board of Education on the consideration of any application to vary or cancel an order made by the Commission, and the Commission shall, amongst other matters, have power, for the purpose of their powers and duties under this Act, to decide whether a schoolhouse or any interest therein is held under charitable trusts or not. (3) Where an order is made by the Commission with respect to the use of a school-house by the local education authority, the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section two of tins Act shall apply as they apply in the case of an arrangement made under that section.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause, 'the parents of at least twenty children attending a transferred voluntary school, or the parents' committee, if aggrieved by the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by a local education authority, may appeal to the Board of Education, and that Hoard, if satisfied, after considering the circumstances of the case, that there are reasonable grounds for the appeal, may make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school and providing so far as necessary for the cancelling of any arrangement or order made with respect to the transfer or use of the schoolhouse, and for any other matter for which provision is required in connection with the order of the Board under this section."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved an Amendment to the clause providing that the Board might make an order "pre- scribing the mode in which extended facilities shall be carried out." He said the Government clause which was now put in the amended form by the noble Earl gave power of appeal to the parents of the children against the way in which the facilities were carried out, and if the Board of Education were satisfied that the parents' objection was well grounded, the remedy was that the school should be translated into a State-aided school. His Amendment came in at this point, and, instead of allowing the Board to make an order for the school to continue as a State-aided school, it enacted that the Board should make an order prescribing the mode in which the extended facilities should be carried out. He hail a subsequent Amendment which replaced the idea of the State-aided school, but in the present Amendment he only sought to give power to the appellate tribunal to say how the facilities should be carried out.
  Amendment moved to the proposed clause—
  "In line 7, leave nut from 'order' to the end of the clause, and insert' prescribing the mode in which extended facilities shall be carried out.'" —(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid the Government took objection to the proposal of the noble Lord. They adhered to the opinion that although a certain amount of trouble and difficulty might apparently be saved by making the mandamus not the result of an appeal from an individual, but of the order of the Board of Education, they came back to the difficulty that if these people did not do what was wanted of them and did not obey their orders there was no med whatever except to put them into gaol. Under the circumstances the Government considered it was an unsuitable and almost an unmeaning remedy, and therefore they could not accept the noble Lord's Amendment, though he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of going to a division.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid if the noble Earl were dissatisfied with he Amendment; as a remedy it was for
  506
  the Government to propose some other remedy. He quite agreed with him there was a certain awkwardness in the application of the Amendment, although some remedy was required. There was a remedy to which the Legislature was not a stranger and it was a very effective remedy. It was contained in the Default Act passed in the last Parliament. If the noble Earl desired them to strengthen this proposal they would be glad to put on the Paper an Amendment embodying the Default Act in this Bill.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
  New Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a now clause, 'Where an order is made under this section allowing a school to continue as a, State-aided school, the Hoard of Education may, not withstanding anything in this or any other Act, pay to that school the Parliamentary grants which would be payable in respect of the school or the scholars in the school if it was a public elementary school, so long as the Board are satisfied that the regulations contained in paragraphs one, two, and three of section seven of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 a copy of which shall be conspicuously put, up in the school), and such other conditions as they prescribe as conditions for the payment of the grant, are complied with in the case of the school. A State-aided school shall not be treated as a public elementary school except for the purpose of the Elementary School Teachers (Superanimation) Act, I898, and any other purpose which may be prescribed by the Board of Education."'—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEproposed to amend the clause by inserting at the beginning that if the Commission thought fit after consulting the Board of Education, they might in the case of any existing or transferred voluntary school which fulfilled the conditions requisite before extended facilities could be granted under this Act make an order continuing such school as a State-aided school—
  "(a) If the applicants for the facilities desire that instead of the facilities being granted such an order should be made: or (b) if the parents committee complain of the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by the local education authority, and desire that, in lieu of any other remedy, such an order should be made provided that in no case shall such an order be made unless the owners of the school-house consent, and the Commission are satisfied that the

  507
  estimated income of the school from endowments, fees, and voluntary contributions will secure a standard of maintenance not inferior to that of the public elementary schools in the area."
  He did not say he was strongly in favour of State-aided schools, but he recognised there might be occasions when it would be for the general convenience and ad vantage that there should be State-aided schools, and he proposed to provide for those occasions in what he ventured to think was a carefully balanced and considered Amendment. He had put in every safeguard he could think of, but if the noble Earl had further qualifications he would like to introduce at a subsequent stage of the Bill he would be glad to consider them. He thought the noble Earl would recognise that this Amendment was not framed in any controversial spirit.
  Amendment to the new clause moved—
  "To insert at the beginning the following words 'if the Commission think fit after consulting the Board of Education, they may, in the case of any existing or transferred voluntary school which fulfils the conditions requisite before extended facilities can be granted under this Act, make an order continuing such school as a State-aided school—(a) if the applicants for the facilities desire that instead of the facilities being granted such an order should be made; or (6) if the parents' committed complain of the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by the local education authority, and desire that, in lieu of any other remedy, such an order should be made; provided that in no case shall such an order be made unless the owners of the schoolhouse consent, and the Commission are satisfied that the estimated income of the school from endowments, fees, and voluntary contributions will secure a standard of maintenance not inferior to that of the other public elementary schools in the area. The order may provide so far as necessary for the cancelling of any arrangement or order made with respect to the transfer or use of the schoolhouse, and for any other matter for which provision is required in connection with the order of the Commission under this section."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid there was a certain difference between the Government proposal and that of the noble and learned Lord, because he apparently contemplated that the owners of the school should be able to go straight to the Commission and ask to be turned into a State-aided school without coming to any relations or attempting to agree with the authority. That did not seem to him to be reasonable
  508
  or practicable, because he should think that the Commissioner's would in every case refuse to turn the school into a State-aided school without knowing that some kind of communication had taken place between the authority and the owners of the school with a view to arriving at an agreement. That was an important difference, and it was certainly not one upon which the Government would be disposed to look kindly. Subsection (b) of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment seemed to contemplate that the Commission was going to be everlasting. The Commission would probably be dissolved long before the parents' committees in many cases had an opportunity of making their complaint. He hoped they would not have to make complaints at all, but if they did it would be some years after the Commission had done its labour; and therefore he did not understand how they proposed to make an appeal to them on the subject.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that matter could be met at a later stage.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELDdrew attention to the words "not inferior to that of the other elementary schools in the area" and suggested that the word "other" should be struck out.
  LORD ASHBOUKNEagreed to the correction.
  New clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CKEWE THE EARL OF CKEWE moved an Amendment providing that the Commission might act by any two of their number, and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number. He said this was a small matter concerning the operations of the Commission, and he knew the Amendment met with their approval; indeed the Commission considered it almost necessary to the proper carrying out of their duties.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page in, line 33, at the beginning of the line, insert 'The Commission may act by any two of their number and not with standing any vacancy in their number.'"—[The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE THE EARL OF CREWE moved a new sub-section to enable the Commission to appoint such officers as they thought necessary for the purpose of assisting in the execution of their duties under this Act. The Amendment, he explained, was also in order that the Commission might carry out their work in an efficient manner. The words had been carefully chosen in order to meet the point upon which a contention was made by the Marquess of Salisbury when the House was last discussing this matter, that he would view with suspicion any handing over of powers to a sub-commissioner. He thought the Amendment guarded against that, though he thought it was a great convenience to be able to depute someone to inquire on their behalf.
  Amendment moved —
  "In page 10, line 40, after the wool 'law' to insert as a separate sub-section:—'(C) The Commission may appoint or employ such number of officers and persons as they think necessary for the purpose of assisting in the execution of their duties under this Act, and may remove any officer or person so appointed or employed, and, for the purpose of obtaining any information which the Commission may require, may direct any commissioner or any such officer or person to hold an inquiry. But nothing in this Act shall authorise the Commission to delegate the decision of any point which it is their duty to decide under this Act, or the making of a scheme or order under this Act.'"—(The Karl of Crewe.)
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 11, lines '2 and 3, to leave out '31st day of December, 1908,' and insert 'the 1st of July, 1909.'"
  "In page 11, line 12, to leave out 'January' find insert 'July.'"
  "In page 11, line 13, after 'eight' to insert or from the appointed date, if the Schoolhouse is in an area for which a later date is appointed or the operation of section one of this Act 'and to leave out' January 'and insert July'" —(The Karl of Crewe.)
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved an Amendment to establish a parents' committee in the schools temporarily occupied under Clause 11 by the local education authority and in State-aided schools. Both classes of
  510
  schools were to be purely denominational, and therefore seemed to be in the same category as Clause 4 schools, and he hoped the noble Earl would see no objection to the Amendment. Under the Bill as it stood, there would be no managers to these schools, and therefore it was important that there should be a parents' committee to be responsible for the religious instruction. The second paragraph of the Amendment simply referred questions between the local education authority and the parents' committee to the Board of Education.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 34, after the word 'effect,' to insert the following new sub sections:— (4) In all schools used by the local education authority under this section, and in all State-aided schools, there shall be a parents' committee elected mid nominated as provided in Section 4 of this Act, and all the provisions hereinbefore contained with reference to the parents' committee shall apply to the parents' committee in those schools. (5) If any question arises between the local education authority and the parents' committee of any school as to the proper and adequate fulfilment of their duties by the committee, such question shall be referred to the Board of Education, whose decision shall be final, and shall be complied I with by the local education authority and the parents' committee (6) The powers of managers under Section 76 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, snail, after the passing of this Act, be exercised by the parents' committees appointed under this Act.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE EARL OF CKEWEsaid as regarded Clause 11 schools the Government had no objection whatever to the appointment of a parents' committee to manage the religious education while the schools were in a state of suspense, but they did not wish to see parents' committees in State-aided schools, because, as he had pointed out before, the Code would contain special arrangements for the management of those schools which would obviously be of a denominational character, and it would therefore be a pity to appoint a parents' committee merely to dual with religious education in those schools, because, as a matter of fact, their general management would necessarily be of a more or less denominational kind. As regarded the second point, they wore not at all willing for the Board of Education to undertake to settle disputes between the parents' committee and the local education authority. It would be throwing an entirely new

  511
  burden upon the Board, and he was afraid it was one they were unable to accept. But so far as the third Amendment of the noble Viscount was concerned — that headed sub-section (6)—the Government would accept that if the noble Viscount would substitute the word "section" for "Act" at the end.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped his noble friend would not press ibis Amendment, because Clause 11 referred to all existing voluntary schools, and, as Lord Salisbury showed the other night when a proposal was made to appoint a parents committee for schools coming under Clause 3, it would be perfectly possible that a majority of the parents might not belong to the denomination to which the schools hitherto belonged.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he had not included Clause 3 schools, but had purposely omitted them.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid, so far as he could understand it, the noble Viscount's Amendment included Clause 3 schools. At any rate, it included all schools that came under Clause 11, and they might be schools in which the majority of the parents did not belong to the denomination to which the school belonged under the trust deed, and they had no right to elect a parents' committee in order to manage religious education in such a school during the time it was temporarily used by the local education authority. Surely for that time they might trust the existing managers with the denominational education in the school. He hoped his noble friend would not press his Amendment.
  LORD BELPERasked whether it would not be possible to continue the managers until it had been decided what class of schools these schools were to come under. It was clear that they would want somebody to carry out everything under the clause for two years.
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid that point had been considered before, and he had already stated that they were not prepared to retain the general management of the school under the foundation
  512
  managers, but they were obliged to place it in the hands of the local authority.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he understood his Amendment was accepted in part.
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he had pointed out there were certain parts to which he had no objection, but he had no reason to believe that his acceptance entitled the noble Viscount to conclude that the House would accept it also.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 11, line 37, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July' and after the word 'eight' to insert the words 'or the appointed date, if the school is in an area for which a later date is appointed for the operation of Section 1 of this Act.'"
  "In page 12, line 1, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July.'"
  "In page 12, line 33, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July' and after the word 'eight' to insert the words 'or before the appointed date, if the schoolhouse is in an area for which a later date is appointed for the operation of Section 1 of this Act.'"
  "In page 13, line 14, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July.'"
  "In page 13, line 15, after the word 'eight' insert the words 'or the appointed date, if the schoolhouse is in an area for which a later date is appointed for the operation of Section 1 of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE THE EARL OF CREWE moved a new sub section to provide that nothing in this Act should affect any power or authority of the Hoard of Education or Charity Commissioners or of any Court to make schemes or orders with reference to charitable trusts. Although in some cases the owners of the schoolhouse would under the Bill be enabled to ask the Commission to make schemes with respect to their trust, yet it was thought desirable to save the powers of the Board of Education and the Charity Commissioners.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 34. after the word 'Education' to insert the following new sub-section: —'(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect any power or authority of the Board of Education or Charity Commissioners or of any Court to make schemes or orders with reference to charitable trusts.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD BARNARDpointed out that the Board of Education might make an order, and the Commission under the Act might also make an order, and the two orders might be inconsistent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the noble Earl would surely not press this Amendment unless he had a conclusive answer to the noble Lord's contention. It seemed to stand to reason that there should not be two Commissions sitting upon one authority at the same time.
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid the fear was that the appointment of the Commission might be held to destroy the powers of the Charity Commissioners or the Board of Education in certain cases in which the Commission would not act; but it was not, he thought, a vital Amendment, and if noble Lords took a very strong objection to it he would withdraw it, at any rate at this stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWE THE EARL OF CREWE moved the addition of the following sub-section in Clause 14:—"(4) The power of the Commission to make an order or scheme with respect to a schoolhouse and the power of the local education authority to use a schoolhouse temporarily under, this Act shall not, where that power arises under provisions of this Act which are confined in their application to schoolhouses held under charitable trusts, be exercised in such a manner as to bind or restrict any interest in the schoolhouse which is not subject to those trusts without the consent of the persons in whom that interest is vested." He said the point was raised during the course of the debates when they were discussing Clauses 9 and 11. It was feared that as the Commission under Clause 9 and the local authority under Clause 11 were given power to deal with charitable trusts, it must be made quite clear that the power only extended to those interests which were subject to trusts, and not to all the other interests of the schoolhouse.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 34, to insert the following new sub-section — '(4) The power of the Commission to make an order or scheme with respect to a schoolhouse and the
  514
  power of the local education authority to use a school house temporarily under this Act shall not, where that power arises under provisions of this Act which are confined in their application to schoolhouses held under charitable trusts, be exercised in such a manner as to bind or restrict any interest in the schoolhouse which is not subject to those trusts without the consent of the persons in whom that interest is vested." — (The Earl of Crewe).
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE THE EARL OF CREWE moved to leave out the words "of voluntary schools," in lines 10 and 11 and insert 'for the purpose of a public elementary school. 'The Amendment was really one of a verbal kind. It had been suggested that if this Bill passed there would be no such thing as voluntary schools, and therefore the words "voluntary schools" would have no definite meaning, and that consequently some doubt might be raised as to whether it was not confined to existing voluntary schools.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: Would not a "certified efficient school" be a voluntary school?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It might be, but I do not quite see the purpose of the noble Lord's Question.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'of voluntary schools' and to insert the words 'for the purpose of a public elementary school.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved an Amendment providing that in any case where the powers and duties conferred on a local education commit toe entailed the expenditure of money, such committee should be so constituted as to ensure that not less than two-thirds of the whole body should be representative members, who might be either elected for the purpose by the local government or parochial electors of the delegation area, or members of the district or parish councils within the delegation area, or members of the county council representing any electoral division which lay wholly or partly within the delegation area. He said the Amendment was of some importance as dealing

  515
  with the administrative part of the Bill, and perhaps he might be allowed to remind the House of the position in which the delegation clause stood when they were in Committee. There was considerable discussion on the bearing of the clause, and although some slight concession was made by the Government, he subsequently, though unable to accept that, offered to make it clear that in cases where the delegation authority had the power of spending money a majority of them should be directly representative of the ratepayers. After that there was a division taken, which, without stretching the point too far, showed, at all events, that the great majority of the House were of opinion that some further concession should be made to the views of the county council than had been made by the Government. Since the Committee stage he had had an opportunity of learning the views of a good many Members of the House who were interested in county council work, and in whose judgment he had great confidence. He had also had the opportunity of consulting his friends who represented the County Councils' Association, and who, equally with him, were responsible for the Amendment. He thought those who agreed with him felt that if the powers were going to be given to a local education committee of spending money, and, if necessary, spending more money that the sum spent for the same purpose by the county council, they could not contest the point that the ratepayers ought to be represented by a majority on that committee. In fact, so far as he could see, the only security against extravagance would be that the ratepayers should be able to call that committee to account, and the only excuse for spending a larger sum of money than had hitherto been spent for the same sort of purpose was that the district wished that amount to be spent, and that they would support the committee which represented them in the spending of that money. Under those circumstances they thought it desirable that he should put on the Paper an Amendment which would carry out their views, and he ventured to submit that this Amendment carried out in a full and fair mariner the principle that where they gave powers to a local education committee to spend money the committee should, by way
  516
  of security against extravagance, be representative of the ratepayers. In the Amendment he had adopted the principle that such committee should be so constituted as to ensure that no less than two-thirds of the whole body were representative members. He adopted two-thirds because obviously that was a considerable majority, and if he remembered rightly, the noble Lord the President of the Council himself suggested two-thirds instead of three-fourths as regarded this clause. The Amendment also adopted the representation very much in the words which were used in the former clause; that was to say, there might be a body elected for the purpose by the local government or parochial electors of the delegation area, or the representative body might consist of the district or parish councillors, and they had added to that that it might also consist of members of the county council representing any electoral division lying wholly or partly within the delegation area. A much larger interest with regard to local government was taken in the election of county councillors than in the case of parish councillors, and as the county council had had the responsibility of dealing with the education question it seemed rather invidious that they should be left out, and not called in this clause representative members. As the clause was drawn it gave considerably more latitude to the county council in drawing up their scheme, because as long as they secured the principle of the two-thirds representation they had the choice of the members being elected in whatever way they liked. He was fully aware that this was a concession, and he thought a real concession towards the view of the Government. He knew there were many Members of the House who took a very great interest in this question, and he was very anxious in view of the responsibility that rested upon him in being their spokesman in this matter that the subject should not leave the House without some expression of their views as to the limit to which they could give way with regard to the appointment of these committees. He knew there were some Members who would have preferred that the matter should be left entirely optional, and that no obligation should be put upon them, but, as that matter had been decided and this delegation scheme had been arranged for, he

  517
  was only anxious to get as much latitude in the matter as was possible consistently with the principle which he thought they could not contest if it came back to this House, that where money was spent there must be some representation. He would point out one or two things. In the first place, if two-thirds were to be representative, it, at all events, would allow so far as the other third went the appointment of those conversant with education, managers of schools, ladies who took a great deal of interest in education, but who might not like to stand a contested election; and they might strengthen the committees where it was thought they did not contain many men who had large experience in education, by adding educationists, and those who had been conversant with the working of education in previous years. Although he did not say it would be necessary to put on one-third in all cases, it would, at all events, give a considerable latitude to the county council in drawing their scheme to be able to put on one-third to strengthen these committees from an educational point of view. Then he laid very great stress indeed on members of the county council being able to act on these committees when they wore first started. There were many members of the county councils who had taken a most active interest in the work of education—that detailed work which would be practically delegated to these subordinate committees and he thought it would add considerably to the smooth working of those committees if there was placed at their disposal the experience which the county councils had gained during the last four years by insuring that members of the county councils were placed on thorn. He had proposed the Amendment in a form which seemed to him the most desirable to enable members of the county council to be placed on these committees, but if in the course of discussion it was found that there was any better way of doing it he would not, certainly so far as he was concerned, let that stand in the way so long as they could ensure that members of the county council who resided in or were members for a particular district should be able to be appointed on the education committees. He would like to mention another point which was not contained
  518
  in the words of his clause. When the discussion took place in Committee he mentioned that they laid very great stress indeed on the omission of sub-section (3.) If they could not get all the latitude they asked for originally in the clause he looked upon that as the greatest possible safeguard to the county councils in appointing their education committees, and in settling what the duties of those education committees should be, because, as he had pointed out, if their powers and duties must be uniform, either delegation work must progress extremely slowly, or they would have to give the most incompetent committees the same powers that they gave to those whose experience was thoroughly to be trusted. Therefore, if his Amendment led to any compromise, or was accepted by the Government, he hoped the Government would understand that he looked upon the continued omission of sub-section (3) as essential to the scheme, and he had rather hoped from the fact that they did not divide against the Amendment that they would recognise that it was a great safeguard to the county council. He had satisfied himself that the clerks of the councils and the county accountants could very easily work out a system of accounts which would not cause very much more trouble or expense, and he was sure that the Local Government auditors, when they were satisfied that they would have to change their form of accounts in some way, would do everything they could to facilitate the proper form of accounts being kept. He was quite aware that there would be a considerable number of committees which would be entrusted with adequate powers, entrusted with the spending of money, but at the same time be believed there would be small committees which at first nobody would like to trust with such powers. Therefore if they desired to entrust these powers to these small committees some such Amendment as this was necessary. He noticed that one or two of his noble friends on this side of the House stated in Committee that the Committee was so near agreement that it might be hoped that they would come to some agreement at this stage. This House contained a much larger number of representatives of county councils and county council associations at the present time than did the other House,

  519
  and therefore he would have been sorry if this clause had left the House without his having made some offer that might load to a solution of this rather difficult question. He hoped the words he had placed upon the Paper and the few remarks he had made would be a step in that direction. He might say he had no special affection for the actual wording of his clause as it stood so long as the substance was adhered to, and therefore he hoped what he had said would meet with some response from the Government which might lead to a settlement of the question. If that settlement could be arrived at before the Bill left this House it would be so much the better; but his clause would, at all events, show their bona fides in the matter and that they were willing to recognise this principle, which was a recognised principle in local government, and were anxious to meet as far as they could the objections to his Amendment as it stood.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, line, 34, after the word 'them,' to insert the words, 'Provided that in any case where the powers and duties confer red on a local education committee entail the expenditure of money, such committee shall be so constituted as to ensure that not less than two-thirds of the whole body shall be representative members, who may he cither elected for the purpose by the Local Government or parochial electors of the delegation area, or members of the district or parish councils within the delegation area, or members of the county council representing any electoral; division which lies wholly or partly within the delegation area.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, we cordially recognise the very conciliatory and moderate spirit in which the noble Lord has proposed this important clause. And I hope he is right in believing that we are so near to an agreement that before the Bill leaves this House we shall have arrived at a solution generally acceptable to all. I quite agree that considering the great number of noble Lords in this House well acquainted with the principles of county council; government it would be something of a shame to us if we allowed the Bill to leave this House without having arrived at some agreement on this question of delegation. Speaking generally, we are prepared to accept at any rate the principle of my noble friend's clause. I am not sure, however, how his original provisions
  520
  will work in view of sub-section (2) of the Act, which compels all these bodies to have a certain amount of money entrusted to thorn. As a matter of fact we are somewhat wedded to the form of our original description of representative bodies under their different heads, and we should prefer some re-construction of the original sub-section (4) to the words used by the noble Lord. What I propose to do is to bring up an Amendment at the next stage to re-insert our own sub-section (4) in a considerably altered form, I propose to say that any local Committee under this clause shall be either—
  "(a) a body elected for the purpose in manner provided in the scheme by the local government or parochial electors for the delegation area, women being capable of being elected; or (b) a body consisting of the council of a local government area where that is possible owing to the delegation area being a single local government area, together with additional members if so provided by the scheme, not being more in number than one-third of the whole body and being either common or county councillors nominated by the county council."
  That will enable women, until the time comes when they can be elected on these bodies, to be added as nominated members of the councils. Then the third alternative is this—
  "A body, the ordinary members of which consist wholly of members of the councils of such local government areas wholly or partly situated in the delegation area as the scheme directs, or partly of such members and partly of members nominated in manner directed by the scheme."
  That was the third; but there is this important provision which meets the wishes of the noble Lord to a large extent—
  "together with additional members if so provided by the scheme being all or any of the members of the county council representing any electoral division wholly or partly situated within the delegation area or residing in the area; where a local education committee contains nominated members, the scheme shall provide that a certain number of members must be women."
  All I have to say further is that we quite agree to the permanent elimination of the old sub-section (3). The provisions of this scheme as to the power of deciding shall be uniform as regards all the others. We thought, and still think that some difficulty might be caused by striking out that provision, but the noble Lord makes it a great point that we should agree to leave that out of the

  521
  Bill. In other respects I hope we are as near to an agreement as the noble Lord believes. If he will move his Amendment now I will accept it on those conditions.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he hoped that the noble Earl in considering this matter would remember that the members of county councils were very hard worked persons already. As the noble Lord had said, their experience in educational matters was very valuable, but it would be quite impossible for thorn in many instances to devote much time to these small school areas. Parish councillors or even district councillors might be able to do so, but he did not believe that county councillors could find time in addition to their other duties to do much in these small areas over which these local committees would preside. There was one point in respect to which he would like to ask a question of the noble Earl. There was one matter which admittedly did not come within the province of these local committees which he would like the noble Earl to deal with. Later on in the clause the noble Earl proposed to move an Amendment which would abolish the existing managers to a large extent. Hitherto the managers had had the management and control of these schools, and the question he desired to ask was, who in the future was to control denominational education in the Clause 3 schools? As the Bill now stood it would seem that the owners of the school house would have to settle with the local authority as to the facilities that should be given for denominational education. But who was to control the giving of the denominational education in the Clause 3 schools? Very often the trustees of the school were nonresidents, and they would not be able to attend to it. Who would? Would it not be possible at a later stage of this Bill to insert some provision that the owners of the school house might delegate their power in this matter to some other person, who might be one of the local education committee, who would be able to attend to this matter?
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he was sorry to hear from the noble Earl that he was unable to meet the views of the noble Lord more than he
  522
  had done. The composition of these committees was a question in which the county councils were much interested and upon which they felt very strongly. Upon one particular point he extremely regretted that the noble Earl had not been able to meet them. The county council of the district should, he thought, stand on the same footing as representatives of the electorate of the areas as did all other locally elected bodies. They were elected by the same electorate and under the same circumstances as other representative bodies, and therefore it seemed hardly fitting that they should be put on these committees in, so to speak, a subservient position and with something of a less representative character than the district or parish council in the matter. He hoped the House would accept the Amendment of the noble Lord as it was, and that the Government on further consideration would see their way to come a little closer to the Amendment than he gathered from the noble Earl they at present did.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite he desired to make quite clear what the position of the county councillors on these committees would be it was proposed that the county councillors should be given full opportunities of serving on these committees, because in the first place they probably might in many cases desire to do so, and, in the second place, their experience would be extremely useful. At the same time the Government was quite conscious that what had fallen from the noble Viscount opposite was perfectly true; that the work of the county councillors had now become so large and absorbing that it was quite impossible to imagine that they would be able to spare any large amount of time upon these committees for detail work. Nevertheless, the Government agreed with the noble Lord who moved this Motion that it would be desirable to give the county councillors an opportunity. With regard to the other point just raised by the noble Lord, he reminded the House that at an earlier stage his noble friend the Lord President expressed a general readiness to consider the possibility of doing something in the direction of meeting the views of noble

  523
  Lords opposite in regard to the nomination of a parents' committee with reference to Clause 3 schools. He was perfectly open to consider that matter on the last stage of the Bill. It might be possible, for example, to do something in the direction of forming a parents' committee from the body of the parents of the children who from time to time were making use of the facilities in the particular schools referred to. Beyond that he did not think he could now go, but the question should receive further attention.
  LORD BELPERsaid he had no right to reply, but he only desired to say that he would like his Amendment to be put now, and that he would consider the words of the Amendment of the noble Earl when they appeared on the Paper.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 14, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'nominated as such additional members' and to insert the words 'members of local education committees'; in line 37, to leave out the words 'so nominated' and to insert the words 'of those committees.'"
  "In page 15, line 25, after the word 'committee' to insert the words 'and in that case no managers shall be appointed under that section.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid the three Amendments of which he had given notice all hung together, and their object was to amend the machinery by which the accounts of the delegated bodies were to be kept. By subsection (1) of Clause 15 delegated bodies were set up, and by sub-section (2) they were given spending powers independently of the local authority. It was quite clear by sub-section (9) as it stood that these delegated bodies would be enabled to keep their accounts perfectly independently of the local authorities, and to furnish only such information as would enable the county council to supply the amount required by them. The result of the clause as it stood was that there would be twenty or thirty accounts kept in connection with the schools of the county, and it would be impossible for the local authority to have knowledge of
  524
  the money spent in the schools of the area. The object of the words he had placed on the Paper was to enable the county councils to keep one account in respect of all the schools within their area. These words reserved to the delegated bodies all the powers given under the Bill, left them perfectly free to carry out their policy, and merely required that when they had determined what money they should spend they should send on their bills to the county council, who would keep an account and have a record by which they would be able to have control over the money spent in the schools. He hoped the Amendment would prove convenient to the Government and that they would accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 15, line 26, to leave out the words from the beginning of sub-section (9) to the word 'shall' in line 3, and insert the words 'a scheme under this section shall provide for the rendering by each local education committee to the county council of accounts of the expenditure incurred by that body, and all expenditure properly incurred by that body shall be defrayed by the county council and the accounts of that body.'"
  "In page 15, line 31, to leave out the words 'audited as.'"
  "In line 32, to leave out the words 'and in that case' and insert the words 'provided that.'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: So far as regards the words of the noble Earl I may say it would be open to every county council, and I imagine it is the course they would take, to provide for such a rendering by any of their schools. But when the noble Lord goes farther and says that all the expenditure should be defrayed by the county council, it appears to me he is undoing a considerable part of what we propose to do by sub-section (2). If he wishes to say that it shall be impossible for these delegated bodies to do anything, even to draw a cheque, and that they shall have to send on their bills to the county councils to be paid by them, it seems to mo he is taking away a great part of the delegated powers. He goes far beyond what he status is the purport of his Amendment, namely, the matter of account keeping. It is perfectly proper and reasonable that the county council should be able to keep a general view over all the expenditure of the delegated bodies, but we are not prepared to hand over this power to them.
  THE MARQUESS or SALISBURYasked whether the noble Earl realised the very complicated system of auditing which he was establishing under this clause unless some such Amendments as these were accepted. As he understood, the Local Government Board auditor would have to attend each of these schools all through the country.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: No, he may if he thinks it convenient, but he can, if he chooses, have them audited as county council accounts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it lay with the Local Government auditor to decide. The only other point to which he wished to draw attention was the great advantage there was in enabling the ratepayers and others to see at once what a particular school in the district cost. If the thing was split up there would be no control or knowledge of what money was spent. The object of his noble friend to concentrate the accounts appeared to him to be of value, and he therefore hoped the noble Earl would reconsider the Question.
  LORD BELPERsaid he had looked into this matter a little, and it appeared to him that it would be covered by the ordinary procedure of county council government. The county councils would have to keep an account in the future much in the same way as they did now, except that when they delegated certain powers for the purpose of allowing a certain sum to be spent by a district, that district would have to send in an estimate of what they had to spend, and the account would have to be kept by the district. He did not think they ought to legislate in the direction of saying how these accounts should be kept. So far as the county council with which he was connected was concerned they would do it without any direction from Parliament.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the Amendment seemed to go beyond what the noble Lord who had just spoken would favour. He knew how dangerous it was to plunge into this question of audit of accounts, because, as those who
  526
  had to deal with the whole inception of county council accounts would remember, an endless controversy arose with regard to the proper method of keeping accounts between the standing grand committee and the county councils. He took it that under the words as they now stood what his noble friend said just now would really be the case, and that the objection urged by the noble Marquess opposite would be met, because under the words of the Bill these accounts would be brought back into the county accounts, and everything would lead the county council to do exactly what it did at the present time with a great many accounts of county council schools, isolation hospitals, and matters of that kind which were dependent partly on local and partly on county expenditure. He could only speak with knowledge of his own county, where the accounts of the county council were drawn up on the model settled by the Local Government auditors as applying to the accounts of county councils in general, and in those accounts any school, however small or however large, had a place to itself. After an interval of not more than a year every ratepayer who wanted to see what was the expenditure of a particular school could do so by turning up the page in the county council accounts. He could not see anything in the Bill that would prevent that being done, whereas, on the other hand, if the words of the noble Lord wore adopted they would very likely neutralise what the House in general wished, namely, that there should be a saving of time in dealing with the details at the central county council office. Besides that, they would prevent the delegated committee having a spending account, every payment would have to be made from the county office, and they would get once more what they desired to avoid, namely, the block of county business caused by the accumulation of a large mass of small payments which it was desired should be dealt with locally.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid he had no intention that the Amendment should go in any way beyond the object he had described in his speech. The only object of the Amendment was that the county council should have some knowledge of the details of the expenditure and the general policy of the school. Of course

  527
  if it was not thought necessary he would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment deals with quite a small point. Under the Act of 1876 the prosecutions for non-attendance at the schools; had to be taken by direction of two members of the school board. When the Act of 1902 was passed the members of the education committee or some committee appointed by them wore substituted for the members of the school board, and under this clause, as the powers of the education committees are to be delegated, it is necessary to make the substitution of two members to undertake this duty.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 16, line 3, after the word 'area' to insert as a new sub-section:—' In any ease where the powers of the local education authority with respect to enforcing school attendance are delegated to a local education committee under this section, paragraph (3) of the Third Schedule to the Education Act, 1902. shall have effect as if members of that committee were substituted for members of the education committee.'" —(The Earl of Crewe.)
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid that on a former stage of this Bill he pressed the House to consider the case of those county councils where they had already made arrangements, and in the case of many county councils arrangements had been made which had been working for the last two years apparently to the satisfaction of everybody. That was the ease in Lancashire. The clause which he moved referred to the county, and its object was this: They do not want the county council to contract out of the Bill, and all he would suggest was that if the Board of Education were satisfied that the plans made by the county councils, and which had worked so well for two years, were satisfactory, then the county councils need not make a scheme under the Act. If the Board of Education wished that they should make a scheme they would make one, but it would cause a great deal of expense, and all the trouble they had taken in the last two years would be thrown away. If the schemes that these county councils worked under now were
  528
  satisfactory he could not see why they should be put to the trouble of making others.
  Amendment moved.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not think in this case I can accept the scheme of the noble Viscount. He has fought a valiant battle for Lancashire, but even Lancashire is not unanimous, because on a former occasion my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth got up behind me and rather supported our contention as against that of the noble Viscount. We have gone as far as we can in trying to meet Lord Belper and some noble friends of his in the constitution of these schemes, and I hope when the time comes Lancashire will find the matter is not so difficult and that it will not create so much disturbance as my noble friend now fears.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is a verbal one. In some cases "Board" is the Local Government Board and in others it is the Board of Education, and it is necessary to make the matter clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 17, line 7, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'of Education or the Local Government Board as the ease requires'.")—(The Earl of Crewe).
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next is an important sub-section, giving powers to the county councils which are very largely demanded by them, to enable them to get rid of land and buildings used for the purpose of secondary schools when they are no longer required for that purpose. It is a power which does not exist at present and many county councils would be glad to have it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 17, line 10, after the word 'made' to insert as a new sub-section: '(4) A council shall have power, with the consent of the Board of Education, to alienate any land or buildings acquired or held by them for the purposes of education other than elementary under Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, and in the case of the sale of any such land or buildings, the proceeds of sale shall be applied in such manner as the Board of Education

  529
  sanction towards the discharge of any loan of the council under the Education Acts, or otherwise for any inn-pose for which capital may he applied by the council under those Acts.'"—(The Earl of Crewe).
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Under the School Sites Act, 1841, the consent of the Home Department was required in various matters. At the time the Act was passed there was no Education 'Department at all, and therefore the consent of the Secretary of State was required in every matter. The Secretary of State now invariably sends the matter over to the Board of Education, asks their opinion and acts upon it. It is therefore more convenient that the Board of Education should have the nominal as well as the real power.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause: the consent of the Board of Education shall be substituted for the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in cases where the consent of the said Secretary of State is, at the time of the passing of this Act, required under Section 14 of the School Sites Act, 1841, and Section 1 of the School Grants Act, 1855, which relate to sales, exchange, or mortgages of school premises.'"— (The Earl of Crewe).
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF STAMFORD*THE EARL OF STAMFORD moved a new clause for the purpose of mooting a slight difficulty which had arisen under the Act of 1902. As the law was now held to stand a scholarship could be held only by a resident within the area of the local education authority. When it happened that the parents of the child moved out of the area it had been held that the scholarship must be discontinued. It was to remove that hardship that he now moved this new clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause: 'The power of a council to provide scholarships for or pay the fees of students under subsection (2) of Section 23 of the Education Act, 1902, shall include a power, subject to such condition (if any) as may be made by the council, to provide or assist in providing scholarships for, or to pay or assist in paying the fees of, students, if at the time the scholarship is awarded or the payment of the fees is determined upon, the scholar is ordinarily
  530
  resident in the area of the council, although the student subsequently ceases to be so resident.'"—(The Earl of Stamford.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am prepared to accept the clause. It is no doubt clear that a hardship does arise out of the law as it now stands. I think the word "scholar" in the last line but one of the clause ought to be "student." With that Amendment I accept it.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERsaid he desired to ask one question on Clause 25. That clause was inserted in substitution of one he moved, and once it had been inserted the question had arisen as to the cost of conveying children to school. In some cases the conveyance of children a certain distance obviated the necessity of building a new school. If they wore not conveyed to another school a new school would have to be built in the particular parish, and a certain proportion of the cost of such new school would be put upon the locality. He wished to ask the Lord President whether he would consider in a case of that sort, where the cost of a new school had been avoided and considerable capital saved, that the conveying of the children should be put upon the parish which had saved the expense of building the school. He thought this might be done under Clause 19, which gave power to the Board of Education to declare what expense should be included in capital expenditure. If it could not be done in that way perhaps the noble Lord would bring up the matter on the Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The point of the noble Lord is one of real substance. It is perfectly clear that if a parish has saved the expense of building a school by moans of this conveyance it ought to pay its fair share of that conveyance. Whether it should be done under Clause 19 is a matter we must consider, because it is difficult to imagine that the hire of an omnibus could be regarded as capital expenditure. I will consider the matter.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid the clause he desired to move was to take the place of one which he had put down previously to safeguard the voluntary schools associations existing at the present time in many parts of the country. It was quite clear that many of those associations must come to an end when voluntary school management ceased to exist. The method he proposed was a very simple one. It was to allow any voluntary schools association to apply to the Board of Education for a scheme. This would not be necessary in every case, but wherever these associations were founded under trust deeds something of the kind was necessary. He hoped the Government would see their way to give this power, which would be much to the purpose in helping them in this matter. He might say, in reference to the remarks of Viscount St. Aldwyn, that these were the bodies to whom the school owners should delegate the control of religious instruction. They were representative bodies of men of expert knowledge, and included many laymen. They were exactly the sort of men to manage that difficult subject. He doubted whether parents' committees were likely to be a great success. He was anxious that parents should have the right to settle the primary question as to what doctrine their children should be taught, but whether they were persons likely to be best capable of controlling the details of religious instruction, he was not at all sure. At any rate he was quite certain that the voluntary schools associations would be bodies in which every one would have every confidence.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause: 'An application may be made under Section 14 of the Charitable Trusts Act (32 & 33 Viet. c. 110), 1869, to the Board of Education by the governing body of any association of voluntary schools in respect of any funds or property held or administered by them as it they were the trustees of a charity exempted from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDsaid that so far as he understood the proposal of the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, it was to deal with existing funds and property in the Lands of these associations. But they
  532
  wanted a little more extended powers than that. It would be for the general convenience for religious education to be administered by the representatives of the owners, and it would be for the convenience of the Board of Education that some further control should be secured by this Amendment. If the noble Lord would consider the matter, he would like to propose something to the effect that the owners of the school-house of any existing voluntary school, might, with the consent of the Board of Education, delegate any of their powers under this Act, and any powers with respect to endowments or rents held or received in respect of the schoolhouse, to any voluntary association constituted under this section. He would not enlarge upon the subject, but would ask the noble Earl whether, in accepting this clause, he would take into consideration the suggestion proposed, and on the Third Reading see if further extending words could be found.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We are anxious to meet the right rev. Bishop of Salisbury on this point. The right rev. Prelate raised this point at an earlier stage with regard to voluntary schools associations and also with regard to what will happen to the amount of the Parliamentary grants which are held by the school managers under paragraph 12 of the second section of the Act of 1902. In that case the funds are to be applied to the repairs of school buildings, and as we relieve these schools of the obligation of repairing the schools it is obvious that the purpose for which these funds wore allotted to the trustees will come to an end. It is stated that the powers of the Board of Education as Charity Commissioners do not extend to dealing with the statutory trusts of the country, and therefore it is necessary to have a clause to deal with the matter. We propose to put that in this form—
  "The Board of Education may, on the application of the governing body of any association of voluntary schools as respects any funds or property held or administered by that body at the date of the passing of this Act, and on the application of the managers of any existing voluntary school as respects any funds held by them at the date of the passing of this Act on account of payments made to them under paragraph (12) of the Second Schedule to the Education Act, 1902, make an order or scheme under the Charitable Trusts Acts,

  533
  1853 to 1894, for the administration or application of the funds or property so held, notwithstanding that the whole or any part of those funds or that property may be exempt from the operation of the said Acts."
  That covers the whole position raised by the Bishop of Salisbury. But the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down opens up a much larger vista. So far as I could gather, he desires to apply it to such schemes as excited such horror in the mind of Lord Barnard, and which were construed by the House as being a serious interference with trusts, a somewhat dangerous precedent from the point of view of noble Lords opposite. I am afraid we can hold out no hope there.
  LORD BARNARDreminded the right rev. Prelate that the principle of law applied to trustees and that trustees could not delegate their powers to any-body else.
  A NOBLE LORDasked whether the objections of the noble Earl to the Amendment wore objections to the essence or the form. He did not understand them to be objections to the essence of the Amendment. What he understood the Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Earl to be dealing with was the money in hand at the time this Act passed.
  LORD FITZMAURICEdid not quite see the point. There was no necessity in this Bill to deal with the matter. There was nothing to prevent anybody entrusted with these funds from forming themselves into a trust which would be bound by all the conditions of the law.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause: 'The Board of Education may, on the application of the governing body of any association of voluntary schools as respects any funds or property held or administered by that body at the date of the passing of this Act, and on the application of the managers of any existing voluntary school as respects any funds held by them at the date of the passing of this Act on account of payments made to then under paragraph (12) of the Second Schedule to the Education Act, 1902, make an order or scheme under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, for the administration or application of the funds or property so held, notwithstanding that the whole or any part of those funds or that property may he exempt from the operation of the said Acts.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELDsaid the Amendment he now moved was a very important one. Clause 27 provided under certain conditions for the compensation of certificated teachers who might lose their employment by reason of the passing of this Act. His Amendment was to remedy a great hardship. Besides the certificated teachers, who to a certain extent were provided for by this clause, there was a large class of teachers who were not certificated teachers, some of whom might be thrown out of employment by this Bill. It was hard to see why certificated teachers should be compensated and uncertificated teachers should not. The certificated teachers were well organised, the uncertificated teachers were unorganised, and as a body were inarticulate and voiceless. The certificated teachers were better able to take care of themselves than the uncertificated who were well nigh helpless in this matter of securing immunity from a great hardship. These uncertificated teachers had done excellent service to the State for many years; many of them had been loyal and faithful servants not only to the State but to religion, in which connection their work had had a special attraction for them. He expressed great gratitude to those uncertificated teachers for their ungrudging service. It might be said that the number of uncertificated teachers was so large that the burden thrown upon this Bill would be too great. The number of certificated teachers was 78,734, all other classes of teachers except pupil teachers and probationers amounted to 61,468, that was to say, the certificated teachers formed 56 per cent. of the whole. It was a little difficult to find out what proportion of the 61,468 were teachers in the voluntary schools and would come under the operation of this clause, but he had ascertained the number that might be affected was 34,501, and of that number no less than 90 per cent. were women. That, no doubt, was a large number of persons, but in reality the number who would come in for compensation would be very small. It was computed that only one per cent. of that number. Under those circumstances it might be taken that most of those teachers would continue their employment. But there were cases where

  535
  compensation would be needed, and those would be the cases of long service. He referred specially to instances of long-service by single women. He thought such cases had been considerably overlooked by this Clause which had been introduced with a considerable amount of haste. If the number to be dealt with was still thought to be too large he would suggest that it might be limited by adding "ten years service" as a qualification, but he thought the number was not a very great objection because it would only be the most deserving who received the modest solatium under this clause. When they looked at the amount, their Lordships would see that in the case of total deprivation of employment no teacher could receive more than three years salary. One other objection might be taken to the proposal. It might be said that it was not within the competence of this House to propose such an Amendment, because being a financial matter it would be an infringement of the privileges of another place. If that objection were raised he would humbly suggest that no new financial issue was raised by the Amendment; that it was only a slight extension of the principle of compensation raised in the other Mouse. He was encouraged to take this view because the Government themselves had made a considerable extension under Clause 10.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 20, line 22, to leave out the word 'certificated,' and after 'teacher' to insert the words 'other than a pupil teacher or probationer.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he earnestly supported the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. If it was not agreed to there was no doubt great injustice would be done.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry not to be able to accept this Amendment, and I am bound to say, speaking for myself, I am as little in love with this clause as any in the Bill. Personally, so far from desiring to extend it, I should have preferred to limit its operation. I am afraid I must, not I think for the first time, take the objection to which the right rev. Prelate has alluded that it is not within the competence of this House to insert in the clause a provision of this kind. I am afraid the right rev. Prelate is not very familiar
  536
  with the Resolution of the House of Commons which governs; these matters, but if he looks at the Minutes he will find that such a ease as this undoubtedly infringes the privileges of another place in regard to dealing with money matters. But even apart from that, I am afraid I could not agree to the placing of such a burden of an entirely unknown character on the local authority. This was not intended so much as a compassionate allowance as a means of arranging for the distribution of certain efficient people who, owing to the large change in the machinery of the public elementary schools, may be without employment. It is not intended that it should be a means of supplying more or less inefficient teachers with a kind of pension beyond anything they might otherwise be entitled to. I think the right rev. Prelate has rather mistaken the object of the clause in that respect. I cannot accept the modification.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl the Lord President objects to this Amendment because, in the first place, it is an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons. That is an argument we are often favoured with in this House, but I am always struck with the intermittent manner in which it is used. I do not think my recollection plays me false when I say that no longer ago than last Thursday night, the noble Earl moved an Amendment which certainly involved additional expense in lighting and warming the schools.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I merely moved what I believed to be the intention of the Bill when it came up from another place. It did not involve any further charge.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I only spoke from memory. Now, speaking on the merits of this Motion, does not this section involve injustice to these teachers? What reason is there for this difference of treatment in regard to compensation? If you look at Clauses of the Bill you will see that all teachers are guaranteed continuity of employment when their schools are transferred to the local education authority. It certainly does seem rather hard that this particular

  537
  class of teacher should be debarred from compensation which is granted to a teacher of a different sort. Is it not also the case that the hardship on the un-certificated teacher is greater than that on the certificated teacher, the certificated teacher being more likely to obtain other employment than the uncertificated. If he is thrown out of work it may be extremely difficult for him to find further employment. They are people who have done a great deal of work for the elementary education of this country, and they should I cannot help thinking be entitled to compensation if they lose their employment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: As a personal explanation I may say I have studiously avoided on all occasions raising the question of infringing the privileges of another place, and I should not have raised it on this occasion had not the right rev. Prelate referred to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he had always noticed that the argument as to the infringement of privilege was used in the manner most agreeable to the Party in power. This particular privilege appeared to be of the most elastic character when, in the discussions on the Irish land proposals of Mr. Balfour, a clause which involved expenditure was extended and carried through this House. He endorsed most heartily what had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition. He thought it extremely hard that certain people who had conscientiously discharged their duties as teachers should be treated differently from others simply because they came in a different category. He had had some experience of the manner in which these teachers discharged their duties, and he thought they were justified in asking the noble Earl to reconsider the matter before it came up at a future stage. It might be a matter of privilege, but something ought to be done for this deserving class.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 20, line 26, after the word 'salary' to insert the words 'or emoluent'."
  "In line 37, after the word 'salary' to insert the words 'or emolument.'"—(The Earl of Grewe.)
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid they ought to be very particular in these matters of privilege. Were not these Amendments quite as much a breach of privilege as that to which the noble Earl objected just now?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If Mr. Speaker thinks so he will bring the matter to the attention of the House of Commons.
  A NOBLE LORD: Then I think in all cases we ought to leave it to Mr. Speaker to take notice of the breach.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought it was rather hard that the noble Earl should deal with these Amendments in a different manner from that in which he dealt with the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. He would have thought that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not think this is a matter of privilege, and I only mentioned the matter before because the right rev. Prelate laid down the law upon the matter, and as a member of the Government I could not let his opinion pass unchallenged. If noble Lords think it is a matter of privilege I do not press it.
  On Question, Amendments negatived.
  Amendments agreed to.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid the details of his Amendments to the schedule would take some time to explain, and he would not at that hour discuss them unless the Lord President desired him to do so.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it would be more satisfactory to postpone the whole question of the schedule until the Third Reading, It would be difficult to deal with it now, and if noble Lords agree I think in view of what has taken place we will have the schedule thoroughly rearranged.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 224.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock a.m., till half past Ten o'clock a.m.